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.
Sale to BOS for Moncada, Kopech, Basabe, Diaz
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 23, 2016 15:26:03 GMT -5
BTW, it just occurs to me that this trade makes much more sense if you were unaware of (or decided to ignore) the fact that the Red Sox underperformed their stats by 8.6 wins, and that those 8.6 wins ordinarily have zero predictive value.
Now, some of those 8.6 wins were actually Farrell's fault. The estimate of that is in the ballpark of the estimate of the difference between Sale and Wright.
Did they really just trade Moncada and Kopech in order to offset Farrell's inability to manage his pitchers?
|
|
|
Post by tookme55 on Dec 23, 2016 16:23:07 GMT -5
It's difficult for me to believe we're going to be a bad team in 2020's because of our depleted farm.
We still have a $200M budget. We'll have enough pieces to compete. It maybe difficult to sign the entire group consisting of Porcello, Sale, Xander, Betts and Bradley Jr. But
we'll have close to $90M coming off the books after 2019. (Hanley, Pablo, Porcello, Sale, Xander). Surely we'll sign two out of Porcello, Sale and Xander.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,962
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 24, 2016 10:05:54 GMT -5
BTW, it just occurs to me that this trade makes much more sense if you were unaware of (or decided to ignore) the fact that the Red Sox underperformed their stats by 8.6 wins, and that those 8.6 wins ordinarily have zero predictive value.
Now, some of those 8.6 wins were actually Farrell's fault. The estimate of that is in the ballpark of the estimate of the difference between Sale and Wright. Did they really just trade Moncada and Kopech in order to offset Farrell's inability to manage his pitchers? No, not even if you put it in bold. is bold the new ALLCAPS for people who think people who disagree with them are idiots?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 24, 2016 11:47:30 GMT -5
It's difficult for me to believe we're going to be a bad team in 2020's because of our depleted farm. We still have a $200M budget. We'll have enough pieces to compete. It maybe difficult to sign the entire group consisting of Porcello, Sale, Xander, Betts and Bradley Jr. But we'll have close to $90M coming off the books after 2019. (Hanley, Pablo, Porcello, Sale, Xander). Surely we'll sign two out of Porcello, Sale and Xander. I don't think $200 million will take you as far in the future, not as far as it used to. Elite players will be getting $30 - $35 million/year or more while the midtier Ian Kennedy's and Pablo Sandoval's of the world will still be pulling down $15 - $20 million/year. It'll be increasingly important to have production from young cheap talent which I suspect the Sox will most likely have less of once the early 2020s roll around.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 24, 2016 12:43:58 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more the players got completely screwed in this CBA. Teams still have tons of cash and won't want to spend it because of how restrictive the tax penalties are.
Meanwhile, an owner like Jeff Loria bought the Marlins for $158 million in 2002 (with a large loan from the league), they got a stadium built for them with taxpayer money and reportedly turned down an offer of $1.3 billion 14 years later while getting the most revenue sharing in the league. Seems like a decent business model.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 24, 2016 13:56:20 GMT -5
I agree the new CBA is going to push down salaries. I just don't get how the luxury Tax isn't tied to revenue like in NBA and NFL. The luxury tax is going up much slower than revenue, which means owners are going to pocket more money.
Just look at EE. You took out Yankees and Red Sox from bidding due to luxury tax and he gets way less than anyone thought. Both teams could have used him, but stayed away due to luxury tax. The Dodgers resigned there own players and didn't dive into free agent market.
