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 telson13 on Dec 11, 2016 19:45:21 GMT -5
Consensus at the time of Miller-ERod was that the Sox got a terrific deal. Since then the reliever market has gone completely insane. At the time, it was a coup. Lackey was a calculated risk to try to get a potential #1 in Kelly. It didn't work out that way, although if he's as good in relief as he was last fall, he might command a huge haul in a trade. Or, allow them to do that with Kimbrel. Lester became Porcello, who performed similarly last year at five years younger and with a much, much better contract. Porcello's 2015 was Lester's 2012. It just came at a bad time for Cherington. Those terrible teams were, in significant part, due to poor choices by Theo at the end of his term (under intense ownership pressure). Just as last year's team was largely the product of good decisions to hold onto and develop players by Cherington. The Lackey trade was just horrible from the minute it was made. At the time I said you had to get Miller, not Kelly. I for one never thought Kelly was ever going to be close to a #1. You could hope he put it all together, but very few guys like him turn into #1 starters. It was a risk they should never have taken. Never mind all the money we have had to pay Craig for nothing. If Lackey was a to be free agent I could have seen making that trade, but you had Lackey for one more year at Vet minimum. Sure Lester turned into Porcello, but you could have had both. Just like the Yankees have Chapman and Torres. They did try to resign him, but thought it was too much money, which looks foolish now. You can't Blame Theo for the 2 straight last place finishes. The Dodger trade basically undid all the bad that Theo had done. That is all on Cherington! Things like no weight clause in Pablo's deal is Ben's fault, thinking Ramirez could just play OF is on Ben. Not having enough pitching is on Cherington. Anthony Rizzo. I have plenty of issues with Cherington's MLB-level talent assessment. He had very mixed success. But his minor league assessment/amateur assessment were generally excellent. Somewhere between him and Dombrowski is the sweet spot. Which, really, is Epstein.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 11, 2016 20:46:35 GMT -5
How can one call Pomeranz trade a loss? Loss of what? AE has never played a game. If the point is he could have been part of a different trade, that is just theory (and assumes trading prospects CAN be ok). Pomeranz was up and down for Sox, so that makes it wait-and-see, but if he has .01 WAR this year and AE never makes the bigs, it's a practical win (and people can play alternative reality trades forever). AE, Kopech, Margot: not a game between them. In return, all star, all star, all star. At least 2 of those all stars have high likelihood of repeat all star seasons, and Pom has high potential to be really solid at #4. I won't call that a loss for years, if ever (those prospects will have to reach ceilings to make these losses). The trades for Smith and T'burg are always risky, w/ relievers' health, but combined, they basically gave up Dubon. Not losing sleep. If a GM doesn't try for those power arms, it's gross negligence. This sort of argument is so backwards and short-sighted, I don't even know what to do with it. If you can't grasp the value of minor league payers, you're probably better off commenting on BDC. 99.99% of players are minor leaguers at some point. So the idea that they have "no practical value" until they play MLB is just...whatever. The incredible thing is that you allude to Travis Shaw, an average MLBer, as completely worthless. Same for Wade Miley. Good grief. I left Shaw out because he was useful: he helped get a power arm. I watched him all year last year, and he is Will Middlebrooks. Glad they got value while they could. Miley, too, was awful last year. The risk they took on Smith was fine. It was a bummer he got hurt, but anyone who says no to that trade when it happened is -- crazy is too strong, but let's say making a mistake. Moves can be right but not work out. That's why they play the games.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2016 20:48:30 GMT -5
