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.
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 18, 2017 14:34:16 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything close to a 40 man roster crunch in the next few years that forces them to trade prospects. They're already mostly gone. There would have been a 40 man roster crunch if there was no Sale trade.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 18, 2017 15:19:35 GMT -5
My post wasn't directed at anyone on particular. There was a lot of opinions about the future of the team. My main point was and is that there is only 40 guys that you can keep and at some point players that are a surplus need to be traded or lost for nothing ie jason Garcia, Ryan Presley and so on. Most if not all of the players DD has traded were traded were surplus aside from Espinosa and Kopech. At some point you need to decide whether to go for it or not. They're in a window so they're going for itMost of the posts in this thread were critical of DD's moves. My opinion is that this is what he does, management wanted to make a change in how things were being run and he's done that. So it's time to stop the whining about a guy doing things like he's always done and just enjoy the season. Just tired of the constant negativity of some Sox fans Why are the Red Sox "in a window"? They're hardly the KC Royals. I'd think the Red Sox would have a lot of chances to win over the next decade had they kept their blue chippers. Personally, I was glad they signed Price (well I would have preferred they had given Lester the contract the Cubs wound up giving him) but not having done so I wanted to the Sox to sign Price AND Cueto. My strong preference was to not surrender blue chip talent for starting pitching, but money, especially somebody not attached to a draft pick. I disagree with Soxjim using a 2 month portion of the Cueto's season when he wasn't exactly healthy and disregarding the huge body of work he had over his career and the larger sample size of interleague games. The Red Sox would have been over the luxury tax and it's a risky proposition to sign starters and the Sox would have doubled down on it, so I totally get the down side risk to it. Which means win over the next few years with guns blazing, but after those three years are up, the Sox will still have some talented young players, but they won't have the talents of Espinoza and Kopech, nor Moncada, and I think those are huge losses for the organization and they'll be hard pressed to replace those talents come 2020, and with a middling farm system help won't be necessarily available to step in. Meanwhile, with the Sox expected to be in contention, I do expect more of these deals if somebody gets hurt and the Sox need help. They are committed to the next three years regardless of what happens afterwards. It can work, but I would have preferred to see a more balanced approach. Nice post redsox -- and I appreciate that you disagree with me - without being condescending. We can agree to disagree or maybe slight on some points.
You asked why are the Red Sox in a window? I think the Red Sox are in a window. They were last year at one point they were even slightly rated higher than the Cubs to win it all. And if you look ta Playoff Odds right now we are favored 2nd in the AL to get to the World Series. I don't think the SOx would have had a prayer of chance last year or this year without getting starter help and bullpen help. As it turns out last year we did nothing but we had a chance is the point.
As far as Red Sox signing BOTH Price and Cueto - I can't remember at the time to accurately say what my expectations were for each other existing Red Sox player was to contemplate if we got both how good would we be. For example Bradley was terrific last year. The year before would I have known he was going to be an all-star caliber player the 1st half of the season? Therefore I was not expecting the Red Sox to be as good as they were. It's easy for me to say hindsight some things. And they might have crashed if not for a stretch of games Pomz came through while the bullpen was in meltdown mode. Being a contender was/is imo a positive for DD - and to start the year I didn't think they would be. Though I agree we went too quick. As someone mentioned about the bullpen. Consistently giving up so much.
But I do agree with you if they signed Cueto - there's a chance they wouldn't have had to sell off Espinoza. Having him may have preserved the farm quite a bit more and the end result of losing in the 1st round in hindsight would have been best to preserve an extended future. BUT-- regarding looking back-- I know what I heard-- John Henry didn't want to go over the cap. I'm all in as a fan eager to tell John Henry just go over the cap. I agree with you- that would have preserved the young players to a degree. But Henry wanted to win-- now. Last year was "now." Therefore if I could take either Price or Cueto-- Price was the more valued guy. As I said using the word "risk" -- "less risk" with Price at the time. Turns out that may no longer be the case. But those 13 starts in which he is in KC for several of them and he didn't do well- toooo much risk in which he would have been our preseason #1 if I desperately want to win.