If you take the big spending teams out of free agent market your going to drive down salaries.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 24, 2016 16:33:17 GMT -5
If the parameters you set happen, yeah sure that would be a problem. The question is how likely is that? Chances are strong that some key players are extended, we have 3 years to build the farm back up (A SWAG puts them probably around average to slightly below right now, it's not the dustbowl on the farm) and it takes about 4 to 5 years to rebuild the farm. So we are more likely to have issues 4 to 5 years from now, but that can be managed to. Should we not contend 3 years from now players will be traded, money freed up to land Free agent too and players in the low minors now will emerge if not as stars but useful pieces to fill in gaps. I don't see the doom and gloomers thinking it through thoroughly. I love prospects but it's reasonable to conclude while sticking with the homegrown approach increased the chances of being peripheral contenders longer we have now made our selves the #1 or #2 contender for likley 3 years and 3 years allows the team to restock and fix most problems down the road. It's a trade off and even if DD went further than many here wished for I think the more reasonable on that side of the table would have to admit he's not crossed the line as much as they'd originally thought. Why is it gloom and doom if you call a spade a spade? The Red Sox traded in a very good chance of winning a World Series over a long stretch for a very good chance of winning a World Series in a 3 to 4 year window. Sure, they can spend money or perhaps they extend players. Honestly Betts and eventually Benintendi would be the only ones I would want them shelling out the big bucks for. I don't think restocking the farm system is going to be as easy as you think it is. The Red Sox will be picking in the 20s, they will not be able to outspend just about everybody else and outside of this season they will not be able to outspend everybody else in the international market as there is a cap on what they can spend. That makes it harder for the Red Sox to draft better players than other teams are drafting, so no I don't expect the Red Sox farm system to be brimming with the kind of top notch talent they have recently had by the time 2021 comes around. And also watching Dombrowski's MO - if the Sox have a chance to win, just about any kid they develop will be fair game to be dealt, so it's to tougher to foresee a new emerging Red Sox core coming in as the Betts/Bradley/Bogaerts core matures as reaches free agency. Doesn't mean that Dave can't do astute trades or they can't go crazy and spend big in the free agent market. Dave is doing a defensible strategy but it doesn't mean that just because you don't prefer that approach that you're all doom and gloom. The Red Sox have a lesser chance of being great in the 2021 - 2023 timeframe than they previously did. You can't debate that and call it being a downer but not having Espinoza, Kopech, and Moncada hitting their stride around that time does make an impact. We'll just have to see how much of one. Well we are nearly saying the same thing with one big exception, I foresaw the Sox as a peripheral contender the next few season and you think they were more than that. Sure the postseason is somewhat of a crap-shoot but obviously the better you become the better your chances are.
|
|
wbcd
Rookie
Posts: 33
|
Post by wbcd on Dec 24, 2016 17:20:19 GMT -5
We - at least most of us - get your basic point. It's not that difficult.
So let me ask you a question: which outcome would you prefer: (1 the Red Sox winning a WS over the next three years and watching Kopech and/or Mincada blossom into a star, or (2) the Red Sox winning 90 games a year for the next three years but never winning a WS because they can't beat CLE or CHC, but having Moncada and Kopech ready to join he big leagues.
I think there is a possibility that DD looks at the current edition of the Red Sox like he Os - good enough to contend and get to the playoffs but decided underdogs in most playoff series.
BTW, BA pit together a retrospective on past deals for "aces" here www.baseballamerica.com/majors/trading-ace-offseason-proves-better-bet/#6Cq80IodZ3BRPVjQ.97. While some talent has been traded, it doesn't appear that teams really regret trading for an "Ace". Of course, this doesn't include the trading of Mookie or XB because Ben wisely avoided that bullet.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 24, 2016 21:21:55 GMT -5
Why is it gloom and doom if you call a spade a spade? The Red Sox traded in a very good chance of winning a World Series over a long stretch for a very good chance of winning a World Series in a 3 to 4 year window. Sure, they can spend money or perhaps they extend players. Honestly Betts and eventually Benintendi would be the only ones I would want them shelling out the big bucks for. I don't think restocking the farm system is going to be as easy as you think it is. The Red Sox will be picking in the 20s, they will not be able to outspend just about everybody else and outside of this season they will not be able to outspend everybody else in the international market as there is a cap on what they can spend. That makes it harder for the Red Sox to draft better players than other teams are drafting, so no I don't expect the Red Sox farm system to be brimming with the kind of top notch talent they have recently had by the time 2021 comes around. And also watching Dombrowski's MO - if the Sox have a chance to win, just about any kid they develop will be fair game to be dealt, so it's to tougher to foresee a new emerging Red Sox core coming in as the Betts/Bradley/Bogaerts core matures as reaches free agency. Doesn't mean that Dave can't do astute trades or they can't go crazy and spend big in the free agent market. Dave is doing a defensible strategy but it doesn't mean that just because you don't prefer that approach that you're all doom and gloom. The Red Sox have a lesser