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 Mar 4, 2017 2:42:35 GMT -5
With 30 days to go till Opening Day; Price, Wright, Pomeranz, E. Rod, Thornburg, Hanley are all dealing with injuries not to mention Swihart, Smith & Workman still working their way back from injuries. I can't believe that the Starting Pitching Depth is; Owens, Johnson, Elias, Kendrick & Velazquez. Terrible job by D.D. A pitching staff full of injuries and soft tossers Man, that is absolutely ridiculous. Do you honestly think all other teams have Sandy Koufax and Pedro Martinez in their prime lined up as their #7 and #8 starters? Seriously the Red Sox have six decent to excellent options in the rotation which is three to four more than most teams have. Kendrick is a mediocrity but there is a chance that Bannister could help him and Velazquez might be a sneaky good pickup. His K/BB ratio in Mexico was fantastic. Yeah, it was Mexico, but there's a chance he could be useful if needed. To be dismissive of them is kind of crazy, and those two are certainly no worse than any other team's #7 and #8 starters. And as far as soft tossers go, Price and Sale are capable of whiffing 200 batters plus per season, Porcello came close and the whole bullpen is comprised of guys that throw mid 90s and better. So what in the world are you talking about? Some of your takes are really, really out there. You forgot about Rodriguez. Junkballer supreme.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 4, 2017 8:14:01 GMT -5
Some people will never accept the trades even if every prospect traded busts out because they will say they could have been used for different players.
It's easy to say in hindsight those things about Bagwell and Middlebrooks. But you can say the same things about the guys they just traded:
It was easy to see Espinoza not reaching his Potential because he couldn't even get A ball hitters out consistently.
It was easy to see..
... Moncada because of his K rate
... Kopech because of his control and lack of track record
Etc etc
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 4, 2017 9:20:27 GMT -5
You forgot about Rodriguez. Junkballer supreme. Well of course Steven Wright doesn't throw hard and can be considered a soft tosser so he must stink.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 4, 2017 9:24:08 GMT -5
Some people will never accept the trades even if every prospect traded busts out because they will say they could have been used for different players. It's easy to say in hindsight those things about Bagwell and Middlebrooks. But you can say the same things about the guys they just traded: It was easy to see Espinoza not reaching his Potential because he couldn't even get A ball hitters out consistently. It was easy to see.. ... Moncada because of his K rate ... Kopech because of his control and lack of track record Etc etc Bill James was right on the Jeff Bagwell deal BEFORE Bagwell suited up for Houston. He knew the Red Sox blundered bad and he said something along the lines that this trade will haunt Lou Gorman until the day he dies. He wasn't second guessing what the Red Sox lost. He had a book out in 1991 after he finished his run of Baseball Abstracts and I remember his comment on Bagwell. Some prospects are easier to project than other ones who really can just go either way.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 4, 2017 9:26:02 GMT -5
For all of the criticisms over the years, justified and not, David Dombrowski screwing up because he's just too in love with junkballers and soft tossers is... not one I've heard before.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 4, 2017 9:57:50 GMT -5
Some people will never accept the trades even if every prospect traded busts out because they will say they could have been used for different players. It's easy to say in hindsight those things about Bagwell and Middlebrooks. But you can say the same things about the guys they just traded: It was easy to see Espinoza not reaching his Potential because he couldn't even get A ball hitters out consistently. It was easy to see.. ... Moncada because of his K rate ... Kopech because of his control and lack of track record Etc etc Bill James was right on the Jeff Bagwell deal BEFORE Bagwell suited up for Houston. He knew the Red Sox blundered bad and he said something along the lines that this trade will haunt Lou Gorman until the day he dies. He wasn't second guessing what the Red Sox lost. He had a book out in 1991 after he finished his run of Baseball Abstracts and I remember his comment on Bagwell. Some prospects are easier to project than other ones who really can just go either way. I was talking about you saying that stuff not Bill James. You used one source to say it wasn't tough to determine what Bagwell was going to be. People take hard stances on trades right after they happen all the time. Sometimes they are right sometimes they are dead wrong. When they get them right it doesn't make it obvious that was going to be the outcome like you suggested.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 9, 2017 0:37:54 GMT -5
I have to chuckle rather than be irritated at the glass half empty outlook towards the Sox that some here on SP have. IMO it is the strongest roster going into a season that I can remember. I am very optimistic about this team, the sky is not falling. In fact I really believe the Sox could lead the league in runs scored and in runs allowed. I'm not going to get into all the reasons why as they have been voiced many times but I just don't get the negativity. For myself, I've stated before the same stance on this season (as has philsbosox). I think this is a very good team with the potential to be exceptional. My concern is 2019 and beyond, when there is simply no way they can afford to keep everyone without having essentially no-cost regulars like Moncada, Kopech, etc. would be. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that they got worse for 2017 over the winter. But some (myself included) would've been willing to trade that short-term improvement (which will be lost rather quickly when the salary crunch hits) for long-term, extended excellence. I'd have liked to see them make a run at Otani. Or Machado. Or watch Kopech and Moncada develop. The last uber-team they built was 2011, and we all know how that played out, and what followed.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 9, 2017 1:47:52 GMT -5