And I'm not quite sure of your projection beyond 2019 -- but I think we can make trades to still contend beyond 2019. If the Red Sox are a playoff caliber team-- any playoff caliber team- is a contender. If you think it unlikely we will be beyond 2019 - then we can agree to disagree. I see trades and signings and young palyers we do keep - I view this as cup half full- and believe we will contend beyond 2019.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2017 16:56:12 GMT -5
I'm skeptical that the Red Sox will re-tool in 2019 by trading guys who they can't extend. That's the only way to do to rebuild quickly, but they'd also have to give up a bit of the then current roster and make the team worse to get better beyond that. I think they're going to have to draft really well and luck out on a few lottery tickets to extend the window.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 18, 2017 17:59:29 GMT -5
Why are the Red Sox "in a window"? T Nice post redsox -- and I appreciate that you disagree with me - without being condescending. We can agree to disagree or maybe slight on some points.
You asked why are the Red Sox in a window? I think the Red Sox are in a window. They were last year at one point they were even slightly rated higher than the Cubs to win it all.
soxjim, agree on the disagree part. I mean if everybody agreed on every point it would make for a very dull forum, correct? I agree with you they're definitely on the clock - in a window, but my question still remains why do they have to be? Maybe this goes back to my own alternate reality, something I've been doing since the election, haha. In my baseball mind, after watching Theo and company put together teams that consistently won 95 games per year without particularly selling out one year for another (and I grant you he made a GFIN type of deal with the Yankees this past season, but hell the Cubs haven't won in 108 years and they really needed Chapman, and actually have young players manning 2b, ss, and 3b for the foreseeable future so they can weather the loss of Torres). So in my mind, with the Red Sox ridiculously rich farm system and big bucks that they could afford, I guess I don't see why the 2016 - 2019 window has to be the GFIN time versus a more balanced approach that could go a decade with the front line talent the Sox had in their system. But yes, I agree, Henry wanted to get under the luxury tax at some point and reset, and I can't blame him for thinking that way. In my alternate baseball universe, Jon Lester resigned with the Red Sox, after the Sox got Porcello in a deal for him (with Cespedes as middle man). So in my mind the Sox sign either Price or Cueto, but given what they would have spent for Lester, Cueto would have been the more likely signing - and he wanted to come to Boston, too. Anyways with a Lester, Cueto, Porcello, E-Rod top of the rotation the Sox could have dealt Buchholz to save money and taken a flier on Rich Hill for $6 million and of course, still had Wright. In those scenarios you don't deal Espinoza for Pomeranz, nor do you need to surrender the talent that they did for Sale as he wouldn't be necessary, so you still have Groome, Espinoza, and Kopech coming up in the pipeline, and I am convinced that Moncada will eventually be a superstar, a .270 - .300 hitter with a lot of walks and strike outs, and more power than expected, not to mention a ton of stolen bases. I worry about these deals because if somebody gets hurt or something doesn't work this year or next, we'll see either Devers or if he develops further (Dalbec) get dealt away next which is how Dombrowski operates. I don't think the Sox will fall off a cliff in 2020 or 2021. I can see them replenishing enough to be an 85 - 90 win team going for a wild card spot. If not for these deals, I think we'd be looking at a consistent 90 - 95 win team beyond that. But my own alternate reality of what could have happened is as worthless as a counterfeit bill, so all that matters is where they're really at. Again it could work out gloriously, but I definitely wouldn't have gone down that path. I don't see why they need to be in a window, but they definitely are. I hope they maximize it. If not, I worry about what's left to deal and what's coming up to replenish or the cost that will be needed for this to happen.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 18, 2017 21:23:01 GMT -5
I see what you are saying about the window now. Yes I agree. The Owner lost his patience. It seems in many big markets the owner loses their patience. But he does pay high salaries giving sox a chance so I can't totally blast him for trying to win but not going over the cap. I'll just also include if he didn't lose his patience we were nothing last year. Though it turned out we sputtered late. But having a chance to win it all is much better than saying "one more year - maybe."
