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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by chud on Aug 14, 2016 15:48:11 GMT -5
Like i know anything, but the good and bad of the current SP market (which is basically at the "blackmail" level right now for sellers) is that the Sox do have an important commodity in Pomeranz...First, he's here of course to help them in their playoff push this year, and for that the Sox sacrificed a great prospect. But, in the off season, he could be used to recoup a high level prospect (5% chance), be kept to man a spot in the rotation (30% chance), or be traded for an SP upgrade (65%). Of course, just my total speculation, but think DD will use him to trade up further in the SP market for more of a difference maker, which when all teams are in play forming their rosters will have more suitors that will need that kind of affordable, young, productive SP back in any trade...FWIW...So that's an important asset no matter how you slice it...
I also think the Sox are one good/true #2 SP away from a WS...Bullpens are always a crap shoot...and the Sox are stacked w/ young production in the field...Price I'm not worried about, think E-Rod is their ace in the whole #2/#3 (i don't trade him at all unless it's for Fernandez), then Porcello, Wright etc...One true, solid, reliable #2 puts them in the serious WS hunt which i'm not sure they're in this year, despite being a strong playoff contender...I know i'm not exactly splitting the atom here with my thoughts, but if that type of upgrade is made, w/ Pomeranz as the 2nd piece (non AB/Moncado) piece, they'd look great.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Aug 14, 2016 15:20:41 GMT -5
If the season ended today (which of course it doesn't) the Sox would be in the playoffs. Unless Farrell's plan includes having Betts spend his off days basking in the rivers of Rio to recoup, I have a very hard time seeing the Sox firing him in season. IMO they would have to have an epic collapse and fall totally out of contention, which at this point of the season would place them close to the end of the baseball year anyway...So, any change i think comes in the off season...
That said, I think Farrell's job is saved if they make the playoffs and he's gone if they don't. Is Farrell perfect, by no means...Is he a genius tactician, no...does he manage the bullpen extremely well, I think he's about average from my untrained eye...But from everything I've read, his strength is as a communicator and in having the respect of the troops (two very important traits for a manager)...In fact, the only thing as important/more important is ability to manage your pitching staff IMO, as managers in baseball outside of that don't seem to play a huge role in wins/losses from what i've read...So, I guess my point is we could probably do a lot worse (Bobby Valentine rings a bell, man did i hate that hire...but i digress). Goes to my point that if DD truly travels w/ the team on all road trips, no one would be in a better position to evaluate Farrell's strengths as they compare to other managers...And if they make the playoffs and he's fired, he must be a huge disaster behind the scenes...My guess is, Sox make the playoffs and Farrell stays.
If for some reason he is fired, I would imagine there's an extensive managerial search (wonder if Leyland is at all interested)...and if that search leads to TL being the best guy, then i'd imagine he'd be the hire...But don't think he's a slam dunk at all nor should he be...If they need to replace Farrell, they need to do an exhaustive search as this will be the guy who's tied to DD for the long term and in essence, will be part of his legacy.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Aug 6, 2016 12:19:50 GMT -5
Why the hell aren't they seeking a remedy... Because DD is awful at his job. He needs to push to get both trades reversed. I'm pretty sure the Padres knew Kimbrel was damaged goods. Same with Pomeranz. I get the outrage, and that this is the internet which is where everyone comes to vent...But it would seem to me a couple things are actually more realistic here: 1) DD is a very good, thorough, and experienced GM. If he/Sox aren't asking for a remedy I'm guessing that their analysis was that whatever the issue/"injury" concern w/ Pomeranz is (if there is one), it's not one likely to result in any substantial difference in the trading of assets...therefor not worth the time, and potential damage to any relationships throughout the game as possibly being labeled someone pushing an insignificant issue when engaging in a trade... 