|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 12, 2014 11:05:47 GMT -5
Still, I think its a legitimate question why these Boston reporters seem to be pushing Bogaerts and Betts for Hamels as if thats a reasonable deal. Especially after the winter meetings reduced the Phillies chance of such a haul. I don't seem to think Boston reporters are saying that is a reasonable deal, just what it would take. Abraham indicated today and posed the question of the simmering question how would fans feal giving up big time money for Shields or Betts/Swihart for Hamels. I think that is what they feel it is going to cost and I would be shocked if we get Hamels without giving up at least one of Owens/Swihart. Yes Phillies chance of such a haul is reduced but they don't have to deal him now. It would be stupid to be forced into a corner and take a return less than what you think Hamels is worth.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 12, 2014 10:55:35 GMT -5
Pete Abe seems to be suggesting we need to give up Betts and Bogaerts for Hamels. How is this guy so far behind the spanish reporters? That goes for Edes and Cafardo as well. And how we sure the Spanish reporters correct? No real indication or headway that this is coming from the Phillies end of things. Given Amaro's past history a deal of Kelly, Cecchini, Marrero and Margot even seems light for Hamels. The best chip in that deal, at least to me, is Margot and he is in high A. Regardless of your feelings of Margot I would want a bigger piece than that if I am dealing my ace.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 12, 2014 10:42:10 GMT -5
FUENTE: Los #Phillies pretenden a Joe Kelly, Garin Cecchini, Devin Marrero, Manuel Margot, entre otros, por Cole Hamels. #RedSox #MLB Phillies want Kelly, Cecchini, Marrero, Margot, among others, for Hamels. Among others implies smaller pieces and if none are too significant I would do that in a heartbeat. Keeping Owens, Rodriguez, Swihart, Betts and Bogaerts while getting a bonafide ace at a reasonable deal would be worth it. Granted this guy was the one that indicated a huge offer would have to be made by the Cubs and that didn't appear to be true. Not sure how much credibility he has.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 11, 2014 11:59:11 GMT -5
I wonder if it's strickley starting or does he have a chance to go to bullpen. I can't imagine he is signing any deal where the bullpen is a remote possibility. I am guessing one of Buchholz/Kelly/Miley are flipped for an upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 10, 2014 9:38:39 GMT -5
Apparently, the Sox offered Lester 135/6. That's an average salary of 22.5. That's only .5 million more a year than what they gave Hanley, who hasn't had a great year since 2010. Lester helped them win 2 world series and posted a sub-3 ERA last year. If I was Lester, I would take that as an insult. The winning 2 world series should have nothing to do with it. It is never a wise business decision to be sentimental and reward past successes. Yes Hanley got a comparable amount (Again at 2 years less which is critical) however similar to what Hatfield pointed out on Twitter last night, the cost of obtaining premier bats (Which Hanley has had terrific years in all years but 2011 and 2012) is higher than pitching given today's market. As such trades involving pitchers often feature below average returns to fanbases. If I was the Sox I would have probably crept up to the $145MM level or so as Lester doesn't cost a pick compared to a James Shields/Ervin Santana/Max Scherzer. But we will see what the ultimate plan is.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 9, 2014 21:50:26 GMT -5
Cubs just don't think it would take this long if he was coming back to the Sox, truly hope I am wrong however.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 25, 2014 0:54:05 GMT -5
Is this simply due to having Ramirez in the fold? I can't imagine much has changed from a week ago when you had said this: "For something like 5/$80m, maybe up to 5/$90m? I'd love to have him, and I think it's certainly possible that he ends up signing for something in that range. It's only because I think he'll cost significantly more than that that I prefer, say, Headley or Hanley or Valbuena." 5 years and $95MM is pretty damn close to 5 years and $90MM. I'd point out that it was jmei who posted stuff on both the aging curve for heavier players, and the aging stats on plate discipline for guys who swing at as many pitches off the plate as Sandoval does. So he's been leery about this for a while. I think most on here would agree and I certainly know jmei knows his stuff and is a smart guy. However Sandoval hasn't grown a gut suddenly in the week since jmei made that comment. Obviously we signed both but I am curious as to why that is a bad thing as most were ready to deal Cespedes for pitching when we were only targeting Sandoval it seemed like. Hanley is a significant upgrade over what we would have with Cespedes no longer in the mix so the deals don't necessarily go hand in hand to me. But curious to see jmei's thoughts on why signing both suddenly turns his thoughts from loving a Sandoval deal at the price we got him for (I don't see the hang up of $1MM more a year) to suddenly hating the deal.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 24, 2014 23:18:07 GMT -5