As for Devers- I doubt we'll see him get dealt. He fills a need. Sox prospects has his ETA 2018.
For Moncada I don't agree. Which is why in part I like the Sale deal. But I can understand if you think Moncada will be - ofc he can be-- then if you think that -- you wouldn't like the deal too much.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 18, 2017 21:42:01 GMT -5
I'm skeptical that the Red Sox will re-tool in 2019 by trading guys who they can't extend. That's the only way to do to rebuild quickly, but they'd also have to give up a bit of the then current roster and make the team worse to get better beyond that. I think they're going to have to draft really well and luck out on a few lottery tickets to extend the window. I think sox can trade after this season or even during-- but definitely after. Thus you give other team two years of a good player while we get multiple lesser players that fill holes in return.
How many all-stars do the Red Sox need? Last year how many did we have? Trade an all-star for multiple lesser players that can fill roles.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2017 6:53:34 GMT -5
The percentage of big-market, contending teams that trade their star players for prospects rounds to zero.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 19, 2017 10:17:03 GMT -5
The percentage of big-market, contending teams that trade their star players for prospects rounds to zero. I've seen that you have said this before.
But who says anyone is trading their star players for prospects? If they did- I agree with you.
Unless you are assuming if someone is suggesting they trade a star player it can only be for prospects-- an not decent major-league players?
We haven't had this type of penalty for going over the cap that we had in the past. Just as some posters have said the Red Sox and the big market teams can't influence the game like they had in the past, I don't see why they can't adapt either. Times are different.
If you can't afford all your star players then you trade what you can and get decent multiple players in return for the star player you gave up.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2017 10:42:52 GMT -5
Substitute the phrase "young, controllable players" for "prospects" in my previous post and it remains a true statement. If you can think of any examples of big-market, contending teams trading their star players because they could not afford to re-sign them, would love to see them.
It just does not seem realistic to me to think that the Boston Red Sox are going to create long-term sustainability by trading their star players on the cusp of free agency. Historically, no contending big-market teams have followed this strategy. Even the Dodgers, who have a front office used to trading veterans before they reach free agency, chose to run the risk of letting their stars test free agency rather than trading them before they get there.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2017 11:23:07 GMT -5
Substitute the phrase "young, controllable players" for "prospects" in my previous post and it remains a true statement. If you can think of any examples of big-market, contending teams trading their star players because they could not afford to re-sign them, would love to see them. It just does not seem realistic to me to think that the Boston Red Sox are going to create long-term sustainability by trading their star players on the cusp of free agency. Historically, no contending big-market teams have followed this strategy. Even the Dodgers, who have a front office used to trading veterans before they reach free agency, chose to run the risk of letting their stars test free agency rather than trading them before they get there. If they don't do it, they'll have a longer downtime or bigger mess at the end after they try to fill holes with the next Jacoby Ellsbury or Carl Crawford signing. It is all about youth now. People are still thinking "we have to be like the 90s and 00s Yankees". That probably never goes away completely because it's ingrained in our baseball DNA, but the Yankees finally figured out that wasn't going to work anymore.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 19, 2017 12:17:05 GMT -5
Substitute the phrase " young, controllable players" for "prospects" in my previous post and it remains a true statement. If you can think of any examples of big-market, contending teams trading their star players because they could not afford to re-sign them, would love to see them. It just does not seem realistic to me to think that the Boston Red Sox are going to create long-term sustainability by trading their star players on the cusp of free agency. Historically, no contending big-market teams have followed this strategy. Even the Dodgers, who have a front office used to trading veterans before they reach free agency, chose to run the risk of letting their stars test free agency rather than trading them before they get there. Four points and a question-- IMO you need to take them in cumulative manner.