I have to chuckle rather than be irritated at the glass half empty outlook towards the Sox that some here on SP have. IMO it is the strongest roster going into a season that I can remember. I am very optimistic about this team, the sky is not falling. In fact I really believe the Sox could lead the league in runs scored and in runs allowed. I'm not going to get into all the reasons why as they have been voiced many times but I just don't get the negativity. For myself, I've stated before the same stance on this season (as has philsbosox). I think this is a very good team with the potential to be exceptional. My concern is 2019 and beyond, when there is simply no way they can afford to keep everyone without having essentially no-cost regulars like Moncada, Kopech, etc. would be. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that they got worse for 2017 over the winter. But some (myself included) would've been willing to trade that short-term improvement (which will be lost rather quickly when the salary crunch hits) for long-term, extended excellence. I'd have liked to see them make a run at Otani. Or Machado. Or watch Kopech and Moncada develop. The last uber-team they built was 2011, and we all know how that played out, and what followed. Did we trade Devers and Groome? In 2019 you could have Benintendi, Devers, Groome and Travis all in majors and playing for peanuts. Nevermind players like Swihart finally reaching his potential. We won't be able to keep everyone, but we can keep the majority of team. Going from 5 top 100 prospects to 3 doesn't kill our future like you think. The idea we need a top 5 system with all the great young talent we have in majors is just so far fetched. It was a luxury not a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 10, 2017 0:32:43 GMT -5
For myself, I've stated before the same stance on this season (as has philsbosox). I think this is a very good team with the potential to be exceptional. My concern is 2019 and beyond, when there is simply no way they can afford to keep everyone without having essentially no-cost regulars like Moncada, Kopech, etc. would be. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that they got worse for 2017 over the winter. But some (myself included) would've been willing to trade that short-term improvement (which will be lost rather quickly when the salary crunch hits) for long-term, extended excellence. I'd have liked to see them make a run at Otani. Or Machado. Or watch Kopech and Moncada develop. The last uber-team they built was 2011, and we all know how that played out, and what followed. Did we trade Devers and Groome? In 2019 you could have Benintendi, Devers, Groome and Travis all in majors and playing for peanuts. Nevermind players like Swihart finally reaching his potential. We won't be able to keep everyone, but we can keep the majority of team. Going from 5 top 100 prospects to 3 doesn't kill our future like you think. The idea we need a top 5 system with all the great young talent we have in majors is just so far fetched. It was a luxury not a necessity. I don't count Benintendi, he's the starting LF. He's a "prospect" only as a technicality. I've gone over the finances previously; they're going to lose at least two and possibly three of Sale, Porcello, Betts, Bogaerts, and Bradley. They're also going to need a replacement for Hanley and possibly Pedroia. For a guy who talks about the uncertainty around prospects, you're putting a lot of stock in a low-A 18 y/o pitcher, a high-A 3b, and a 1b who is coming off of major injury and hasn't yet shown the offensive profile to play there in MLB. They didn't just go from 5 to 3, they also lost Dubon, Basabe, and Diaz, each of whom had potential as role players (the kinds of guys that cost $5M per year like Moreland or Young do). You've got a lot of ifs and buts there. For example, in 2019 they're supposed to contend, right? But Sale and Porcello are FAs after the season. So's Bradley if I recall. And they'll need to extend Mookie and Bogey. So they either play out the string and let some of those guys leave via FA, or they trade them. That's going to either dramatically affect the 2019 or 2020 team, pick your poison. And Pedroia's not going to be around forever. Maybe they move Mookie to 2b...now they need an OF. They should be very good for three years. After that, there's going to be some major turnover. You, like a lot of others, seem to think Sale's addition is the end-all, be-all. Well, what does that mean about his subtraction? Or Porcello's? Sure, if everything breaks right, they'll be fine. If a lot of things break wrong, they'll be 2014 again. But the likeliest outcome is a fall back to the pack, just like the current Tigers. I'd have preferred they took a shot this year without Sale and dipped into FA so that they could keep their cheap talent. Talent that, btw, wasn't "top-100", but largely top-30 or so. There's a huge difference. In the past 15 months, they've lost Margot, Espinoza, Kopech, and Moncada. The players they got in return have a 2-3 year shelf life. That's their *most likely* window, barring some tough trades and/or exceptional player development luck.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 10, 2017 0:51:05 GMT -5
Also, predicting Groome to be a major MLB contributor at 19-20 is incredibly unrealistic. He could *maybe* arrive late in the year, but that's a huge gamble to count on. I've mentioned Devers, and they'll need him to be established by then. Benintendi will be arb-eligible, so his cheap salary will start climbing rapidly in 2020 and beyond. Price hopefully isn't declining significantly, but there's a chance he will given the well-documented relationship between lifetime pitches/innings and his performance this past year. Rodriguez will be nearing FA, so you might want to extend him. Kimbrel's gone, who's your replacement?