The Lackey trade was just horrible from the minute it was made. At the time I said you had to get Miller, not Kelly. I for one never thought Kelly was ever going to be close to a #1. You could hope he put it all together, but very few guys like him turn into #1 starters. It was a risk they should never have taken. Never mind all the money we have had to pay Craig for nothing. If Lackey was a to be free agent I could have seen making that trade, but you had Lackey for one more year at Vet minimum. Sure Lester turned into Porcello, but you could have had both. Just like the Yankees have Chapman and Torres. They did try to resign him, but thought it was too much money, which looks foolish now. You can't Blame Theo for the 2 straight last place finishes. The Dodger trade basically undid all the bad that Theo had done. That is all on Cherington! Things like no weight clause in Pablo's deal is Ben's fault, thinking Ramirez could just play OF is on Ben. Not having enough pitching is on Cherington. Anthony Rizzo. I have plenty of issues with Cherington's MLB-level talent assessment. He had very mixed success. But his minor league assessment/amateur assessment were generally excellent. Somewhere between him and Dombrowski is the sweet spot. Which, really, is Epstein. I knew you were going to bring up Rizzo, I left him off because Cherington got 2 very good prospects in the Dodgers trade. They never developed and turned into Wade Miley, then into Smith. While Rizzo would have helped, he wasn't saving our 2014 and 2015 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Dec 11, 2016 21:05:56 GMT -5
I knew it was only a matter of time for people to start crediting the 2016 success to DDo, when the team was largely Theo's and Ben's. And I recognize there are some posters blinded by "love of prospects" that they don't give credit to moves made that helped get us in the playoffs. It's unreal sometimes the love Ben gets for a team that finished last 3 of 4 years.
Kimbrel and Price and Pomz helped get us into the playoffs. I don't understand why some of you don't understand that. DD had said to start the year "contracts don't ensure starting roles." A change of attitude. I don't understand why some of you don't understand that. Red Sox said goodbye to Joe Kelley as a starter. I don't see why Ben should get credit for this. This DD team didn't put Hanley in left field, that was Ben that did that. Zeigler helped us. How did Ben have anything to do with that? That's right you want to give credit only to Ben for having that "15th rated prospect."
Again- Ben finished last 3 of 4 years.
You missed that bolded part.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 12, 2016 0:50:50 GMT -5
Anthony Rizzo. I have plenty of issues with Cherington's MLB-level talent assessment. He had very mixed success. But his minor league assessment/amateur assessment were generally excellent. Somewhere between him and Dombrowski is the sweet spot. Which, really, is Epstein. I knew you were going to bring up Rizzo, I left him off because Cherington got 2 very good prospects in the Dodgers trade. They never developed and turned into Wade Miley, then into Smith. While Rizzo would have helped, he wasn't saving our 2014 and 2015 seasons. It's all part of the same point, though: there's a place in between the "player-development machine," and trading the system for a few veterans. Cherington inherited a BAD team in 2012 (largely, as we've discussed before, from a string of generally bad late 2000s drafts and big trades/signings that didn't pan out, along with aging of a number of key players). There were tons of holes. He had an incredible offseason in 2013. But with little MLB-ready help in the system, the team struggled in '14-15. At the same time, the only thing that allowed DD to do just about everything he did was an incredibly talented core and one of the best minor league systems in the game. That's a product of Cherington's "hoarding" of prospects. I have little doubt that, under Cherington, the team would've been much better in '16, too. DD made three "impact" moves, with one (Smith) a '16 loss (but a good move I think, nonetheless), a mediocre/questionable one (Kimbrel), and a solid, if unspectacular one (strange, but true: Price). Price had a significant positive effect on the rotation, so DD gets credit there. But otherwise, it was almost wholly Cherington's team. DD made some key edicts (performance plays; JBJ gets a shot), but it's not like he "built" the team. He tweaked it. And he was able to be "bold" (i.e., spend exhorbitantly) because of the massive wealth of talent that Cherington accrued.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 12, 2016 1:08:27 GMT -5
And I recognize there are some posters blinded by "love of prospects" that they don't give credit to moves made that helped get us in the playoffs. It's unreal sometimes the love Ben gets for a team that finished last 3 of 4 years.
Kimbrel and Price and Pomz helped get us into the playoffs. I don't understand why some of you don't understand that. DD had said to start the year "contracts don't ensure starting roles." A change of attitude. I don't understand why some of you don't understand that. Red Sox said goodbye to Joe Kelley as a starter. I don't see why Ben should get credit for this. This DD team didn't put Hanley in left field, that was Ben that did that. Zeigler helped us. How did Ben have anything to do with that? That's right you want to give credit only to Ben for having that "15th rated prospect."