Again in one breath we hear "This situation of the new CBA is unlike anything that was before." Yet your point to me is find an example in the past that was done? How is that possible if this new CBA -- is new - unlike anything done prior? You can't have the argument both ways - that this new CBA is much different much worse for the big market teams than ever before then look for prior examples. It's much different so there would not be any / or very hard to find examples.
Point 2- How do you define "cusp of free agency?" chances are we aren''t going to win a title this upcoming year. Possible but nearly every year teams that win - a certain amount of luck was involved or extra-ordinary superstar performances that couldn't really have been expected. So the Sox may have a better idea how they can sign after the 2017 season - though not etched in stone. And after the season is over there will be more evaluations on players we expect can contribute vs can be replaced by cheaper assets. WHy not a trade a star player after this season to fill holes and get the more experienced multiple players who have a contract into 2020 or who won't demand huge bucks to resign for the star if needed? It goes back to a prior point- "How many all-stars do the Red Sox need?" Many respect Theo on here and he has said many times "don't try to build a super team." If we know we can't sign all the super players we have and more than likely we aren't going to win a title next year - holes will have been exposed. So why not trade a star in a position we are strong at in which we have some type of depth to cover up the holes?
Point 3 is who said you need "Young, controllable assets?" I didn't say that. We're trying to win for example in 2020. Why do they need to be young and controllable for more than 2020 or maybe 2021? If you are going for a championship in 2020, why can't we trade for experienced players who have a contract in 2020 or even in 2021? The argument was beyond 2019. If the Red Sox were to trade a star player after the 2017 or 2018 season, they can't get some experienced multiple players back who have a contract that ends in 2020 or 2021? We would get less after 2018 but does that mean we won't get anything decent plus have chance to sign players in F/A?
Point 4-- You want me to make trade proposals on this thread? If you want okay--usually you wouldn't want that. Maybe create another thread? Then my point has been after for example the 2017 season we need evaluate the team. Tell me where the holes lie right now after this season ends then I can try to make a trade proposal - maybe even a three team etc. IS that what you are asking me to do? I assume we didn't win the championship so we have holes -. And is there any idea who we can sign from our team? I thought I read last year we offered Betts and Xander long-terms and they declined. Is that right? Anyhow in order to make trades I need to know the holes. That's the reason we are going to make trades after the 2017 season.
And we don't know for example if the Mets or San Fran might be interested in "Panda" if he is decent. If the Sox have Devers come up in 2018 as Sox Prospects has projected. Do we need Panda or do we switch him to 1st as a platoon and have Travis vs lefties? This type of thing one can scoff at vs another who thinks it could be a good idea. How about the catchers? How will they be after the 2017 season? What would be my assumption? If I look at things half-empty only one MIGHT BE decent or none will be. If I look at it half-full one MIGHT BE very good and one pretty good? Or is that too half-full? Thus I find it impossible to propose a trade to you because we would have different assumptions of what is needed and what we can get after the season ends.
Questions- -- What you call long term sustainability -- do you agree we look strong through 2019? So after 2019 -- how much longer before you consider that the Sox had achieved "long-term sustainability in your definition?" I was saying we can be a threat beyond 2019 - into 2020 and even into 2021. OFC injuries may derail any year. I believe 2020 no doubt with trades and signings. That would be 5 years (counting last year) but I think they can do 2021 too. I won't argue it as much as 2020. Why not 2020?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 19, 2017 13:22:15 GMT -5
So let's attempt to follow your reasoning ruthlessly. Why not turn around and trade Sale now? His value will only decline each of the next 2 years (given his contract terms and pitcher aging), and there's a decent chance that you get a return equal to the one Dombrowski gave the White Sox (which is why the Sale trade was the least of DD's sins - as opposed to trading Kimbrel now where you'd be lucky to get a Margot *alone* back, or Pomeranz where you'd be lucky to get back Danny Espinosa much less Anderson). The question seems absurd, right? Why? And what about the next 2.5 years will change to make the question less absurd?