2) Nevertheless, if it's true that the Sox made some report to MLB, that would be their remedy...reporting the issue...and ensuring that the Padres either change their practices, mlb holds them accountable in a way that would far out weigh any benefit the Sox would see in seeking a specific "remedy" for the Sox themselves, or making the Padres prove their integrity on the issue...I'd argue those are all in fact actual remedies 3) DD, being very tied in to the other teams hierarchies, may sense the feeling among the baseball community is that the Padres have some shady practices, and is doing his part to have them addresses...again, big picture being just playing a role to have MLB examine the issue...vs. thinking he's actually going to get anything out of it for the Sox 4) In addition to the above, DD and the front office personnel may also believe they got the better end of this deal (and i'd say the odds are in their favor on that if true)...and since it was a 1 for 1, don't want to take any risks on it being totally undone as the remedy...vs. the possibility (if it even existed, which i'm guessing it doesn't) of the Sox getting some other asset out of this deal... Wherever the truth lies, I think the last thing we have to worry about is DD's/Sox front office ability to manage issues like these...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Aug 1, 2016 5:26:30 GMT -5
As much as I'd like to get Sale, yet don't want to gut what's left of the high end prospect talent in the system, if the Sox can get Sale for say AB, Swihart or Vasquez, and a non-Kopech/Groome SP then do it...If you have to include Kopech, that's where it gets tougher to pull the trigger (trading every talented young SP in the system is not usually a wise idea as it decreases your chances of finding one who actually develops), but since Sale is only 27 and under control for several more years the sound thing i believe would be to make the trade...However, I would not under any circumstances trade E-Rod...It's one thing to trade an "A Ball" pitcher...it's another thing to include a "proven" talent like E-Rod, who's already in the MLB and who's proven successful prior to getting injured, AND a close to MLB talent like AB/Swihart etc...
Trading the risk is what this thing is all about, including E-Rod is assuming too much risk for my liking. Last year we wouldn't even of thought of this, now i think we just casually throw his name in trades. And if he's a mandate for the WSox to get Sale, I say walk away as he'll be the true regret even if AB turns into an All Star...price of doing business to get one of the best pitchers in the league, who's both young and cost controlled...I just think that the difference between Sale and a package of AB/Swihart etc is not E-Rod, tips the scales way too much towards the WSox...
Trading for Sale (w/out including E-Rod) puts our rotation at: Sale, Price, Porcello, Pomeranz, E-Rod, Wright...all of which are under control for a while so theoretically, your rotation is locked up with quality throughout for the next several year...while also being cost controlled for the next several years...and we'd have a legit 6th starter...which we don't have right now...Get Sale if you can do it for AB, but walk away if it includes E-Rod...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 23, 2016 17:50:50 GMT -5
As a guy who doesn't post much i realize i'm very late to the game on this topic but wanted to post for a bit and just now had time (kids...job...etc...). I've read about half of the posts here and have a few thoughts:
1) It's tough for all of us to have unbiased perspective as the one thing that's brought us all together here is our love of prospects, and the philosophy of building through the farm...and that's a fun and exciting premise...especially as we get to watch the fruits of the Sox labor in the killer B's
2) But also think we need to balance that with not taking for granted the rare opportunities to "win now" which even the most opposed to this deal have to admit the Sox have a chance to win the AL with some calculated moves...we can't get lost in those rare opportunities even despite the recent 3 WS championships...those opportunities are rare indeed
3) One thing I think we all knew, prior to the trade, is that a healthy Sox offense and bullpen are world series caliber, yet the SP was at the time a big question...a healthy E-Rod, return to form by Price, and continuation of Wright's dominance would be huge, but all three are more or less question marks needing bolstering to make a true run for the World Series
4) I think it's safe to say that even w/out the trade the Sox were in the playoff hunt, but with starting pitching being the most important thing in the playoffs (like the hockey goalie / qb) any true WS run would mean bolstering the SP
5) Then, as much as i was broken hearted to lose Espinoza, and under the assumption that Pomeranz is more than a #4 starter, we have to be honest...Chance to make a true WS run if the SP is enhanced by trading a Class A SP (albeit an extremely highly rated one) straight up, is tough to pass up...again, especially in this American League, this year, with this year's Sox offense and bullpen
6) Could it come back to haunt us if; the Sox don't make/go anywhere in the playoffs, if Espinoza turns into an ace SP, if Pomeranz is a bust...sure...such is life when taking a chance to make a run...