Having a top-5 farm system is a luxury? For this year or next, sure. But I'd argue that it's a *need*, IF you want any extended run of dominance. I suppose you could argue that that, in and of itself is a luxury. I'd have preferred to see it, though.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 10, 2017 1:39:46 GMT -5
The other side of the coin is that there's a non-zero chance that our catchers, starting pitchers, relief pitchers or backup infielders would, as separate groups, have the kind of first half that would allow DD a chance to restock some as early as the trade deadline without a major impact on our 2017 performance.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 10, 2017 5:51:08 GMT -5
Here are the season/players that are FA:
after: 2018: Price(?) (pray he opts out), Hanley(?) (he has a vesting option of 1050 PAs 2017-2018) (hope he doesn't vest), Pomeranz (see ya), Kimbrel(?) (doubtful they'll let him walk, it's a club option)
2019: Porcello, Sale, Kimbrel (finally), Thornburg, Bogaerts, Sandoval, Holt
2020: Betts, Bradley
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 10, 2017 6:35:00 GMT -5
I understand those of you who don't really like the trades because it gave away too much of the farm, I really do. We all love the building process of a team, I am like you in that we have been avid fans for so long we like watching the process unfold. We prefer drafting and building, watching the prospects develop rather than building via a big trade or god forbid free agency. There is just more satisfaction going the draft and develop route, I get it and am much like you. But in the case of the DD Red Sox era I really truly think he did what needed to be done based on the circumstances. Maybe he went a little too far, maybe every deal wont be a complete winner and maybe the Sox will have some issues retaining enough of the talent 3,4 years down the road. How many of those players would never have played in Boston? Margot, Guerra, Basabe and maybe a pitcher or 2,3 that bust out and never reach their potential. Then there is Moncada who I had started to believe is a better athlete than baseball player, meaning I have serious doubts he will ever reach the potential that has been bestowed upon him. Kopech I do believe will end up being special and maybe Espinosa but there are doubts with him, I mean really if you don't dominate A ball are you still considered an elite prospect, maybe maybe not. Fact is there were too many prospects for them all to play for the Sox, it is as if you guys forget that the roster is already full of young homegrown talent. Talent that really needed an infusion of veterans to balance out the lineup but also bring some leadership. The Sox now boast a rotation with a top 3 that will more than likely all be top 10 in the Cy Young voting. A bullpen that could very well be elite, the best outfield in baseball, 2 GG winners in the infield and 4 GG caliber starting players and an offense that should threaten if not score more runs than any team in baseball. As far as 3 years down the road goes they will deal with that as it comes. In the mean time you still have some top end prospects coming thru the system over the next few years. And as far as some cheap fillin guys for the major league team, they don't cost much to go out and get. This team SHOULD be all set for the foreseeable future and competing for titles. Go and focus on building the farm up again there is plenty of time. I am going to sit back and enjoy a 95+ win season ending with a trip to the WS I hope.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 10, 2017 9:08:45 GMT -5
Did we trade Devers and Groome? In 2019 you could have Benintendi, Devers, Groome and Travis all in majors and playing for peanuts. Nevermind players like Swihart finally reaching his potential. We won't be able to keep everyone, but we can keep the majority of team. Going from 5 top 100 prospects to 3 doesn't kill our future like you think. The idea we need a top 5 system with all the great young talent we have in majors is just so far fetched. It was a luxury not a necessity. I don't count Benintendi, he's the starting LF. He's a "prospect" only as a technicality. I've gone over the finances previously; they're going to lose at least two and possibly three of Sale, Porcello, Betts, Bogaerts, and Bradley. They're also going to need a replacement for Hanley and possibly Pedroia. For a guy who talks about the uncertainty around prospects, you're putting a lot of stock in a low-A 18 y/o pitcher, a high-A 3b, and a 1b who is coming off of major injury and hasn't yet shown the offensive profile to play there in MLB. They didn't just go from 5 to 3, they also lost Dubon, Basabe, and Diaz, each of whom had potential as role players (the kinds of guys that cost $5M per year like Moreland or Young do). You've got a lot of ifs and buts there. For example, in 2019 they're supposed to contend, right? But Sale and Porcello are FAs after the season. So's Bradley if I recall. And they'll need to extend Mookie and Bogey. So they either play out the string and let some of those guys leave via