Of all the damning charges made against Dombrowski, inconsistency is not one of them; he is trying to "go for it" (which on many occasions he has cited as *the* lesson learned from all his "experience"), within the constraints of the CBT. I see zero evidence that he will reverse course, the die has been cast.
As far as the sustainability question, that's a good question; I would say that the farm system and present MLB roster ante-Dombrowski offered the Red Sox a reasonable chance of being a perennially competitive team (88+ wins) for 7-8 years from 2017 on (really 2016 on). He has exchanged that for a team that probably projects to 92-93 wins for the next 3 years, and maybe an 85 win team in 2020 (Mookie is really good), and then afterwards, massive uncertainty and probably sub-.500 indefinitely unless they blow through the cap.
Obviously there's large uncertainty about the estimates above, but that's what's in my mind. And I believe that's a tragic exchange
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2017 13:28:12 GMT -5
Not really interested in a long back-and-forth. Will just say that I think Dombrowski's moves are defensible if you take the position that they wanted to maximize their odds in the short run and were willing to give up long run odds to do so. But pretending like their long run odds are just as strong now as they were before the trades is just arguing for arguing's sake.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 19, 2017 15:41:16 GMT -5
Not really interested in a long back-and-forth. Will just say that I think Dombrowski's moves are defensible if you take the position that they wanted to maximize their odds in the short run and were willing to give up long run odds to do so. But pretending like their long run odds are just as strong now as they were before the trades is just arguing for arguing's sake. I did not say "they were just as strong."
The argument has been we can still be a contender beyond 2019.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 19, 2017 15:55:22 GMT -5
So let's attempt to follow your reasoning ruthlessly. Why not turn around and trade Sale now? His value will only decline each of the next 2 years (given his contract terms and pitcher aging), and there's a decent chance that you get a return equal to the one Dombrowski gave the White Sox (which is why the Sale trade was the least of DD's sins - as opposed to trading Kimbrel now where you'd be lucky to get a Margot *alone* back, or Pomeranz where you'd be lucky to get back Danny Espinosa much less Anderson). The question seems absurd, right? Why? And what about the next 2.5 years will change to make the question less absurd? Of all the damning charges made against Dombrowski, inconsistency is not one of them; he is trying to "go for it" (which on many occasions he has cited as *the* lesson learned from all his "experience"), within the constraints of the CBT. I see zero evidence that he will reverse course, the die has been cast. As far as the sustainability question, that's a good question; I would say that the farm system and present MLB roster ante-Dombrowski offered the Red Sox a reasonable chance of being a perennially competitive team (88+ wins) for 7-8 years from 2017 on (really 2016 on). He has exchanged that for a team that probably projects to 92-93 wins for the next 3 years, and maybe an 85 win team in 2020 (Mookie is really good), and then afterwards, massive uncertainty and probably sub-.500 indefinitely unless they blow through the cap. Obviously there's large uncertainty about the estimates above, but that's what's in my mind. And I believe that's a tragic exchange Why trade Sale now? Why not find out if he is "Lester" or "Bumgarner" in the postseason? Isn't that some point of a reason that we got him? That he could be a dominant pitcher for the entire year including the playoffs? It's not far-fetched to think he will pitch better than any other Red Sox, is it? So why would I trade the best and not "the second best?"
Now I'll ask you questions-- where do you think we're going to lose it this year? What will be the cause or causes?
Last year I don't think we had a shot of winning 88 games without DD. What pitching was there other than Porcello that would have been consistent? What about the bullpen? I'd be surprises we aren't above 85 wins. Too many trade possibilities. Thus I don't believe in your tragic exchange numbers.