7) The key is knowing when to take a chance and trusting the Sox leadership...I believe (despite the Sox recent championships/successes) this is a time to take a chance...I also trust in DD's experience and the experience of the entire Sox front office (honestly, does anyone believe DD traded Espinoza when every important member of the front office disagreed...that would be naive) to know who to trade and what to trade them for in the context of the market place at the time...SP's this year are expensive, yet it's a year when the AL is easily winnable...and while i hope it's not the case, who's to say Espinoza (SP in A-ball remember) doesn't get hurt, flame out, or become the next Casey Kelly/Henry Owens...no one can predict that but think we all need to understand there are going to be times that we trade good prospects for good reasons and that it could work out for the Sox or it may not...But need to seize the day, when the day is looking to be seized
|
|
|
Post by chud on Nov 14, 2015 10:11:32 GMT -5
I've read through pretty much the entire thread and am sure someone's said this but here's my take:
Assumption 1: DD would have preferred to trade for a #1 caliber SP from the prospect stash vs. using the stash for a reliever
Assumption 2: Either none of the cost controlled young #1 caliber SP's were available through trade or the prospect return for that type of pitcher was beyond the "pain" point DD was willing to go
Assumption 3: DD w/ Baseball ops has rated prospects in the upper echelon that they won't touch and those that either are a notch below that, that are tradable and/or fall w/in that upper echelon that are duplicative to what they have at in the minors/majors
Assumption 4: If a trade was going to be made for a reliever it was going to be for an elite relieve and not just a "good one"...and they already identified a select few that would hit that mark (betting DD was not going to leave that as a potential fatal flaw w/ a 40+ year old incumbent closer for the team w/ talent and playoff aspirations...as he's witnessed up close and personal in Detroit how detremental that can be to being a championship team)
Assumption 5: DD was willing to overpay to ensure he fixed flaw as long as the prospects fell into the "assumption 3" category...and that this deal probably was only going to occur w/ an overpay of the prospects if they fell into the "assumption 3" category...remembering that elite relievers don't fall off trees and people aren't ready to just give them away (think about the caliber of prospect the Sox get for 2 months of Miller...a pitcher so good, he'll probably be the Sox #2 by SP by the end of next year in terms of talent...and if anyone of the prospects the Padres got turn into the caliber player ERod is, they'll be damn lucky)
Assumption 6: It sucks to give away young talent as we're all at "Sox Prospects" because we value it...but in reality, you never really know about prospects and as long as the Sox keep their very best prospects (in their determination) talent will be traded away...And you know what, sometimes, it's ok...and sometimes you need to trade it at it's height instead of waiting for everyone to either have a place on the MLB roster or watching their value disapate as they advance through the minors...