chance of being great in the 2021 - 2023 timeframe than they previously did. You can't debate that and call it being a downer but not having Espinoza, Kopech, and Moncada hitting their stride around that time does make an impact. We'll just have to see how much of one. Well we are nearly saying the same thing with one big exception, I foresaw the Sox as a peripheral contender the next few season and you think they were more than that. Sure the postseason is somewhat of a crap-shoot but obviously the better you become the better your chances are. I guess we're not that far off. I guess it goes by what you determine as "peripheral". The Red Sox should have won nearly 100 games by the talent they had but they underachieved by a good deal. They could be less talented but do just as well by playing up to their talent level. To me, being a periphery team is in that 85 - 89 win range. I think the Sox are a little bit better than that, but an injury to Hanley and Pedroia or a Betts or a Bogaerts, and yeah, they could very well just be an 85 - 89 win team, so yes, I can see it the way you see it. With Sale the improvement probably offsets Ortiz's loss, although there are other variables of course that will have an impact. I think the biggest impact that Sale brings is the innings pitched as it lessens the burden on the pen and displaces a good arm into the bullpen. It basically helps guard against regression in the case of Porcello or if Price doesn't pitch better. But the biggest impact of Sale could be on the post-season where a dominant starter who can throw innings can be a huge difference maker, so he does improve the Sox' chances in the post-season, the kind of thing that WAR computations can't really compute. So while I lean against the trade but I understand the reasoning behind it. It's too bad that I'm not as excited as I'd like to be about acquiring a fantastic pitcher like Sale. It's probably because I drink the Moncada koolaid and see a superstar in the making despite the things he needs to work on and I am very curious to see how Kopech develops as he has one helluva arm and if he improves his control, he has it in him to be an ace, and Basabe is somebody that very well could have been a ready replacement for Bradley where Bradley walks and the Red Sox don't miss a beat. This is easily the most controversial, fascination, thought provoking, and interesting trade since the Hanley/Sanchez for Beckett/Lowell deal.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 24, 2016 22:25:10 GMT -5
Well we are nearly saying the same thing with one big exception, I foresaw the Sox as a peripheral contender the next few season and you think they were more than that. Sure the postseason is somewhat of a crap-shoot but obviously the better you become the better your chances are. I guess we're not that far off. I guess it goes by what you determine as "peripheral". The Red Sox should have won nearly 100 games by the talent they had but they underachieved by a good deal. They could be less talented but do just as well by playing up to their talent level. To me, being a periphery team is in that 85 - 89 win range. I think the Sox are a little bit better than that, but an injury to Hanley and Pedroia or a Betts or a Bogaerts, and yeah, they could very well just be an 85 - 89 win team, so yes, I can see it the way you see it. With Sale the improvement probably offsets Ortiz's loss, although there are other variables of course that will have an impact. I think the biggest impact that Sale brings is the innings pitched as it lessens the burden on the pen and displaces a good arm into the bullpen. It basically helps guard against regression in the case of Porcello or if Price doesn't pitch better. But the biggest impact of Sale could be on the post-season where a dominant starter who can throw innings can be a huge difference maker, so he does improve the Sox' chances in the post-season, the kind of thing that WAR computations can't really compute. So while I lean against the trade but I understand the reasoning behind it. It's too bad that I'm not as excited as I'd like to be about acquiring a fantastic pitcher like Sale. It's probably because I drink the Moncada koolaid and see a superstar in the making despite the things he needs to work on and I am very curious to see how Kopech develops as he has one helluva arm and if he improves his control, he has it in him to be an ace, and Basabe is somebody that very well could have been a ready replacement for Bradley where Bradley walks and the Red Sox don't miss a beat. This is easily the most controversial, fascination, thought provoking, and interesting trade since the Hanley/Sanchez for Beckett/Lowell deal. I love deals like this. Could of, would of kind of thing. Still I can't feel as bad losing Moncada than I was about losing Hanley back then. Moncada isn't worth as much as Hanley was worth back then. Of course it can be argued that Sale isn't worth as much as Lowell and Beckett. Would of been nice to get a Todd Frazier throw in like the Beckett deal with Lowell, but ohh well. This where Dombrowski is kind of lacks behind.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 24, 2016 22:31:37 GMT -5