As far as mentioning pitching-- I saw the game today like many. Pomz having arm troubles. I have said all along DD blundred trading Clay for nothing or at least if he let him go - get a cheaper pitcher . Now it's possible we'll have two guys that may break down. Plus ERod number of innings is highly questionable. And still Wright is having some issues? IMO THAT is the blunder.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 19, 2017 15:59:06 GMT -5
If you look at the Miguel Cabrera trade. I think it proves that a win now trade, can also be a trade that helps you long-term. Not counting his second extension.
How these trades will affect our future, it's all about how these prospects turnout long-term.
Look at Moncada and Kopech, if they come close to reaching there potential, we have most likely hurt our future by a good amount. Now if they take years to develop in majors and never come close to full potential, not so much. You could resign Sale and he could stay one of best pitchers in majors for the next 10 years.
I wouldn't have made Sale trade, but I don't think the outcomes are as clear as some people think. This could be a Cabrera trade, a Beckett trade or a Bagwell type trade. Nobody knows how these moves will turnout long-term.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2017 16:09:31 GMT -5
Not really interested in a long back-and-forth. Will just say that I think Dombrowski's moves are defensible if you take the position that they wanted to maximize their odds in the short run and were willing to give up long run odds to do so. But pretending like their long run odds are just as strong now as they were before the trades is just arguing for arguing's sake. I did not say "they were just as strong."
The argument has been we can still be a contender beyond 2019.
Can we? Sure, anything can happen. Are the odds meaningfully lower? Hard to argue that they're not, but you sure seem to be trying.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 19, 2017 16:29:04 GMT -5
So let's attempt to follow your reasoning ruthlessly. Why not turn around and trade Sale now? His value will only decline each of the next 2 years (given his contract terms and pitcher aging), and there's a decent chance that you get a return equal to the one Dombrowski gave the White Sox (which is why the Sale trade was the least of DD's sins - as opposed to trading Kimbrel now where you'd be lucky to get a Margot *alone* back, or Pomeranz where you'd be lucky to get back Danny Espinosa much less Anderson). The question seems absurd, right? Why? And what about the next 2.5 years will change to make the question less absurd? Of all the damning charges made against Dombrowski, inconsistency is not one of them; he is trying to "go for it" (which on many occasions he has cited as *the* lesson learned from all his "experience"), within the constraints of the CBT. I see zero evidence that he will reverse course, the die has been cast. As far as the sustainability question, that's a good question; I would say that the farm system and present MLB roster ante-Dombrowski offered the Red Sox a reasonable chance of being a perennially competitive team (88+ wins) for 7-8 years from 2017 on (really 2016 on). He has exchanged that for a team that probably projects to 92-93 wins for the next 3 years, and maybe an 85 win team in 2020 (Mookie is really good), and then afterwards, massive uncertainty and probably sub-.500 indefinitely unless they blow through the cap. Obviously there's large uncertainty about the estimates above, but that's what's in my mind. And I believe that's a tragic exchange Why trade Sale now? Why not find out if he is "Lester" or "Bumgarner" in the postseason? Isn't that some point of a reason that we got him? That he could be a dominant pitcher for the entire year including the playoffs? It's not far-fetched to think he will pitch better than any other Red Sox, is it? So why would I trade the best and not "the second best?"
Now I'll ask you questions-- where do you think we're going to lose it this year? What will be the cause or causes?
Last year I don't think we had a shot of winning 88 games without DD. What pitching was there other than Porcello that would have been consistent? What about the bullpen? I'd be surprises we aren't above 85 wins. Too many trade possibilities. Thus I don't believe in your tragic exchange numbers.
As far as mentioning pitching-- I saw the game today like many. Pomz having arm troubles. I have said all along DD blundred trading Clay for nothing or at least if he let him go - get a cheaper pitcher . Now it's possible we'll have two guys that may break down. Plus ERod number of innings is highly questionable. And still Wright is having some issues? IMO THAT is the blunder.