Assumption 7: The Padres deserve to get some talent back that might flurish at the MLB level for a talent like Kimbrel...After all they gave up a lot for him in addition to taking back one of the worst contracts in baseball at the time in BJ Upton
|
|
|
Post by chud on Nov 10, 2015 3:52:37 GMT -5
Dombrowski said today he thought he already had a deal done but the other team got "cold feet". Seems like he's pushing to make something happen rather quickly. Excited to see what he has planned, when Dombrowski makes moves they're usually substantial. Of course this all comes out after the guy gets essentially "let go", but I remember when Cherington got hired the complements people gave him were "he's very deliberate", "he's a good listener", "he's methodical" etc...All good things I supposed...the premise was that he was different from Theo in that Theo was more ready to act quickly and seemed to have his own thoughts as opposed to taking in "group think"...Although both Theo/Ben left after horrible big ticket FA signings, I'm a much bigger fan of the "taking action/moving quickly"approach from a leader as it carries with it an air of decisiveness, confidence, and self assuredness in action and in what you're trying to accomplish. Couple that w/ an excellent track record for making good personnel decisions and I love the fact that DD was already close to a trade...not even sure what the hell it was for, but just that the guy's been here since August and he's ready to jump right in to the fray and mix it up very early in the off season...Again, show's me he has a plan, he's decisive, and he's ready to act on the plan...All great things to see from the leader of baseball operations in my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Sept 8, 2015 3:18:39 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with anything but one thing I've noticed so far is that DD is definitely a less guarded speaker than either Theo or BC were. Some of DD's quotes seem right from the gut, like he's talking to his neighbor as opposed to the media...Whereas Theo, and to an even greater degree BC, were so calculated in their statements to the media, in a "Pre-Divorce Tiger Woods" kind of way...Not saying I like it or don't like it, just an observation that I'm curious to see how it plays out going forward. Theo got so unfairly grilled over the "Bridge Year" non-sense when everyone new what he meant... I'll be curious to see if the older school baseball guy (DD) gets more leeway from the older school Boston media types (Cafardo, Shaunassey etc...) on what he says...and for a point of reference I'm all for the DD hiring and think I may have been the first to suggest it, but again, I'm just curious to see how it plays out in the media.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Sept 8, 2015 2:47:59 GMT -5
Man, trading good young catching has to be the next toughest decision to trading good young pitching...First and foremost, if both CV and BS are healthy and show they are starting catchers, you have to eventually trade one of them to get the maximum value out of the player to the team (playing BS out of position doesn't maximize the value to the team)...so lets assume CV is healthy, and lets assume BS is an above average defensive catcher and good offensive player and someone who the pitchers trust (if not to the extent of CV), the player to trade is CV (as much as I love the guy)...and think that CV may not have the value of BS but probably holds very high value especially to certain teams valuing pitch framing/throwing (can't you just see Socioscia drooling over this guy)...But would say there's no urgency this off season (due to not knowing CV's health, offensive upside, and BS's SSS this year) to trade either of them unless someone presses hard for one, or unless DD feels there's a deal that's just too good to pass up. Smart play is to bring them both to camp, prove CV is healthy etc...and see what happens...zero pressure to act impatiently with either of them...Although I am curious what a CV, Magot, Marrero package could fetch in the young, cost controlled, staff ace department...And with this I'll leave everyone w/ the horror movie version of the "Riches of Catchers" department where the Rangers were set for years to come with Salty, Teagarden, Laird, how'd that turn out by the way...Yikes
|
|
|
Post by chud on Aug 2, 2015 10:12:28 GMT -5
[/quote]
LL did a fine job for this organization and got needlessly attacked over and over and that doesn't seem fair to me.
[/quote]
I'll add one thought to the above...I think he understood his role was being the heavy to soak up all the negative comments to pave the way for others to act...He almost seemed to embrace that part of his job, but certainly understood it was part of the job description...And I'm just trying to be fair to LL, as i'm not an apologist for him...But he was vital to the 3 WS and deserves credit...How many other Sox CEO's were responsible for 3 WS wins, never mind that they took place in an 11 year span...Same goes for Warner/Henry et al and the entire ownership group...These guys, as all high level executives, are judged on results not necessarily on their style/personality etc...and it's tough to argue with these results over their span since buying/running the team despite the lack of success over the last couple of seasons...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Aug 2, 2015 10:03:36 GMT -5
My take: Lucchino's retirement following the season was in the works all year. They decided to announce it early to take some of the heat off Cherington. Lucchino was not fired because of the struggles of the 2015 Red Sox, and I suspect he had far less to do with such struggles than you all seem you think. Here's my scientific comment on the above: Agree in spades to all of it!