Again- Ben finished last 3 of 4 years.
You missed that bolded part. So was it largely Ben's fault that we lost in the playoffs?
|
|
|
Post by slam761 on Dec 12, 2016 1:58:47 GMT -5
I think JBJ is worth a team-friendly extension (if he'd do it) to increase his trade value. Not happening. Scott Boras is JBJ's agent. That means nothing. Boras clients have signed team friendly deals before.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Dec 12, 2016 3:13:21 GMT -5
Not happening. Scott Boras is JBJ's agent. That means nothing. Boras clients have signed team friendly deals before. Can you name one not named Strasburg (whose deal might not be team friendly at all given all of his arm/elbow issues?) I'm pretty sure Boras is on the record essentially telling his clients never to sign extensions ahead of free agency except in what might be described as extreme circumstances, and I certainly can't remember a Boras client who signed for a hometown discount
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 12, 2016 3:19:51 GMT -5
No the topic he was arguing about at the time was that Cherington could never win a championship. This thread is about DD and the way he runs the Red Sox. I was directly replying to his comment that the 2013 team was all because of Theo, which wasn't the case, a large part of it was Theo. A large part was also Ben. The more Charington made the team his own, the worst we got. For every good move he made, he made 1 or 2 stupid or bad moves. You're basically naming every GM in the league not named Theo Epstein, and even Theo had his warts with bad long-term contracts with players he covets.
|
|
|
Post by slam761 on Dec 12, 2016 5:08:54 GMT -5
That means nothing. Boras clients have signed team friendly deals before. Can you name one not named Strasburg (whose deal might not be team friendly at all given all of his arm/elbow issues?) I'm pretty sure Boras is on the record essentially telling his clients never to sign extensions ahead of free agency except in what might be described as extreme circumstances, and I certainly can't remember a Boras client who signed for a hometown discount www.espn.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/6889644/jered-weaver-bucks-scott-boras-advice-new-los-angeles-angels-deal"Jered Weaver admits he had to go against the advice of agent Scott Boras before agreeing to the Los Angeles Angels' five-year, $85 million contract extension, but he said the lure of staying home outweighed the seduction of greater riches. "If $85 (million) is not enough to take care of my family and other generations of families then I'm pretty stupid, but how much money do you really need in life?" Weaver said Tuesday. "I've never played this game for the money. I played it for the love and the competitive part of it. It just so happens that baseball's going to be taking care of me for the rest of my life." Weaver, 28, may have left tens of millions on the table by signing 15 months before he reached free agency. He might have been able to get a deal that approaches the seven-year, $161 million contract CC Sabathia signed with the New York Yankees before the 2009 season." It's not like Boras owns his clients. He can advise them against taking an extension all he wants, but he can't stop them from signing it.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Dec 12, 2016 7:44:31 GMT -5
You missed that bolded part. So was it largely Ben's fault that we lost in the playoffs? I don't know. Playoffs are a crapshoot, so I try not to blame anyone for what happens in the playoffs, unless there's a history of choking (e.g. Price). I mean, Ortiz batted .111. Should we blame him? You probably know better than that.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 12, 2016 8:25:32 GMT -5
So was it largely Ben's fault that we lost in the playoffs? I don't know. Playoffs are a crapshoot, so I try not to blame anyone for what happens in the playoffs, unless there's a history of choking (e.g. Price). I mean, Ortiz batted .111. Should we blame him? You probably know better than that. Of course not. LOL. I largely expected this type of post.