By the way, for the record, I strongly dislike this deal. Is this simply due to having Ramirez in the fold? I can't imagine much has changed from a week ago when you had said this: "For something like 5/$80m, maybe up to 5/$90m? I'd love to have him, and I think it's certainly possible that he ends up signing for something in that range. It's only because I think he'll cost significantly more than that that I prefer, say, Headley or Hanley or Valbuena." 5 years and $95MM is pretty damn close to 5 years and $90MM.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 24, 2014 12:20:18 GMT -5
This is getting insane. Why can't people accept that Sandoval is merely a slightly above average offensive player? Replacing Papi? You better try trading him for an Edwin Encarnacion then, because Sandoval will never be the middle of the order bat people are pretending he is. We may have the games two most overrated hitters for the time being (Cespedes and Sandoval). I don't think he was saying Sandoval was a direct replacement for Ortiz, he just said our best hitter last year isn't going to be around forever so we need to upgrade pieces offensively. I think a valid concern is Sandoval's struggles against left handed pitching but he is a little better than slightly above average offensively against right handed pitching and given the Red Sox flexibility they may be able to sit Sandoval against tougher lefties.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 24, 2014 1:39:03 GMT -5
Would be frustrating if we actually paid Sandoval $100 million, but our offer was reportedly $95 million so it's not exactly much of a difference and something to lose sleep over. Not sure why they would up their offer. Sandoval doesn't profile as a must get type. Clearly they valued Sandoval at a very high level indicative of their first publicized offer. At the end of the day if the tweets are accurate $1.4MM more a year to get a guy you value isn't that much. Obviously most on here, including myself, aren't a huge fan of five years at $90MM+ for him but the front office thinks differently. The increase in the offer doesn't worry me, at least they didn't go 6 years if the reports are correct.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 24, 2014 1:06:01 GMT -5
Hunter Golden ?@huntergbaseball 47s47 seconds ago Those dudes that broke the Hanley and Giancarlo thing just said Pablo's a done deal with #redsox 5 years, $102 million
Jake Wesley MLB @mlb_nl_al · 2m2 minutes ago The Boston Red Sox have signed Pablo Sandoval to a 5 year, 102 million dollar deal. Source with Hanley story has confirmed. It's done
Who the hell knows how legit these are but both reporting the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 23, 2014 21:54:27 GMT -5
Here's the thing though, a starting catcher is involved in almost every pitch thrown by his team for the whole year. It only takes a few extra strikes stolen per game to give you an extra win or two over the course of the 120 games or so that you get out of a starting catcher. We've got the data with pitch/fx to show that those extra strikes *are* there - to doubt that there's a difference in called strikes of that magnitude between catchers is to doubt pitch/fx, really. I'm a little sympathetic to the arguent that teams would be valuing it more if it really were this valuable, but I've yet to see a convincing argument about why the current models overestimate the effect. But isn't that Chris's point? Yes a win or two, which is valuable, however talking about Christian Vazquez as a 6 WAR player? That is where the meh comes from. Yes we have all of this data that shows these extra strikes are there however do we really know to what extent those extra strikes do for a team? If Vazquez steals strike one or two and the next player gets a hit, stealing a strike really doesn't do anything for a team. Stealing strike three or stealing an early strike that allows a pitcher to get to strike three is valuable certainly. However I don't know if there is a great way of being able to determine that.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 23, 2014 21:13:07 GMT -5
