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 fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 16:17:59 GMT -5
Ok, good talk. This team still has Pablo Sandoval and Mitch Mooreland as it's infield corners by the way. You don't need all stars at every position! You beat me to it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 2, 2017 16:42:44 GMT -5
Learn the rules they could have traded Dalbec and Groome you no longer have to wait a year. You include Betts, Boegarts etc. because they are part of the young core. I agree you can have dissent the I have not agreed with everything, but the amount of negativity is ridiculous it's baseball. To compare Dom to Stewart is plain ridiculous, and how do you know at all there is inner strife, are you there? Good grief, yeah, after the WS. Again, you're hung up on a technicality while ignoring the obvious. Yeah, he *could* have traded them, but he had scant opportunity or need, and they're of relatively (*relatively*) low value being recent picks with minimal experience. Why not include the entire 2016 draft, for the sake of your argument?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 2, 2017 16:50:49 GMT -5
I'm quite sure that I do. Actually I feel you are clueless, I'm guessing I have forgotten more about baseball then you know. Says the guy who was complaining about snark.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 2, 2017 16:55:55 GMT -5
You sir do not understand baseball, I live all around Yankee fans, and believe me they rather be in the Sox shoes. More important to have a good team that competes vs having the number 1 farm system. I'm quite sure that I do. Idk, your crazy ideas about having a healthy farm system contributing to the ML team might argue against that.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 2, 2017 16:57:36 GMT -5
I don't know about you but I'm looking forward to Pablo's bounce back season, and I'm happy to have a guy like Moreland who will hit some homers and play great defense. You know they don't need a superstar at every position, don't you? Yeah but you'd kind of like to have players who are above replacement level at every position and those two are questionable in that regard. And there's no good plan B for either (don't say Brock Holt).
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:00:08 GMT -5
Learn the rules they could have traded Dalbec and Groome you no longer have to wait a year. You include Betts, Boegarts etc. because they are part of the young core. I agree you can have dissent the I have not agreed with everything, but the amount of negativity is ridiculous it's baseball. To compare Dom to Stewart is plain ridiculous, and how do you know at all there is inner strife, are you there? Good grief, yeah, after the WS. Again, you're hung up on a technicality while ignoring the obvious. Yeah, he *could* have traded them, but he had scant opportunity or need, and they're of relatively (*relatively*) low value being recent picks with minimal experience. Why not include the entire 2016 draft, for the sake of your argument? You do realize the trade happened a month after the World Series ended. you do realize Swanson was traded in the same circumstance as this the year prior. you do realize that if the Whitesox asked for Groome instead of Kopech he would be gone. finally when you post something to prove a point you should know the rules.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:00:58 GMT -5
Actually I feel you are clueless, I'm guessing I have forgotten more about baseball then you know. Says the guy who was complaining about snark. Just feeding you the same medicine you feed all other posters.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:03:02 GMT -5
I'm quite sure that I do. Idk, your crazy ideas about having a healthy farm system contributing to the ML team might argue against that. Again it would be great to still have a good farm system, and it will be a challenge to build back up. But to be so negative when we are one of the favorites is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 2, 2017 17:03:07 GMT -5
Good grief, yeah, after the WS. Again, you're hung up on a technicality while ignoring the obvious. Yeah, he *could* have traded them, but he had scant opportunity or need, and they're of relatively (*relatively*) low value being recent picks with minimal experience. Why not include the entire 2016 draft, for the sake of your argument? You do realize the trade happened a month after the World Series ended. you do realize Swanson was traded in the same circumstance as this the year prior. you do realize that if the Whitesox asked for Groome instead of Kopech he would be gone.
finally when you post something to prove a point you should know the rules. Wasn't your whole point "well at least he didn't trade Groome"?
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:05:30 GMT -5
I don't know about you but I'm looking forward to Pablo's bounce back season, and I'm happy to have a guy like Moreland who will hit some homers and play great defense. You know they don't need a superstar at every position, don't you? Yeah but you'd kind of like to have players who are above replacement level at every position and those two are questionable in that regard. And there's no good plan B for either (don't say Brock Holt). Most other teams are in the same boat, you can't have an allstarat every position, and I happen to like Travis and Hernandez.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:06:42 GMT -5
You do realize the trade happened a month after the World Series ended. you do realize Swanson was traded in the same circumstance as this the year prior. you do realize that if the Whitesox asked for Groome instead of Kopech he would be gone.