Yet we want to give Ben credit for the championship in 2013, don't we? What I do know is that from some when things don't go right, then it will be DD's team. If they go right some want to largely give credit to Ben. I have no doubt if the Red Sox would have won the world series, we'd hear how it was largely Ben. After all we've seen the last few years the best team in baseball (Cubs) wins a world series and it was just a crapshoot. LOL. We see last year the Royals win - they got to W/s two straight year they win - yet it was a crapshoot. LOL. And then San Fran with Bum leading them- a prior champ they win. It was a crapshoot. LOL. OFC NO ONE could expected these team to ever win. LOL
As far as Ortiz. He is one of many players on the team. Not all the blame could be on him but what is .111 vs the year he had in 2013? If we're to give him accolades for 2013 why wouldn't he get some get blame for 2016? He batted .111 but its not his fault at all for batting .111? Whose fault is it when they lose in the playoffs? You mean it's not the player's fault because it's all a crapshoot? I see now why you largely didn't want to give as much credit to DD. You don't want to blame anyone. What does "lose" mean to you? Apparently 3 years in last place out of 4, it meant nothing.
This 2016 team was DD's team. From the start of camp he said best player wins the job regardless of salary. Farrell came out and said it was refreshing that he was allowed to do this. Clearly he was speaking of a prior meddling GM. I guess things like this and when for example Clay and ERod were collapsing early on and we need Pomz, all these type of moves don't matter because it was Ben's team. So until 51% of the players leave - and no matter what DD does in terms of management, it will still be Ben's team? You probably know better than that.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 12, 2016 8:33:09 GMT -5
It's not like Boras owns his clients. He can advise them against taking an extension all he wants, but he can't stop them from signing it. Not this straw man again. No one is saying Boras forces his clients to do anything. But the fact is the vast majority of them don't sign these kinds of deals, and that's what, a coincidence? They hire Boras for a reason and it is not unreasonable to assume that, with few exceptions, his clients won't take team friendly extensions, and to imply otherwise is to be obtuse.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2016 10:00:21 GMT -5
It's not like Boras owns his clients. He can advise them against taking an extension all he wants, but he can't stop them from signing it. Not this straw man again. No one is saying Boras forces his clients to do anything. But the fact is the vast majority of them don't sign these kinds of deals, and that's what, a coincidence? They hire Boras for a reason and it is not unreasonable to assume that, with few exceptions, his clients won't take team friendly extensions, and to imply otherwise is to be obtuse. They might hire Boras to get him the best deal with the team of their choosing, not just to get the best deal. It's pretty weird to make blanket statements about anyone. Varitek had Boras as an agent too. We have heard nothing from Xander or JBJ or Boras about what their intentions are so there isn't any need to fill in the blanks yet.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Dec 12, 2016 10:27:43 GMT -5
I don't know. Playoffs are a crapshoot, so I try not to blame anyone for what happens in the playoffs, unless there's a history of choking (e.g. Price). I mean, Ortiz batted .111. Should we blame him? You probably know better than that. Of course not. LOL. I largely expected this type of post.
Yet we want to give Ben credit for the championship in 2013, don't we? What I do know is that from some when things don't go right, then it will be DD's team. If they go right some want to largely give credit to Ben. I have no doubt if the Red Sox would have won the world series, we'd hear how it was largely Ben. After all we've seen the last few years the best team in baseball (Cubs) wins a world series and it was just a crapshoot. LOL. We see last year the Royals win - they got to W/s two straight year they win - yet it was a crapshoot. LOL. And then San Fran with Bum leading them- a prior champ they win. It was a crapshoot. LOL. OFC NO ONE could expected these team to ever win. LOL
As far as Ortiz. He is one of many players on the team. Not all the blame could be on him but what is .111 vs the year he had in 2013? If we're to give him accolades for 2013 why wouldn't he get some get blame for 2016? He batted .111 but its not his fault at all for batting .111? Whose fault is it when they lose in the playoffs? You mean it's not the player's fault because it's all a crapshoot? I see now why you largely didn't want to give as much credit to DD. You don't want to blame anyone. What does "lose" mean to you? Apparently 3 years in last place out of 4, it meant nothing.