I guess we're not that far off. I guess it goes by what you determine as "peripheral". The Red Sox should have won nearly 100 games by the talent they had but they underachieved by a good deal. They could be less talented but do just as well by playing up to their talent level. To me, being a periphery team is in that 85 - 89 win range. I think the Sox are a little bit better than that, but an injury to Hanley and Pedroia or a Betts or a Bogaerts, and yeah, they could very well just be an 85 - 89 win team, so yes, I can see it the way you see it. With Sale the improvement probably offsets Ortiz's loss, although there are other variables of course that will have an impact. I think the biggest impact that Sale brings is the innings pitched as it lessens the burden on the pen and displaces a good arm into the bullpen. It basically helps guard against regression in the case of Porcello or if Price doesn't pitch better. But the biggest impact of Sale could be on the post-season where a dominant starter who can throw innings can be a huge difference maker, so he does improve the Sox' chances in the post-season, the kind of thing that WAR computations can't really compute. So while I lean against the trade but I understand the reasoning behind it. It's too bad that I'm not as excited as I'd like to be about acquiring a fantastic pitcher like Sale. It's probably because I drink the Moncada koolaid and see a superstar in the making despite the things he needs to work on and I am very curious to see how Kopech develops as he has one helluva arm and if he improves his control, he has it in him to be an ace, and Basabe is somebody that very well could have been a ready replacement for Bradley where Bradley walks and the Red Sox don't miss a beat. This is easily the most controversial, fascination, thought provoking, and interesting trade since the Hanley/Sanchez for Beckett/Lowell deal. I love deals like this. Could of, would of kind of thing. Still I can't feel as bad losing Moncada than I was about losing Hanley back then. Moncada isn't worth as much as Hanley was worth back then. Of course it can be argued that Sale isn't worth as much as Lowell and Beckett. Would of been nice to get a Todd Frazier throw in like the Beckett deal with Lowell, but ohh well. This where Dombrowski is kind of lacks behind. The funny thing about Hanley back then was that he was coming off a .270 season in AA that didn't feature a ton of power. I didn't think of him as a "can't miss" prospect. He also had his attitude issues at the time. I think Moncada has had more impressive numbers in a higher level and has almost as much ceiling if not more, although he certainly can't play SS. Moncada, like Hanley at the time, represented an athletic type of player that was kind of rare with the Red Sox. And at the time, Lowell was more of a burden than a blessing as he was coming off a bad season and seen as an albatross (as opposed to being two seasons away from giving the Red Sox a very memorable season). Another thing about this deal is that Sale's contract is up after 2019. If the Sox don't win and he doesn't shine as much as he has with the ChiSox, then by 2020 the White Sox could very well have four players impacting them (or at least two anyways) while the Red Sox are out those talents. This differs a bit from the Hanley deal as the Sox managed to hang onto Lowell and Beckett beyond their short-term window getting 5 years out of Lowell (4 reasonably productive ones) and 6.5 seasons out of Beckett.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 24, 2016 22:42:10 GMT -5
I love deals like this. Could of, would of kind of thing. Still I can't feel as bad losing Moncada than I was about losing Hanley back then. Moncada isn't worth as much as Hanley was worth back then. Of course it can be argued that Sale isn't worth as much as Lowell and Beckett. Would of been nice to get a Todd Frazier throw in like the Beckett deal with Lowell, but ohh well. This where Dombrowski is kind of lacks behind. The funny thing about Hanley back then was that he was coming off a .270 season in AA that didn't feature a ton of power. I didn't think of him as a "can't miss" prospect. He also had his attitude issues at the time. I think Moncada has had more impressive numbers in a higher level and has almost as much ceiling if not more, although he certainly can't play SS. Moncada, like Hanley at the time, represented an athletic type of player that was kind of rare with the Red Sox. And at the time, Lowell was more of a burden than a blessing as he was coming off a bad season and seen as an albatross (as opposed to being two seasons away from giving the Red Sox a very memorable season). Another thing about this deal is that Sale's contract is up after 2019. If the Sox don't win and he doesn't shine as much as he has with the ChiSox, then by 2020 the White Sox could very well have four players impacting them (or at least two anyways) while the Red Sox are out those talents. This differs a bit from the Hanley deal as the Sox managed to hang onto Lowell and Beckett beyond their short-term window getting 5 years out of Lowell (4 reasonably productive ones) and 6.5 seasons out of Beckett. I think Hanley always had the power, he had yet to show it at the time however. Hanley had more raw power back then but Moncada has shown more patience to this point. They are very similar in every other aspect, especially the speed. Still I'll take the short stop over the second baseman any day like you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Dec 25, 2016 1:59:40 GMT -5
I'll take the player with a position he's good at over one without a position any day^^
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 25, 2016 10:13:58 GMT -5
I agree the new CBA is going to push down salaries. I just don't get how the luxury Tax isn't tied to revenue like in NBA and NFL. The luxury tax is going up much slower than revenue, which means owners are going to pocket more money. Just look at EE. You took out Yankees and Red Sox from bidding due to luxury tax and he gets way less than anyone thought. Both teams could have used him, but stayed away due to luxury tax. The Dodgers resigned there own players and didn't dive into free agent market. If you take the big spending teams out of free agent market your going to drive down salaries. Probably because the MLBPA is being run by a former player that everyone likes as opposed to someone with an actual background in labor law and negotiation.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 25, 2016 10:57:49 GMT -5
The takeaway from the CBA negotiations is the shift in power back to the owners, and that is because of a softening by the union, as you say. I need to learn more about the legal and financial structure ownership set up to encompass MLBAM but it's likely completely separate from team ownership.