Is Hanley in left drastically better than Cespedes? I don't think you can proclaim that... However, if they can flip Cespedes for a good starter they certainly are better. Should have clarified that but that is given they are motivated to move Cespedes to improve the rotation. Who knows how accurate everything is but seems to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 23, 2014 20:53:09 GMT -5
It doesn't matter how much they want to win, what matters is how much better they make the team. And I don't think signing both of them makes the team very much better than signing only one of them. I mean, I'm sure Victor Martinez wants to win. That doesn't mean that outbidding the Tigers for his services would have been a great way to win. It would have been a great way to spend money, though. Except Victor Martinez would be redundant here. If they happen to sign both, which like jmei I doubt the validity of reports, Ramirez in left and Sandoval at third makes this team drastically different in a good way. Hanley is significantly better than anything currently on the team, especially offensively, we could only speculate how his defense would fare in left. And Sandoval would be a vast improvement at third over what would be available, regardless of his struggles against lefties. We could debate over and over again about the money however if the Sox hold their offer and land Sandoval at 5 years and $95MM it isn't the worst deal in the world given his age.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 23, 2014 19:05:34 GMT -5
Given Cuddyer I am guessing it would be a tough sell for the Mets to give up Wheeler unless Cespedes is not the headline in that package.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 17, 2014 12:25:51 GMT -5
Joe Kelly (and I do that comparison without looking heavily into stats). Seriously, they're closer than you'd think. Nearly identical in FIP, K/9, and WHIP in 2014. Yeah I revised that into Joe Kelly, no? Unless the Braves scouting valued Shelby Miller differently than most would I would think we could have offered Kelly and been competitive. Especially adding a more lucrative piece than Jenkins.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 17, 2014 12:21:13 GMT -5
Disappointed the Red Sox weren't more aggressive in matching that offer (for Heyward). Who is the Red Sox equivalent of Shelby Miller? If the Braves were focused on established, cost-controlled starting pitching then the Red Sox weren't going to be players. Joe Kelly, no?
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 17, 2014 12:14:43 GMT -5
Helluva deal for the Cardinals.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 29, 2014 16:37:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 22, 2014 22:57:51 GMT -5
If we could Eduardo Rodriguez for Andrew Miller, who also was a rental player for the Orioles, I am certain we could of got a top prospect for Jon Lester. Renato Nunez or Matt Chapman would of been reasonable compensation and I am sure one of them for Jon Lester straight up would of got the deal done. Or maybe the Orioles saw the Tigers about to acquire Miller and decided to overpay with a prospect that had been struggling for them to bolster their bullpen and hinder a possible opponent in October. What teams desperately needed starting pitching? One could argue the Pirates but it is pretty clear they valued their prospects heavily. The Cardinals were discussed but it was more of a luxury for them as they had good enough SP to win it and likewise with the Dodgers although that didn't come to fruition. As for Renato Nunez or Matt Chapman why are you inclined to think one of them for Jon Lester would have gotten it done? We are talking about an A's team that had just traded away several key young assets to the Cubs. Could it have been very possible that they didn't want to go too deep into their farm for what they viewed as a luxury? The two most talked about teams (Cardinals and Dodgers) as well as the team who dealt for Lester all had pretty stable rotations as opposed to the Orioles who desperately needed a lefty out of the bullpen. Need will motivate you to give up more than you should on most occasions.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 22, 2014 19:45:46 GMT -5
So long as it is in ALL CAPS you can repeat yourself and give no explanation simultaneously. So we trade our best pitcher for a rental player. And then we turn around and trade Cespedes or he walks after 2015. Sorry pal, I would rather have some top tier prospects who we have team control over rather then a selfish player like Cespedes, who won't play Right Field because he is all about himself. He was just as bad in left field like Johnny Gomes was. His laziness in the outfield cost us, epecially against seattle when we gave up 5 runs in the 9th. Sorry, I don't want players like that on the Red Sox. After this years disasterous season, we need players who play hard and put the team first and not this "me" first attitude. And for the 100th time, isn't that what the Red Sox