finally when you post something to prove a point you should know the rules. Wasn't your whole point "well at least he didn't trade Groome"? My whole point was you stated incorrectly he traded 80 % of the farm system.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 2, 2017 17:10:57 GMT -5
I don't know about you but I'm looking forward to Pablo's bounce back season, and I'm happy to have a guy like Moreland who will hit some homers and play great defense. You know they don't need a superstar at every position, don't you? Yeah but you'd kind of like to have players who are above replacement level at every position and those two are questionable in that regard. And there's no good plan B for either (don't say Brock Holt). You have Sam Travis at 1B. 3B is a big worry, still not sure why we didn't bring in more help. Thing is Sandoval should almost certainly be above replacement level. He looks good, I don't think it's a stretch to think he can be league average this year. Thing is every team has it question marks, even the Cubs.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:14:15 GMT -5
Yeah but you'd kind of like to have players who are above replacement level at every position and those two are questionable in that regard. And there's no good plan B for either (don't say Brock Holt). You have Sam Travis at 1B. 3B is a big worry, still not sure why we didn't bring in more help. Thing is Sandoval should almost certainly be above replacement level. He looks good, I don't think it's a stretch to think he can be league average this year. Thing is every team has it question marks, even the Cubs. Actually I think Hernandez could be at least a replacement level player if something happens to Sandavol.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 2, 2017 17:19:20 GMT -5
Idk, your crazy ideas about having a healthy farm system contributing to the ML team might argue against that. Again it would be great to still have a good farm system, and it will be a challenge to build back up. But to be so negative when we are one of the favorites is ridiculous. Dude, the thread is about evaluating Dave Dombrowski's performance, and there's a lot more to making that evaluation than the likely performance of the 2017 team. Dombrowski was handed an outstanding core of talent, and the 2017 team was always going to be pretty good no matter who was running the team. What he's actually done to supplement the team he inherited has largely been to pay some very high prices for some very questionable pitchers. That's not impressive to me. And you're also discounting the damage he's done to the rosters in '18, '19, '20 and beyond. He's traded potentially dozens of future wins for a handful of present ones. Yeah, the team in 2017 is pretty good. Hooray for that! Doesn't mean Dombrowski has done a good job. People were making the same arguments for Rubin Amaro in '11. Maybe you heard, that guy doesn't work in a front office anymore.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 2, 2017 17:23:11 GMT -5
You have Sam Travis at 1B. 3B is a big worry, still not sure why we didn't bring in more help. Thing is Sandoval should almost certainly be above replacement level. He looks good, I don't think it's a stretch to think he can be league average this year. Thing is every team has it question marks, even the Cubs. Actually I think Hernandez could be at least a replacement level player if something happens to Sandavol. I like Hernandez but worry about his D at third if he has to start. It was a small sample last year, but it wasn't very good.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:26:28 GMT -5
The damage is not done to the roster in 18 and 19. 2 pitchers theyy have acquiredrthat are injured are Thornburg and Smith, both should be back this year and both have many years of team control. Pom could be a problem I understand why he made the trade, and not sold its going to be a complete loss.
To compare Doms track record to Amaros is just not correct, wherever he has gone his teams have been successful, and he built and rebuilt these teams many different ways.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:28:44 GMT -5
Actually I think Hernandez could be at least a replacement level player if something happens to Sandavol. I like Hernandez but worry about his D at third if he has to start. It was a small sample last year, but it wasn't very good. Hopefully he will get a lot of work at third at Pawtucket.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 2, 2017 17:29:58 GMT -5
Again it would be great to still have a good farm system, and it will be a challenge to build back up. But to be so negative when we are one of the favorites is ridiculous. Dude, the thread is about evaluating Dave Dombrowski's performance, and there's a lot more to making that evaluation than the likely performance of the 2017 team. Dombrowski was handed an outstanding core of talent, and the 2017 team was always going to be pretty good no matter who was running the team. What he's actually done to supplement the team he inherited has largely been to pay some very high prices for some very questionable pitchers. That's not impressive to me. And you're also discounting the damage he's done to the rosters in '18, '19, '20 and beyond. He's traded potentially dozens of future wins for a handful of present ones. Yeah, the team in 2017 is pretty good. Hooray for that! Doesn't mean Dombrowski has done a good job. People were making the same arguments for Rubin Amaro in '11. Maybe you heard, that guy doesn't work in a front office anymore. If you remove all of DD deals for pitching it's way more than a handful of wins. 2017 wasn't always going to pretty good team. You would have major holes in rotation and bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 2, 2017 17:34:55 GMT -5
Good grief, yeah, after the WS. Again, you're hung up on a technicality while ignoring the obvious. Yeah, he *could* have traded them, but he had scant opportunity or need, and they're of relatively (*relatively*) low value being recent picks with minimal experience. Why not include the entire 2016 draft, for the sake of your argument? You do realize the trade happened a month after the World Series ended. you do realize Swanson was traded in the same circumstance as this the year prior. you do realize that if the Whitesox asked for Groome instead of Kopech he would be gone. finally when you post something to prove a point you should know the rules. I never said he "couldn't," did I? I'm well aware of the Trea Turner rule. There's a reason the White Sox didn't ask for Groome. And you've proven my point for me...I said "opportunity." If you want to obsess over, and get hung up on, the broadest definition of "opportunity" possible, be my guest.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 2, 2017 17:38:03 GMT -5
Says the guy who was complaining about snark. Just feeding you the same medicine you feed all other posters. I reserve the right to disagree. I don't recall being snarky at all about it. I also didn't complain about it. If you're so concerned with decorum, have some integrity and hold yourself to the standards you demand of others. The "well, he started it" rationale doesn't suffice.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:40:53 GMT -5
I'm not a DD fanboy happened to like Ben a lot, but let's revisit DD's legacy, which one day will put him in the hall of fame.