As network money flattens out, the owners will be able to show a limited pool of traditional assets from network payouts and gate receipts. That's even as they gross, by my estimation, over $5 billion per year from the minimum 60 million feeds we know about, and that's probably low.
So yes, the players need legal representation that will do the research necessary to get a grip on where this is all headed. I'll be blunt. I'd like the lawsuit about the indentured servitude of the minor leagues to succeed to one extent or another. I think that could act as the pivot point for a reassessment of the current framework.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 25, 2016 13:04:21 GMT -5
What are the Red Sox chances of winning the 1st round (getting home field at Fenway also) with sale and without Sale?
What are the chances of the Red Sox getting home field over the Indians now that they also have Brantley and the signing of Encarcion if the Sox didn't have Sale?
What are the chances the Sox could have defeated the Indians and Cubs without having Sale?
Without Sale - I don't believe the sox have any realistic chance of winning a title. It would be pure luck.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 25, 2016 14:19:52 GMT -5
What are the Red Sox chances of winning the 1st round (getting home field at Fenway also) with sale and without Sale? What are the chances of the Red Sox getting home field over the Indians now that they also have Brantley and the signing of Encarcion if the Sox didn't have Sale? What are the chances the Sox could have defeated the Indians and Cubs without having Sale? Without Sale - I don't believe the sox have any realistic chance of winning a title. It would be pure luck. It's just about pure luck for any team to win the title if they make the playoffs. You only build teams to make the playoffs, not to win them.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 25, 2016 16:08:54 GMT -5
What are the Red Sox chances of winning the 1st round (getting home field at Fenway also) with sale and without Sale? What are the chances of the Red Sox getting home field over the Indians now that they also have Brantley and the signing of Encarcion if the Sox didn't have Sale? What are the chances the Sox could have defeated the Indians and Cubs without having Sale? Without Sale - I don't believe the sox have any realistic chance of winning a title. It would be pure luck. It's just about pure luck for any team to win the title if they make the playoffs. You only build teams to make the playoffs, not to win them. Not sure if I agree with this. The 2003 team was already loaded and they added Foulke and Schilling on top of it. The way this team is constructed this offseason, it reminds me what the Sox did in 2003. The Sox were already a playoff team without the Sale trade.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 25, 2016 18:21:49 GMT -5
What are the Red Sox chances of winning the 1st round (getting home field at Fenway also) with sale and without Sale? What are the chances of the Red Sox getting home field over the Indians now that they also have Brantley and the signing of Encarcion if the Sox didn't have Sale? What are the chances the Sox could have defeated the Indians and Cubs without having Sale? Without Sale - I don't believe the sox have any realistic chance of winning a title. It would be pure luck. Their chances should have been good, but they blew it. The Red Sox pretty much had home field advantage but simply blew it. Got swept by a crappy Yankee team that they had humiliated a week later. The fact of the matter is that they stopped hitting (and scoring runs). And that carried into the playoffs. They were extremely unclutch and it cost them two of the three games. They could have won that first game but they couldn't score unless they homered and they could have won that third game but never got the big hit then either. As it was Porcello pitched every bit as well as Sale and he spit the bit in the post-season so there's no guarantee that Sale is the difference maker. That said, does it hurt their chances with Sale pitching? Hell, no - they were down to Buchholz as their #3 starter last year because Wright was injured, Pomeranz was toast and/or injured and they felt Buchholz was a better bet than E-Rod. Sale does improve the Red Sox' post season chance, but not necessarily by a ton. If they hit as poorly as they did last season they won't go far - Sale or no Sale. I think this also speaks to another point that others have mentioned. Without Ortiz the Red Sox offense should still be within the league leaders and I think it should be, but the Red Sox, without Ortiz, could have a lot of issues on offense. Granted, these are worst case scenarios, but the Red Sox last season got not only the best offensive season in the league from Ortiz (who was the best at age 40 ever and among the best in their final season), but the Sox got healthy productive seasons from Hanley and Pedroia, two guys riddled with injury histories, got two months of a Johnny Bench impersonation by weak hitting Sandy Leon, and got productive seasons from JBJ and Hanley, two guys who were struggling (and trending the wrong way) as the season wore on. The Red Sox will need Benintendi to have a very productive season and for Sandoval to bounce back to what he was with the Giants, and for somebody (Swihart?) to emerge as an offensive answer at catching, and they need more production out of Moreland than he gave Texas last season to offset the loss of Ortiz. I think a lot of that will happen and the Sox' offense will be fine, but there is a real possibility that injuries and underperformance could make the Red Sox score a lot less than expected, and I think that's a possibility that can't be totally discounted. I sometimes think it's a given that the Sox offense will rake, and that with Sale they'll be a 100 win team, but I think the addition of Sale kind of gets them back closer to where they were with Ortiz, but I think the offense will have other issues, but I think it will be negated somewhat by the Red Sox playing closer to their pythagorean record and the Sox will wind up with around the same win total of 93 that they had last season. I think the 2017 Red Sox will definitely need to rely on their pitching more than the 2016 team did.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 25, 2016 20:14:35 GMT -5