This 2016 team was DD's team. From the start of camp he said best player wins the job regardless of salary. Farrell came out and said it was refreshing that he was allowed to do this. Clearly he was speaking of a prior meddling GM. I guess things like this and when for example Clay and ERod were collapsing early on and we need Pomz, all these type of moves don't matter because it was Ben's team. So until 51% of the players leave - and no matter what DD does in terms of management, it will still be Ben's team? You probably know better than that.
Ben gets accolades because he inherited a losing team with no flexibility and he went and created the flexibility via a trade with the Dodgers and used that flexibility to make some shrewd signings that resulted in one of the most awesome teams to watch in our lifetimes. DD, on the other hand, inherited a team in the upswing with one of the best, if not the best, farm systems in all of baseball plus enough payroll flexibility to add a top of the rotation starter. Do you understand that there's a huge difference between the two situations?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 12, 2016 15:14:16 GMT -5
Of course not. LOL. I largely expected this type of post.
Yet we want to give Ben credit for the championship in 2013, don't we? What I do know is that from some when things don't go right, then it will be DD's team. If they go right some want to largely give credit to Ben. I have no doubt if the Red Sox would have won the world series, we'd hear how it was largely Ben. After all we've seen the last few years the best team in baseball (Cubs) wins a world series and it was just a crapshoot. LOL. We see last year the Royals win - they got to W/s two straight year they win - yet it was a crapshoot. LOL. And then San Fran with Bum leading them- a prior champ they win. It was a crapshoot. LOL. OFC NO ONE could expected these team to ever win. LOL
As far as Ortiz. He is one of many players on the team. Not all the blame could be on him but what is .111 vs the year he had in 2013? If we're to give him accolades for 2013 why wouldn't he get some get blame for 2016? He batted .111 but its not his fault at all for batting .111? Whose fault is it when they lose in the playoffs? You mean it's not the player's fault because it's all a crapshoot? I see now why you largely didn't want to give as much credit to DD. You don't want to blame anyone. What does "lose" mean to you? Apparently 3 years in last place out of 4, it meant nothing.
This 2016 team was DD's team. From the start of camp he said best player wins the job regardless of salary. Farrell came out and said it was refreshing that he was allowed to do this. Clearly he was speaking of a prior meddling GM. I guess things like this and when for example Clay and ERod were collapsing early on and we need Pomz, all these type of moves don't matter because it was Ben's team. So until 51% of the players leave - and no matter what DD does in terms of management, it will still be Ben's team? You probably know better than that.
Ben gets accolades because he inherited a losing team with no flexibility and he went and created the flexibility via a trade with the Dodgers and used that flexibility to make some shrewd signings that resulted in one of the most awesome teams to watch in our lifetimes. DD, on the other hand, inherited a team in the upswing with one of the best, if not the best, farm systems in all of baseball plus enough payroll flexibility to add a top of the rotation starter. Do you understand that there's a huge difference between the two situations? Ben gets accolades sure but it seems like you want to give him no demerits. For example, you speak of DD having the team on an upswing. Can you please explain how you can't go on an upswing after finishing in last place? Therefore no matter where the sox finish as long as it wasn't last place, to people like you the improvement will always be mostly Ben. That's ridiculous. So until the team is 51% drafted by DD or traded this is Ben's team?
This team went from last to 1st in arguably the best division in baseball. Yes Ben did it too a prior year, but then went back to last. Doesn't that tell you something was horribly wrong? This isn't NORMAL. Going from last to 1st is very, very unusual but he went back-and-forth and now DD just took a team that was last and got them to 1st. A last place team. That was one helluva an upswing!!!