You really think trading Buchholz is going to be our downfall/blunder this year? Did you not watch Buchholz pitch for the first 2/3 of last year? I just don't understand how you can look at Cueto's 13 starts and say he can't pitch in AL, but at the same time you seem to be just overlooking Buchholz being maybe the worst pitcher in Baseball for 2/3 of last year. Did you ever ask yourself what happens if we need Clay and he's pitching like he did for 2/3 of last year? He's not going to help us, he'd hurt us. You just can't count on Buchholz being a good pitcher next year. Just look at his overall numbers from last year, they weren't good.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 19, 2017 16:32:53 GMT -5
I'm skeptical that the Red Sox will re-tool in 2019 by trading guys who they can't extend. That's the only way to do to rebuild quickly, but they'd also have to give up a bit of the then current roster and make the team worse to get better beyond that. I think they're going to have to draft really well and luck out on a few lottery tickets to extend the window. That is 100% what I've been trying to get across. Rather than build incrementally, DD chose to try to leap. At some point, that approach will have a performance cost. There's a tradeoff coming; the debt will be due, with interest. Staying relevant or even dominant as a team isn't impossible, but the route Dombrowski has taken has made it less likely/more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 19, 2017 16:37:17 GMT -5
I did not say "they were just as strong."
The argument has been we can still be a contender beyond 2019.
Can we? Sure, anything can happen. Are the odds meaningfully lower? Hard to argue that they're not, but you sure seem to be trying. Yeah, my argument at least absolutely hasn't been that they *won't* contend. It's that the likelihood of contention (or, more to my concern, dominance) including and beyond 2019 has been negatively (probably significantly) impacted.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 19, 2017 17:25:56 GMT -5
I wanted to add that trading star players before free agency for luxury tax teams might change with new CBA. You used to get two good picks, then it was one good pick, now you get a pick after 4th round. That's a massive difference. You go from adding a top 40 player to adding a top 150 player.
I see us as a luxury tax team going forward. Let's assume just for this exercise that they don't want to sign Bradley long-term and he has one year left on deal. Before you got Bradley for a year and top 40 pick, now you get Bradley for year and top 150 pick. While it's true trading a player like Bradly in final year of deal didn't happen much in the past. The new CBA could change that for luxury tax paying teams in the future.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 19, 2017 18:28:27 GMT -5
I did not say "they were just as strong."
The argument has been we can still be a contender beyond 2019.
Can we? Sure, anything can happen. Are the odds meaningfully lower? Hard to argue that they're not, but you sure seem to be trying. I have 4 posts on this thread implying that if we were to trade a star - my implications we'd get multiple players back to fill holes and still be a contender. I can supply them if you want but I think it's unimportant for both of us. I did go back and see one segment I sent to telson may have suggested we'd be just as strong which I apologize if that was the one you used as a primary from my posts. After 2019 it's not what I meant and I cannot say "we'd be just as strong." However, the other 4 posts I can provide say it better. Whether you believe or not I can't change that but I can supply the posts before and after. Four other posts I talk of making a trade and still having a good team. Not saying having "just as good" or "better."
Anyhow, while you say "they can/anything can happen." I say "They probably will/ it probably will happen," barring injuries. Thus I don't agree with your narrative. Here is one of the 4 posts I sent on this thread that I've reiterated my pov: Note on the post I say "to be competitive beyond 2019." I didn't say on this post or the three others we would be "as good as." But ont he other posts I used terms like "STILL CONTEND." 'GOOD ENOUGH RETURN" "STILL REMAIN COMPETITIVE" and "DECENT CHANCE OF BEING GOOD BEYOND 2019." Therefore I just want to make a point I am not trying as you have suggested above. Then again what does your comment "meaningfully lower" mean?