FA, or they trade them. That's going to either dramatically affect the 2019 or 2020 team, pick your poison. And Pedroia's not going to be around forever. Maybe they move Mookie to 2b...now they need an OF. They should be very good for three years. After that, there's going to be some major turnover. You, like a lot of others, seem to think Sale's addition is the end-all, be-all. Well, what does that mean about his subtraction? Or Porcello's? Sure, if everything breaks right, they'll be fine. If a lot of things break wrong, they'll be 2014 again. But the likeliest outcome is a fall back to the pack, just like the current Tigers. I'd have preferred they took a shot this year without Sale and dipped into FA so that they could keep their cheap talent. Talent that, btw, wasn't "top-100", but largely top-30 or so. There's a huge difference. In the past 15 months, they've lost Margot, Espinoza, Kopech, and Moncada. The players they got in return have a 2-3 year shelf life. That's their *most likely* window, barring some tough trades and/or exceptional player development luck.So you make trades, right? Some of us think the Red Sox will make trades. So for those of think that is going to happen, we think we have decent chance of being good beyond 2019, right? Thus we are categorized as half-full while you are categorized as half-empty?
How certain are you that both our young catchers will stink vs how likely do you think they can both be pretty good? Isn't there a decent chance that both will be at least average and maybe one of them you can get probably an average player in return at a position of need? Add up trading one or two high level players and you are now getting multiple players back.
As for our 1b Travis-- I believe the sabermetrics of "a 1b profile" gets extremely overstated sometimes. In one breath there is the warning of "don't try to build a super team" but then when one mentions a player that will be used but doesn't fit the profile perfectly it's almost turned into "you can't win with him . . ." Anyhow- if Travis didn't get hurt last year, he would have been a terrific option for this team even if "he doesn't fit the profile."
And as for Moncada-- this site had Speier on and he said people he was speaking to it was 50-50 Moncada vs Beni but the people who loved Moncada more it was just slightly. The ones that loved Beni mre said he was much better - by a lot is what I think Speier said. And the Red Sox chose Beni and Devers over Moncada. So why assume they were wrong? I am not saying you are. What I'm saying is, what if one were to agree a bit with the guys that said there was a pretty big difference between Beni vs Moncada? And what if the Red Sox are right about Devers vs Moncada? In other words, why do I have to assume the worst in the deal for Sale while keeping two real good young players too when I've ben completely thrilled with Beni and have absolutely loved what I've read on this site and the evaluations of Devers elsewhere? Why do I have to assume Moncada will be great and the others guys won't?
I agree with you if the Sox don't make any trades. At the end we will lose several players if they don't more than likely make the trades. But I think they will make trades so I think it will be unlucky for them if they were not a threat beyond 2019.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 10, 2017 9:37:16 GMT -5
The other side of the coin is that there's a non-zero chance that our catchers, starting pitchers, relief pitchers or backup infielders would, as separate groups, have the kind of first half that would allow DD a chance to restock some as early as the trade deadline without a major impact on our 2017 performance. Can you think of any examples of a contending team trading pieces from its major league team for real prospect value at the trade deadline?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 10, 2017 11:29:13 GMT -5
The whole the Red Sox preferred Devers to Moncada canard has already been thoroughly debunked; man, this Dombrowski bubble is worse than the Trump one
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 10, 2017 11:35:33 GMT -5
The other side of the coin is that there's a non-zero chance that our catchers, starting pitchers, relief pitchers or backup infielders would, as separate groups, have the kind of first half that would allow DD a chance to restock some as early as the trade deadline without a major impact on our 2017 performance. Can you think of any examples of a contending team trading pieces from its major league team for real prospect value at the trade deadline? You could argue that the Yankees did just last year (and 2 terrific trades unfortunately); 2 wildcards stretches "contending" pretty far. But it's extremely rare
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 10, 2017 12:54:00 GMT -5
Telson..I don't disagree with what your point much here...but a 3 year run of being very good team is probably a goal most teams would strive for,and accept without hesitation. It is a very difficult task to acheive, particularly given today's climate of teams signing their young players.