What are the Red Sox chances of winning the 1st round (getting home field at Fenway also) with sale and without Sale? What are the chances of the Red Sox getting home field over the Indians now that they also have Brantley and the signing of Encarcion if the Sox didn't have Sale? What are the chances the Sox could have defeated the Indians and Cubs without having Sale? Without Sale - I don't believe the sox have any realistic chance of winning a title. It would be pure luck. It's just about pure luck for any team to win the title if they make the playoffs. You only build teams to make the playoffs, not to win them. No it isn't "pure luck" to win a title. And secondly, to get to the W/s is also a terrific accomplishment. Getting Schilling and Becket and Foulke were about winning championships. The cubs getting Chapman was about trying to win a championship. It had nothing to do with luck that he worked out and he was huge contributor of winning a title.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 25, 2016 20:49:35 GMT -5
What are the Red Sox chances of winning the 1st round (getting home field at Fenway also) with sale and without Sale? What are the chances of the Red Sox getting home field over the Indians now that they also have Brantley and the signing of Encarcion if the Sox didn't have Sale? What are the chances the Sox could have defeated the Indians and Cubs without having Sale? Without Sale - I don't believe the sox have any realistic chance of winning a title. It would be pure luck. Their chances should have been good, but they blew it. The Red Sox pretty much had home field advantage but simply blew it. Got swept by a crappy Yankee team that they had humiliated a week later. The fact of the matter is that they stopped hitting (and scoring runs). And that carried into the playoffs. They were extremely unclutch and it cost them two of the three games. They could have won that first game but they couldn't score unless they homered and they could have won that third game but never got the big hit then either. As it was Porcello pitched every bit as well as Sale and he spit the bit in the post-season so there's no guarantee that Sale is the difference maker. That said, does it hurt their chances with Sale pitching? Hell, no - they were down to Buchholz as their #3 starter last year because Wright was injured, Pomeranz was toast and/or injured and they felt Buchholz was a better bet than E-Rod. Sale does improve the Red Sox' post season chance, but not necessarily by a ton. If they hit as poorly as they did last season they won't go far - Sale or no Sale. I think this also speaks to another point that others have mentioned. Without Ortiz the Red Sox offense should still be within the league leaders and I think it should be, but the Red Sox, without Ortiz, could have a lot of issues on offense. Granted, these are worst case scenarios, but the Red Sox last season got not only the best offensive season in the league from Ortiz (who was the best at age 40 ever and among the best in their final season), but the Sox got healthy productive seasons from Hanley and Pedroia, two guys riddled with injury histories, got two months of a Johnny Bench impersonation by weak hitting Sandy Leon, and got productive seasons from JBJ and Hanley, two guys who were struggling (and trending the wrong way) as the season wore on. The Red Sox will need Benintendi to have a very productive season and for Sandoval to bounce back to what he was with the Giants, and for somebody (Swihart?) to emerge as an offensive answer at catching, and they need more production out of Moreland than he gave Texas last season to offset the loss of Ortiz. I think a lot of that will happen and the Sox' offense will be fine, but there is a real possibility that injuries and underperformance could make the Red Sox score a lot less than expected, and I think that's a possibility that can't be totally discounted. I sometimes think it's a given that the Sox offense will rake, and that with Sale they'll be a 100 win team, but I think the addition of Sale kind of gets them back closer to where they were with Ortiz, but I think the offense will have other issues, but I think it will be negated somewhat by the Red Sox playing closer to their pythagorean record and the Sox will wind up with around the same win total of 93 that they had last season. I think the 2017 Red Sox will definitely need to rely on their pitching more than the 2016 team did. 1--- What is the relevance of "that they blew it?" How many times as Red Sox fans over our lifetime have we had to say that? So what does it mean? In our 3 championships, couldn't at least one of our opponents say the same thing too? For that matter nearly every year a team wins, almost every year, couldn't you say at least one other team had a chance "and they blew it too?" So when the Red Sox won their championships, it wasn't that they "really won" but the other teams "blew it?" What does "they blew it" really mean if every other team can say the same thing?