***Getting back to the overall thread-- I'll reiterate - some try to push a narrative we're doomed after 2019. IMO we can make trades during this year, and each year in the future and get decent to good players to be competitive beyond 2019. I don't agree with the negative narrative from some.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 19, 2017 23:15:03 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure nobody here is asserting "doom." Please provide evidence of that. What some *are* saying, to various degrees, is that Dombrowski has created a potentially higher immediate peak (of uncertain real value) for a much more likely, deeper, and more protracted valley when the current contract crop (Hanley, Sale, Porcello, Bradley and then Bogaerts and Rodriguez) nears FA, be it 2018, 2019 or 2020...depending on how they handle it. In financial terms, they went high-beta. If they stink in '21-'22, eventually they'll turn it around. I'd have preferred to see long-term, consistent success. I think that's where they were headed. I think the likelihood of that is reduced, particularly the likelihood of *dominance*. I think Dombrowski's approach has a very high likelihood of pseudo-contending mediocrity once the turnover begins, like the current iteration of the Tigers or the Sox teams of '88-90, or '95-'03. Watchable, sometimes very interesting, with some real stars, but in the end not really *contenders*. Teams with poor salary structure, insufficient young depth, and while few enough holes to make it to the postseason some years, too many to go anywhere when they do.
I'll say it again...I'd've rather seen them go for an *extended run of dominance* over a sell-the-farm all-in now. Sticking out a couple of 88-92 win seasons now (easily possible without Kimbrel, Pomeranz, and Sale) from 2016-2018 and then being able to keep everyone, plus sign FAs, is preferable to me to hoping they win it all this year or next before the homegrown guys start leaving and the big-name imports certainly do, leaving them struggling to plug gaps and stave off mediocrity. All teams get dismantled eventually; I'd've liked to see them NOT hasten the dismantling of this one as much as they have.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 19, 2017 23:18:30 GMT -5
I wanted to add that trading star players before free agency for luxury tax teams might change with new CBA. You used to get two good picks, then it was one good pick, now you get a pick after 4th round. That's a massive difference. You go from adding a top 40 player to adding a top 150 player. I see us as a luxury tax team going forward. Let's assume just for this exercise that they don't want to sign Bradley long-term and he has one year left on deal. Before you got Bradley for a year and top 40 pick, now you get Bradley for year and top 150 pick. While it's true trading a player like Bradly in final year of deal didn't happen much in the past. The new CBA could change that for luxury tax paying teams in the future. This is going to be an interesting development to watch. FA compensation is now essentially valueless. So the team that figured out how to work the system best will have an advantage for a few years until the rest of the league figures it out.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 20, 2017 6:27:03 GMT -5
I wanted to add that trading star players before free agency for luxury tax teams might change with new CBA. You used to get two good picks, then it was one good pick, now you get a pick after 4th round. That's a massive difference. You go from adding a top 40 player to adding a top 150 player. I see us as a luxury tax team going forward. Let's assume just for this exercise that they don't want to sign Bradley long-term and he has one year left on deal. Before you got Bradley for a year and top 40 pick, now you get Bradley for year and top 150 pick. While it's true trading a player like Bradly in final year of deal didn't happen much in the past. The new CBA could change that for luxury tax paying teams in the future. This is going to be an interesting development to watch. FA compensation is now essentially valueless. So the team that figured out how to work the system best will have an advantage for a few years until the rest of the league figures it out. This is a very interesting development with the new contract that, I guess I missed it, but this is the first time anyone saw this situation. EXAMPLE, lets say you do not think you can sign xb to a long term contract and you have him under contract for one more year. You trade him to another team but the new team knows they have him for one year, because he has boras as an agent and will automatically test the open market. What would the sox get back? All star player and excellent bat. Normally I think we would all like back a prospect like torres with the yanks and a pitcher close to the majors. But, with only one year of control as a given would a team give up that type of package. Remember this is an example and the yanks are not trading torres, especially to the sox. If you are in the spot that the cubs were in with chapman last year yes, but under normal circumstances I would think not. The new contract certainly changes the way a team is built.
|
|
|