The Red sox made a statement by making it clear at ST that salaries meant nothing. Best player plays. The manager even said how refreshing that was. Why do you think he said that? Because he had a meddling GM ,most likely, right? You're just going to ignore that and the implications that probably started the year before? DD opened up the 3b job. DD probably forced HanRam in some manner that he'd have to work for a spot too. If you want to disregard that then anyhow he wasn't the idiot that tried to put him in left field to begin with, now was he? DD picked up a very productive outfielder in Young. DD brought up Benitendi fast which we know Big Ben was shy to rush minor league players. Big Ben got a closer and as much as Koji was hurt and Taz was hurt and awful, thank God we did get one, right? Otherwise where would have our bullpen been? Big Ben had Kelly starting yet we know the folly in that, right? Is this a Ben move or DD move putting him in the pen? I get the feeling posters like you will give kudos to Ben if he does well but blame DD if he flops. What about Price and Pomeranz? Do we have a shot at the playoffs without these two? Would Big Ben have had the guts to do what DD did to Clay? Just like what he did with Panda? You see these type of benchings and trades etc and you don't think it has much effect on the players? Can't you see the difference between the two GM's?
And you're talking to me about upswing? Really? DD built up the starting staff a bit (without Price and Pomz no playoffs) and pounces on Clay's pathetic start. He gets a closer which was desperately needed, he brings in two new outfielders, he sets an example that best player plays so guys like Panda and HanRam know they have to compete and you say "this is largely Ben's team?" You've got to be kidding. You've got to be kidding.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 12, 2016 15:36:54 GMT -5
The more Charington made the team his own, the worst we got. For every good move he made, he made 1 or 2 stupid or bad moves. You're basically naming every GM in the league not named Theo Epstein, and even Theo had his warts with bad long-term contracts with players he covets. Go look up DD track record he has way more good moves than bad moves. What your saying is just not true. I think Cherington in time if he learns from his mistakes could become a very good GM. He really should have stayed on for a year with DD. That way he got to see how Theo and DD run teams. I think he let his pride get in the way of a great opportunity!
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 12, 2016 16:24:04 GMT -5
You're basically naming every GM in the league not named Theo Epstein, and even Theo had his warts with bad long-term contracts with players he covets. Go look up DD track record he has way more good moves than bad moves. What your saying is just not true. I think Cherington in time if he learns from his mistakes could become a very good GM. He really should have stayed on for a year with DD. That way he got to see how Theo and DD run teams. I think he let his pride get in the way of a great opportunity! Again, you're naming a lot of gms in that aspect. Ben's good moves- Gonzalez trade Stephen Drew (the first time he signed him) Victorino (even though he was useless by the end) Napoli Koji Moncada Porcello Stephen Wright Manny Margot Rafael Devers Anderson Espinoza There's plenty of good and bad parts with Ben's time here, just like with DD over the years.
|
|
texs31
Veteran
Posts: 5,216
Member is Online
|
Post by texs31 on Dec 12, 2016 17:03:35 GMT -5
Seems unfair (?) to evaluate a body of work by choosing now as the stopping point for the work. There is more to be done and evaluated if we are looking at all of his moves together (which we seem to be doing in bashing how he's traded all of these prospects.
He has put the Sox in a position to be a legitimate contender for the next few years.
If DD is able to use the draft, the IFA market and excess to replenish those assets that were used to be in our current position, then his body of work looks completely different.
Granted, he's only accomplished the easy part (spending money and prospects). Identifying the right young players to extend and identifying young talent to add to the system is much harder. And he may fail at it. But it's not yet time to call him out until he's attempted and failed (or not attempted at all).
Pretty sure the mandate was to, 1st, build a championship caliber team that can sustain for a few years (which I think he's done) and 2nd, keep building an system (at least that SHOULD be the mandate - don't know if that's ownerships). That one remains to be seen.
Just feel like we're yelling at someone for being late when there is still time for them to make it on schedule.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 12, 2016 21:54:55 GMT -5
Not happening. Scott Boras is JBJ's agent. That means nothing. Boras clients have signed team friendly deals before. Yeah, Strasburg being the most recent high-profile example. It all depends on what the player wants.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 12, 2016 21:57:18 GMT -5
Ben gets accolades because he inherited a losing team with no flexibility and he went and created the flexibility via a trade with the Dodgers and used that flexibility to make some shrewd signings that resulted in one of the most awesome teams to watch in our lifetimes. DD, on the other hand, inherited a team in the upswing with one of the best, if not the best, farm systems in all of baseball plus enough payroll flexibility to add a top of the rotation starter. Do you understand that there's a huge difference between the two situations? Ben gets accolades sure but it seems like you want to give him no demerits. For example, you speak of DD having the team on an upswing. Can you please explain how you can't go on an upswing after finishing in last place? Therefore no matter where the sox finish as long as it wasn't last place, to people like you the improvement will always be mostly Ben. That's ridiculous. So until the team is 51% drafted by DD or traded this is Ben's team?