2-- You specifically highlight the position players, so now let's review the pitchers:
At the end of the year who was our number 3 starter? And how much better do you expect our number 3 pitcher to be this year vs last year? Doesn't that count?
How about our number 2 starter, Price. How much better can we expect this year's number 2 starter to be?
Last year the Red Sox had a historically bad 4/5 starters for the 1st month - to two months of the beginning of the season. Historically bad a poster on here had said and he provided data. Historically bad. DO we expect the Red Sox starters to be that bad this year? So going from "historically bad" to at least decent is pretty good, isn't it?
I get the feeling for those that thought we shouldn't have made this move getting Sale that they expect Wright to be real good and maybe even Erod. So if that were the case, won't these two starters seriously outshine last year's number 4 and number 5 starters?
As for the bullpen, according to Fangraphs Kimbrel was ranked 30th as a reliever. Can't expect much better from him this year?
As for 8th inning, Koji wasn't very good early in the season, and he missed quite a bit of a stretch. Isn't it probable that overall we are going to get improved production from the 8th inning over the course of a season and even the 7th inning especially if you put one of the 6 starters there for example as a 7th inning alternative?
Don't we remember how bad the bullpen was? You mean getting another guy (Sale) who could throw near 200 innings, with the acquisition of Thornburgh, and then put one starter in the bullpen, that we don't expect things to be better?
It's not just one point from above but the accumulation of points so a pitcher doesn't wear down. And if healthy, we're not supposed to assume that this staff will probably be much better prepared going into the 2017 playoffs?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 25, 2016 21:02:27 GMT -5
Their chances should have been good, but they blew it. The Red Sox pretty much had home field advantage but simply blew it. Got swept by a crappy Yankee team that they had humiliated a week later. The fact of the matter is that they stopped hitting (and scoring runs). And that carried into the playoffs. They were extremely unclutch and it cost them two of the three games. They could have won that first game but they couldn't score unless they homered and they could have won that third game but never got the big hit then either. As it was Porcello pitched every bit as well as Sale and he spit the bit in the post-season so there's no guarantee that Sale is the difference maker. That said, does it hurt their chances with Sale pitching? Hell, no - they were down to Buchholz as their #3 starter last year because Wright was injured, Pomeranz was toast and/or injured and they felt Buchholz was a better bet than E-Rod. Sale does improve the Red Sox' post season chance, but not necessarily by a ton. If they hit as poorly as they did last season they won't go far - Sale or no Sale. I think this also speaks to another point that others have mentioned. Without Ortiz the Red Sox offense should still be within the league leaders and I think it should be, but the Red Sox, without Ortiz, could have a lot of issues on offense. Granted, these are worst case scenarios, but the Red Sox last season got not only the best offensive season in the league from Ortiz (who was the best at age 40 ever and among the best in their final season), but the Sox got healthy productive seasons from Hanley and Pedroia, two guys riddled with injury histories, got two months of a Johnny Bench impersonation by weak hitting Sandy Leon, and got productive seasons from JBJ and Hanley, two guys who were struggling (and trending the wrong way) as the season wore on. The Red Sox will need Benintendi to have a very productive season and for Sandoval to bounce back to what he was with the Giants, and for somebody (Swihart?) to emerge as an offensive answer at catching, and they need more production out of Moreland than he gave Texas last season to offset the loss of Ortiz. I think a lot of that will happen and the Sox' offense will be fine, but there is a real possibility that injuries and underperformance could make the Red Sox score a lot less than expected, and I think that's a possibility that can't be totally discounted. I sometimes think it's a given that the Sox offense will rake, and that with Sale they'll be a 100 win team, but I think the addition of Sale kind of gets them back closer to where they were with Ortiz, but I think the offense will have other issues, but I think it will be negated somewhat by the Red Sox playing closer to their pythagorean record and the Sox will wind up with around the same win total of 93 that they had last season. I think the 2017 Red Sox will definitely need to rely on their pitching more than the 2016 team did. 1--- What is the relevance of "that they blew it?" How many times as Red Sox fans over our lifetime have we had to say that? So what does it mean? In our 3 championships, couldn't at least one of our opponents say the same thing too? For that matter nearly every year a team wins, almost every year, couldn't you say at least one other team had a chance "and they blew it too?" So when the Red Sox won their championships, it wasn't that they "really won" but the other teams "blew it?" What does "they blew it" really mean if every other team can say the same thing?