wanted as well? It was quoted today in one of these threads that after failing with the Dodgers, Pirates and Cardinals for a coup of prospects they went towards bolstering next years club with Cespedes. You are acting like the Red Sox had a pick of top end prospects and chose Cespedes. We got Cespedes and a draft pick which we have the ability to draft a talented prospect that we do control for 6 years. Had we held onto Lester we would have gotten a better draft pick by 30 or so slots, that is it. Yes the Red Sox were trading their best pitcher but this isn't 5 years ago when the Oakland A's or any team trading Lester would get the potential of two first round draft picks back. That was a time that it would be entirely reasonable to be upset with the return of Cespedes and I am nearly certain that the Red Sox would not have traded Lester for that return had the old rules been in place. At the end of the day the team trading for Jon Lester were trading for a couple of months of service and the ability to negotiate with him which any team realizes that is probably not worth a damn. He wasn't a tremendously valuable commodity when you want to talk about a team giving up serious prospects. As is the case with what happened with Oakland, there is really no incentive for a team to give up 6 years of control to roll the dice with Lester and believe he will return them with a World Series. Most people would be irate here if we traded Henry Owens or a Blake Swihart for someone that was a rental which we were not going to get any compensation for. Why is it unreasonable to applaud other teams for showing prudent behavior as well (Not specifically you but being happy a team like the Pirates didn't get far as they didn't want to part with their prospects as was said on this site)?
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 20, 2014 19:41:49 GMT -5
Please give us your honest assessment of what they could have gotten for one month of Lester. Include some actual players, please. We need to find out what the team missed out on. We could of gotten some good prospects, thats for sure. Renato Nunez, for example would of been good return. My Point is, I don't like the trade if Cespedes is not here long term. Thats what we all thought, right? He would do damage here with the Green Monster! You don't trade a guy like Jon Lester unless you have team control for the next 6 years. thats my point. And we got a competitive draft selection that we will have team control for 6 years for.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 20, 2014 16:57:14 GMT -5
I don't mind this, we better get something in return. From what Cespedes has said, he has a desire to hit Free Agency. Hilarious just as i said this now today he is represented by Jay Z. I see NO CHANCE Cespedes is in a Red Sox Uniform. Makes the return we got Lester look foolish. Cherington Blew this one! Wow. How does this make the return we got from Lester foolish? Do you think we somehow could have gotten one of the prized top prospects? Yes I am sure we got some prospect packages however there is very little/no chance that it included everyone's gems of Pederson/Seager/Urias or whatever fantasy trade proposals we had at the time. I am guessing the Cespedes return was viewed as a better return then the prospect packages that were offered. In the end as James said we had two months of Lester with no compensation attached for the trading team. With teams valuing their prospects higher than ever the idea of getting a top tier impact prospect was most likely not in the cards.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 10, 2014 10:42:55 GMT -5
@georgeofman Are the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are one of several teams interested. If true forget Stanton - open the doors and ask which 4 prospects does Colletti want. DO IT NOW, BEN - BEFORE NED GETS CANNED!!! Why? Stanton is better than Puig.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Sept 27, 2014 18:49:42 GMT -5
Given this year's overall performance and probability? Didn't this year show us what can happen when you have to rely too much on internal guys who aren't proven? If the team goes with Cechinni next year without some serious outside competition based on turning it around for two months or so it would be embarrassing. That involves spending serious cash, unless it's someone of the AAAA retread class like they did the last couple of seasons in Brandon Ryan/Ryan Roberts quality, which no MLB team is going to rely upon for more than a couple of weeks tops. Well outside of the pitching isn't that the biggest hole by far? Unless they are spending every dime they have in FA for pitching I fail to see how they would be forced for a Ryan Roberts type quality. I don't see why they wouldn't possibly check the tires on Headley or look at the trade market.
|
|