When I think of DD, there is no doubt he mortgaged future for present, but he did it in the area that the Sox were extremely deficient. Pitching. For all of Ben's deserved recognition on the farm, he failed miserably in this sector. Three years is a long time away in baseball, and allows for time to right possible wrongs.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 10, 2017 13:06:08 GMT -5
Going back through some old work to prep for some writing ideas: it is nothing short of amazing that the Red Sox had so much minor league talent on hand considering how bad their 2012 and 2013 drafts turned out. Moncada was a pretty-well known commodity, but hitting at that level on three amateur international signings of Devers, Margot, and Espinoza in such a short period is absurd.
There really isn't an applicable lesson here, just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 10, 2017 14:04:30 GMT -5
Going back through some old work to prep for some writing ideas: it is nothing short of amazing that the Red Sox had so much minor league talent on hand considering how bad their 2012 and 2013 drafts turned out. Moncada was a pretty-well known commodity, but hitting at that level on three amateur international signings of Devers, Margot, and Espinoza in such a short period is absurd. There really isn't an applicable lesson here, just an observation. Indeed; and although you have to give some credit, there was more than a smidgin of luck involved as well. Which makes the fact that so much of it is now gone all the more depressing.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 10, 2017 14:21:10 GMT -5
Romero's still there.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 10, 2017 14:31:59 GMT -5
Going back through some old work to prep for some writing ideas: it is nothing short of amazing that the Red Sox had so much minor league talent on hand considering how bad their 2012 and 2013 drafts turned out. Moncada was a pretty-well known commodity, but hitting at that level on three amateur international signings of Devers, Margot, and Espinoza in such a short period is absurd. There really isn't an applicable lesson here, just an observation. Indeed; and although you have to give some credit, there was more than a smidgin of luck involved as well. Which makes the fact that so much of it is now gone all the more depressing. I think you can give them full credit. All three received significant bonuses, with Margot's $800k the lowest as both Devers (1.5M) and Espinoza ($1.8) got seven figures. Credit it to much improved scouting in the region to build the relationships with those players and their families. Long gone are the days of Adalberto Ibarra getting an enormous contract to be the worst player on the Spinners (he had a multi-year deal before they found something in his physical (I'm skeptical that's what really happened, btw) that gave them the excuse to cut his deal to a $750k bonus), and it's not like they hit on a $25,000 signing like they did with Stolmy Pimentel. Remember, it's not like the draft where the player has to go to whoever picks them. International scouting is a whole different beast.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 10, 2017 15:34:08 GMT -5
But it's still pretty much a crap shoot, right? I'd imagine that Romero and co could cite at least a few players that they liked as much if not more than Margot and Devers, who have turned out to be busts. Same people (more or less), same process (more or less) - completely different results; we're talking projecting teenagers from completely different cultures.
Of course people and process can bend the curve, but there isn't a formula. After all, same people believed that Vitik and Ball were better bets than Betts (ok, extreme example, but it illustrates the point)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 10, 2017 18:00:03 GMT -5
I doubt there were any position players they liked as much as Margot and Devers. I'm not saying that aloofly - they loved, loved, LOVED both guys. More importantly, there are definitely teams that loved the guys they signed as much as the Red Sox loved Margot and Devers. Margot, particularly, was a pretty great scouting find. He wasn't touted like Devers (or Espinoza), but even at his first fall instructs he was turning heads.
Espinoza they get *slightly* less credit for - they loved him, but everybody loved him. The Red Sox just happened to be willing/able to go over the cap number the year he was available. If I remember correctly, a couple pretty active teams (Dodgers, Padres, and Rangers, I think?) were not able to exceed the cap that year.