2-- You specifically highlight the position players, so now let's review the pitchers:
At the end of the year who was our number 3 starter? And how much better do you expect our number 3 pitcher to be this year vs last year? Doesn't that count?
How about our number 2 starter, Price. How much better can we expect this year's number 2 starter to be?
Last year the Red Sox had a historically bad 4/5 starters for the 1st month - to two months of the beginning of the season. Historically bad a poster on here had said and he provided data. Historically bad. DO we expect the Red Sox starters to be that bad this year? So going from "historically bad" to at least decent is pretty good, isn't it?
I get the feeling for those that thought we shouldn't have made this move getting Sale that they expect Wright to be real good and maybe even Erod. So if that were the case, won't these two starters seriously outshine last year's number 4 and number 5 starters?
As for the bullpen, according to Fangraphs Kimbrel was ranked 30th as a reliever. Can't expect much better from him this year?
As for 8th inning, Koji wasn't very good early in the season, and he missed quite a bit of a stretch. Isn't it probable that overall we are going to get improved production from the 8th inning over the course of a season and even the 7th inning especially if you put one of the 6 starters there for example as a 7th inning alternative?
Don't we remember how bad the bullpen was? You mean getting another guy (Sale) who could throw near 200 innings, with the acquisition of Thornburgh, and then put one starter in the bullpen, that we don't expect things to be better?
It's not just one point from above but the accumulation of points so a pitcher doesn't wear down. And if healthy, we're not supposed to assume that this staff will probably be much better prepared going into the 2017 playoffs?
The point I was trying to make was that their offense cost them dearly in the playoffs by failing to hit when it mattered (and getting Sale doesn't necessarily help that) and that Porcello pitched every bit as well as Sale did and he got knocked around anyways - the point being that having a guy that good guarantees very little. That's what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to say that having Sale doesn't help, because it does. As far as the other points go I do remember Buchholz being awful and E-Rod being injured and awful, Price struggling early on before settling in and Porcello and Wright pitching well. The rotation should be better than historically awful even without Sale. As for the pen I like Thornburg and think he'll help a lot. It's hard for me to be super excited about Kimbrel as I watched his control disintegrate. He had way too many meltdowns for my tastes and too many Maalox moments, way too many 3-2 counts. I don't know that he'll be better next year. Hope he is. Being against the trade doesn't mean that I can't appreciate what Sale can offer the Red Sox in the regular season and what he could potentially mean in the post-season. I can appreciate it. I hope he pitches as well as he has and if he continues down a Cooperstown path I hope the Red Sox can re-sign him and he pitches well. That would make it easier to take if Moncada and Kopech and even Basabe develop into good players during the 2020s because if they do and Sale is long gone by then and the Sox didn't win the Series at all and the Sox are having problems getting good young cheap players to replace some of the departing players, that could be very problematic. I know you're heavily in favor of the trade and I get it, but can you see the flipside of it and why it might not feel like a slamdunk?
|
|
|
Post by tookme55 on Dec 25, 2016 21:58:39 GMT -5
You acquire Sale exactly because hitting can go south quickly, especially during playoffs against good pitching. No one has mention return of Carson Smith either. He may not be ready at beginning but surely he'll contribute after the All Star Game. We'll also get full year of Beni in left field.
Someone mentioned that 37 games were started by someone not named Porcello, Price, E Rod, Wright and Pom last year. Sale will be taking 32-35 of those starts. Again, I ask, how can we not be better?
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Dec 25, 2016 22:05:03 GMT -5
We also lost the best hitter in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 25, 2016 22:07:51 GMT -5
We also lost the best hitter in baseball. Jesus Christ 2016 has been such an awful year that I read this as if someone had died and actually checked.
|
|
|