This team went from last to 1st in arguably the best division in baseball. Yes Ben did it too a prior year, but then went back to last. Doesn't that tell you something was horribly wrong? This isn't NORMAL. Going from last to 1st is very, very unusual but he went back-and-forth and now DD just took a team that was last and got them to 1st. A last place team. That was one helluva an upswing!!!
The Red sox made a statement by making it clear at ST that salaries meant nothing. Best player plays. The manager even said how refreshing that was. Why do you think he said that? Because he had a meddling GM ,most likely, right? You're just going to ignore that and the implications that probably started the year before? DD opened up the 3b job. DD probably forced HanRam in some manner that he'd have to work for a spot too. If you want to disregard that then anyhow he wasn't the idiot that tried to put him in left field to begin with, now was he? DD picked up a very productive outfielder in Young. DD brought up Benitendi fast which we know Big Ben was shy to rush minor league players. Big Ben got a closer and as much as Koji was hurt and Taz was hurt and awful, thank God we did get one, right? Otherwise where would have our bullpen been? Big Ben had Kelly starting yet we know the folly in that, right? Is this a Ben move or DD move putting him in the pen? I get the feeling posters like you will give kudos to Ben if he does well but blame DD if he flops. What about Price and Pomeranz? Do we have a shot at the playoffs without these two? Would Big Ben have had the guts to do what DD did to Clay? Just like what he did with Panda? You see these type of benchings and trades etc and you don't think it has much effect on the players? Can't you see the difference between the two GM's?
And you're talking to me about upswing? Really? DD built up the starting staff a bit (without Price and Pomz no playoffs) and pounces on Clay's pathetic start. He gets a closer which was desperately needed, he brings in two new outfielders, he sets an example that best player plays so guys like Panda and HanRam know they have to compete and you say "this is largely Ben's team?" You've got to be kidding. You've got to be kidding.
Please provide a remotely rational argument for how Pomeranz helped "get them to the playoffs."
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 12, 2016 22:24:19 GMT -5
Ben gets accolades sure but it seems like you want to give him no demerits. For example, you speak of DD having the team on an upswing. Can you please explain how you can't go on an upswing after finishing in last place? Therefore no matter where the sox finish as long as it wasn't last place, to people like you the improvement will always be mostly Ben. That's ridiculous. So until the team is 51% drafted by DD or traded this is Ben's team?
This team went from last to 1st in arguably the best division in baseball. Yes Ben did it too a prior year, but then went back to last. Doesn't that tell you something was horribly wrong? This isn't NORMAL. Going from last to 1st is very, very unusual but he went back-and-forth and now DD just took a team that was last and got them to 1st. A last place team. That was one helluva an upswing!!!
The Red sox made a statement by making it clear at ST that salaries meant nothing. Best player plays. The manager even said how refreshing that was. Why do you think he said that? Because he had a meddling GM ,most likely, right? You're just going to ignore that and the implications that probably started the year before? DD opened up the 3b job. DD probably forced HanRam in some manner that he'd have to work for a spot too. If you want to disregard that then anyhow he wasn't the idiot that tried to put him in left field to begin with, now was he? DD picked up a very productive outfielder in Young. DD brought up Benitendi fast which we know Big Ben was shy to rush minor league players. Big Ben got a closer and as much as Koji was hurt and Taz was hurt and awful, thank God we did get one, right? Otherwise where would have our bullpen been? Big Ben had Kelly starting yet we know the folly in that, right? Is this a Ben move or DD move putting him in the pen? I get the feeling posters like you will give kudos to Ben if he does well but blame DD if he flops. What about Price and Pomeranz? Do we have a shot at the playoffs without these two? Would Big Ben have had the guts to do what DD did to Clay? Just like what he did with Panda? You see these type of benchings and trades etc and you don't think it has much effect on the players? Can't you see the difference between the two GM's?