If it were a "crap shoot" then all the teams and scouting developments would basically even out over time. But that doesn't happen - some teams are better at scouting and/or developing talent.
Trey Ball and Kolbrin Vitek were not products of the international scouting crew.
My point isn't to say that the international scouting by the Red Sox is flawless or that every player they have is going to turn to gold, just that they appear to be good at their job and are still with the team.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 10, 2017 19:23:34 GMT -5
I don't count Benintendi, he's the starting LF. He's a "prospect" only as a technicality. I've gone over the finances previously; they're going to lose at least two and possibly three of Sale, Porcello, Betts, Bogaerts, and Bradley. They're also going to need a replacement for Hanley and possibly Pedroia. For a guy who talks about the uncertainty around prospects, you're putting a lot of stock in a low-A 18 y/o pitcher, a high-A 3b, and a 1b who is coming off of major injury and hasn't yet shown the offensive profile to play there in MLB. They didn't just go from 5 to 3, they also lost Dubon, Basabe, and Diaz, each of whom had potential as role players (the kinds of guys that cost $5M per year like Moreland or Young do). You've got a lot of ifs and buts there. For example, in 2019 they're supposed to contend, right? But Sale and Porcello are FAs after the season. So's Bradley if I recall. And they'll need to extend Mookie and Bogey. So they either play out the string and let some of those guys leave via FA, or they trade them. That's going to either dramatically affect the 2019 or 2020 team, pick your poison. And Pedroia's not going to be around forever. Maybe they move Mookie to 2b...now they need an OF. They should be very good for three years. After that, there's going to be some major turnover. You, like a lot of others, seem to think Sale's addition is the end-all, be-all. Well, what does that mean about his subtraction? Or Porcello's? Sure, if everything breaks right, they'll be fine. If a lot of things break wrong, they'll be 2014 again. But the likeliest outcome is a fall back to the pack, just like the current Tigers. I'd have preferred they took a shot this year without Sale and dipped into FA so that they could keep their cheap talent. Talent that, btw, wasn't "top-100", but largely top-30 or so. There's a huge difference. In the past 15 months, they've lost Margot, Espinoza, Kopech, and Moncada. The players they got in return have a 2-3 year shelf life. That's their *most likely* window, barring some tough trades and/or exceptional player development luck.So you make trades, right? Some of us think the Red Sox will make trades. So for those of think that is going to happen, we think we have decent chance of being good beyond 2019, right? Thus we are categorized as half-full while you are categorized as half-empty?
How certain are you that both our young catchers will stink vs how likely do you think they can both be pretty good? Isn't there a decent chance that both will be at least average and maybe one of them you can get probably an average player in return at a position of need? Add up trading one or two high level players and you are now getting multiple players back.
As for our 1b Travis-- I believe the sabermetrics of "a 1b profile" gets extremely overstated sometimes. In one breath there is the warning of "don't try to build a super team" but then when one mentions a player that will be used but doesn't fit the profile perfectly it's almost turned into "you can't win with him . . ." Anyhow- if Travis didn't get hurt last year, he would have been a terrific option for this team even if "he doesn't fit the profile."
And as for Moncada-- this site had Speier on and he said people he was speaking to it was 50-50 Moncada vs Beni but the people who loved Moncada more it was just slightly. The ones that loved Beni mre said he was much better - by a lot is what I think Speier said. And the Red Sox chose Beni and Devers over Moncada. So why assume they were wrong? I am not saying you are. What I'm saying is, what if one were to agree a bit with the guys that said there was a pretty big difference between Beni vs Moncada? And what if the Red Sox are right about Devers vs Moncada? In other words, why do I have to assume the worst in the deal for Sale while keeping two real good young players too when I've ben completely thrilled with Beni and have absolutely loved what I've read on this site and the evaluations of Devers elsewhere? Why do I have to assume Moncada will be great and the others guys won't?
I agree with you if the Sox don't make any trades. At the end we will lose several players if they don't more than likely make the trades. But I think they will make trades so I think it will be unlucky for them if they were not a threat beyond 2019.
Exactly...you make trades. Which means you lose the production of those players in exchange for minor leaguers, or for inferior production at more years of control. I'd argue it's much more realism vs irrational optimism. It's taking out a fixed-term mortgage on a house I can afford and keeping cash in the bank versus you taking out a variable rate mortgage on a bigger home and having nothing left in savings. Sure, if real estate prices keep going up and you get that promotion in three years, everything will be peachy.
|
|
|