DD built those great Expos teams with very few resources through his farm system. DD built a three year expansion Marlins team into a world championship team in three years, then had to sell off that team because of an owners edict, and rebuilt that team into a world championship team in 2003. No longer the GM but those Marlins were his players. DD took over a Tigers team which was historically bad, in a few years they went to the World Series and kept them competitive for 9 years. You can say he left them in bad shape but owner wanted a world championship.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Apr 2, 2017 17:41:17 GMT -5
Yeah but you'd kind of like to have players who are above replacement level at every position and those two are questionable in that regard. And there's no good plan B for either (don't say Brock Holt). Most other teams are in the same boat, you can't have an allstarat every position, and I happen to like Travis and Hernandez. You've been spot on with your posts. It's not that others are "wrong" -- like the poster you are arguing with. His argument appears to look at if none of the questions do well then we won't do as well. There is reason why The Sox are projected to win their division and at least what I've seen from fangrpahs projected as the 2nd best AL team. It means they either have less questions or more strengths. IMO what you are dealing with here are many pessimistic fans that have seen so much go wrong especially during most of the Ben Cherrington era that they are projecting negativism to this team as well and nothing is going to change their minds.
Sure we could have nearly every starter have a sub-par year. Sure it's possible. But - I'm pretty sure nearly every team in the AL would love to have the red sox "uncertainty" problems. I wonder if this same negative narrative will continue over the next three years even if the Sox are very, very good. But as you say-- it is mind-boggling to read as much negativity for a team projected to be good for several years.
I guess that is the life of the Red Sox fan, expect the worst.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 2, 2017 17:42:41 GMT -5
Yeah but you'd kind of like to have players who are above replacement level at every position and those two are questionable in that regard. And there's no good plan B for either (don't say Brock Holt). You have Sam Travis at 1B. 3B is a big worry, still not sure why we didn't bring in more help. Thing is Sandoval should almost certainly be above replacement level. He looks good, I don't think it's a stretch to think he can be league average this year. Thing is every team has it question marks, even the Cubs. I really hope Devers has a big spring a la 2014 Mookie. If he's in AAA by late July, he provides depth. I'm rooting for Panda, but his lack of walks and overall aggressive approach coupled with the injury history make him a big question mark.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:44:16 GMT -5
You do realize the trade happened a month after the World Series ended. you do realize Swanson was traded in the same circumstance as this the year prior. you do realize that if the Whitesox asked for Groome instead of Kopech he would be gone. finally when you post something to prove a point you should know the rules. I never said he "couldn't," did I? I'm well aware of the Trea Turner rule. There's a reason the White Sox didn't ask for Groome. And you've proven my point for me...I said "opportunity." If you want to obsess over, and get hung up on, the broadest definition of "opportunity" possible, be my guest. Stop rewriting your history you said he could not trade those two and you were clearly wrong. Nice that you know the Trea Turner rule now, because when you first posted it you sure didn't. and who knows if they asked for Groome , they might have asked and the Sox said you can have Kopech.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Apr 2, 2017 17:49:54 GMT -5
Just feeding you the same medicine you feed all other posters. I reserve the right to disagree. I don't recall being snarky at all about it. I also didn't complain about it. If you're so concerned with decorum, have some integrity and hold yourself to the standards you demand of others. The "well, he started it" rationale doesn't suffice. Actually I do agree you have the right to disagree and I do agree you are respectful to other posters. I thought I was responding to Fenway the hard way when I made the comment. my rationale also was not he started it.
|
|
|