And you're talking to me about upswing? Really? DD built up the starting staff a bit (without Price and Pomz no playoffs) and pounces on Clay's pathetic start. He gets a closer which was desperately needed, he brings in two new outfielders, he sets an example that best player plays so guys like Panda and HanRam know they have to compete and you say "this is largely Ben's team?" You've got to be kidding. You've got to be kidding.
Please provide a remotely rational argument for how Pomeranz helped "get them to the playoffs." Pomeranz won 3 games for a playoff team, so he helped get them to playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 12, 2016 23:12:33 GMT -5
He has traded, what, 16 prospects? 19? I lost count. And so far, the only return that has performed to expectations is Ziegler. For two months. I guess jury is still out on the others, but DDo is off to a bad start. It goes to show that not unlike prospects there's no sure thing in baseball. I'd be lying if I said the dizzying pace at which DD has traded away minor league prospects wasn't making me feel a bit queasy, and very uneasy about the diminished long-term prospects for the major league club. I also worry a lot about the regression to the mean of pitchers with marquee track records (e.g., Kimbrel, Price, Sale) or breakout seasons (Smith, Pomeranz, Thornburg) prior to coming over to Boston. That being said, do you think it's appropriate to give DD credit for properly handicapping the odds of prospects panning out? Let's revisit the Sox trading end of the Kimbrel trade, which has been widely panned to date. 1. MARGOT -- .326/.419/.745 slash line at AA Portland prior to the trade >> .351/.426/.777 slash line at AAA El Paso (24-40% more favorable for runs and hits relative to Pawtucket -- www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20150703&content_id=134278096&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb)2. GUERRA -- anomalous .329/.449/.778 slash line at low A Greenville prior to the trade >> .264/.325/.589 slash line at high A Lake Elsinore 3. ASUAJE -- .334/.374/.709 slash line at AA Portland prior to the trade >> .378/.473/.851 slash line at AAA El Paso. 4. ALLEN -- 0.90 ERA / 0.65 WHIP / 10.8 K/9 / 0.4 BB/9 in Rookie League prior to the trade >> 3.33 ERA / 1.30 WHIP / 7.8 K/9 / 3.7 BB/9 at A-ball Fort Wayne DD might regret including Asuaje in the deal, but would any of us have rejected a Zimbrel for Margot and Asuaje trade out of hand at the time? And DD made this trade several months prior to the market for high K/9 relievers going absolutely bonkers. Does he get any credit for anticipating how market prices would escalate? Even with Margot seemingly developing into a solid MLB CF prospect, don't you think DD could turn around and trade Zimbrel to a 2017 contender for a more significant haul than what he gave up last offseason if the season goes south? And that doesn't even bake in any 2nd year performance improvement from Kimbrel or the potential for acquiring prospects who aren't actually blocked at the MLB level by the Killer B's or Pedroia.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 12, 2016 23:16:31 GMT -5
That means nothing. Boras clients have signed team friendly deals before. Can you name one not named Strasburg (whose deal might not be team friendly at all given all of his arm/elbow issues?) I'm pretty sure Boras is on the record essentially telling his clients never to sign extensions ahead of free agency except in what might be described as extreme circumstances, and I certainly can't remember a Boras client who signed for a hometown discount Varitek Cargo Weaver
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 12, 2016 23:24:23 GMT -5
Please provide a remotely rational argument for how Pomeranz helped "get them to the playoffs." Pomeranz won 3 games for a playoff team, so he helped get them to playoffs. And lost five, for a team that played nearly .600 ball. So by that argument, he hurt them.
|
|
|