|
|
|
Post by chud on Aug 2, 2015 8:07:31 GMT -5
Larry getting shown the door is like Christmas come early. LL is definitely the "bad cop" in the organization. Although most of us (including me) only really know anything about the dynamics in the FO from what we read and hear, it certainly sounds like he's had his share of misgivings (Lester, Texiera, A-Rod, Theo etc...)...But think we need to at least acknowledge that as CEO he played a large role in most/all of the Sox successes over this historic run. The funny thing is, prior to 2004, fans (again, including me) thought whomever brought the Sox a WS victory would have a free pass for life. But, isn't that a very naive of any of us to think, "free passes" don't exist in sports...Francona was accused of running a loose ship after winning 2 WS, Theo wanted out (probably in part due to LL) and immediately following some historically bad FA signings and trades, and now LL is being replaced (the guy is 70 after all and i believe he wants to step back...not being fired) and carries a lot of bad will with him as the "bad cop"...but the guy did bring in 3 WS over 11 years, not too shabby right?!...The guy gets credit for that! That said, I'm very hopeful they build in a "President of Baseball Ops" position like Theo has in Chicago...The trend of splitting responsibilities and increasing span of control seems like a total no brainer, and is also gaining steam in the NFL with some teams preferring the GM and HC to both have equal power (not saying that here, but giving an example of how Kennnedy would work side by side with a Baseball Ops President)...Again, just a thought, but think it's time for the split in responsibilities...and I can't help but notice the timing of all of this...hmmmm...comes right on the heals of a terrible season and "no deal" trade deadline...So a switch they of course have been planning for a while, but color me crazy in that even in his out processing LL has spun this into a PR masterpiece as if to say "don't worry fans, I know we didn't make any trades and that you're not interested in the team, but the change is beginning and it's starting with me"...genius actually
|
|
|
Post by chud on Aug 1, 2015 18:42:46 GMT -5
I posted in another thread that I wonder if this sets up a situation like the Cubs have (i.e. basically a business president and baseball ops president) w/ potentially someone over top of Cherington...total speculation but wonder if Dave Dombrowski would be that guy if let go by Detroit considering his ties to Henry...again, baseless speculation on my part...but clearly think this gives them a way to keep Cherington as GM and provide some baseball specific oversight to his operation.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 29, 2015 5:40:44 GMT -5
Older folks here may remember a best-selling book called The Peter Principle. It argued that folks who do their job well are, as a rule, promoted to more challenging jobs, and this process continues until they end up in a job they do not do all that well. As a GM, Ben Cherington is a terrific Director of Player Development (amateur scouting, minor league organization). He's done an amazing job assessing amateur talent, a great job developing minor league talent, a solid job assessing minor league talent, a very mediocre, and a mixed job assessing major league talent; and he (via his managers and coaches) has largely done a subpar job of getting the most from his MLB talent. You can't really demote Cherington back to his old job, but you certainly do not want to fire him and lose his brilliance directing the amateur acquisition and player development side of things. In the long run, that's the tougher and more important job. So what I would do is hire a guy to do the MLB roster part of the job, while giving him some newly invented title like Vice President, Major-League Assessment. This guy would be promised the eventual title of GM. The spin would be that when Theo built the 2004-2008 near-dynasty team, he had Josh Byrnes and Jed Hoyer working under him, and the Sox ownership recognizes that Ben needs a smart assistant. In reality, though, the new guy would be co-GM with Cherington for MLB roster decisions, and as he would be the guy with the greater expertise, that process would largely consist of him deciding what to do and Cherington agreeing. Eventually, you would promote Cherington to a position that would, on paper, have oversight over everything, and promote the new guy to GM. Their actual jobs would change little. Cherington would run everything but the MLB roster hands-on, and the GM would handle just that. Cherington's new position could be President, or something newly invented that would be intermediate between President and GM. Its funny you mention that as I was thinking along the same lines but in reverse...Was thinking if you keep BC, maybe you hire a "President of Baseball Ops" who falls somewhere either slightly below or parallel to Lucchino but specifically is in charge of baseball decisions (like Theo in Chicago)...and was wondering if Dombrowski could be that guy due to his experience and past relationship with Henry...Just a thought... but agree that if BC stays I'm not sure he can be trusted as the top "baseball" official in charge of making all baseball decisions (or at minimum, making recommendations on baseball decisions to ownership) despite some of the excellent work he's done with the farm...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 28, 2015 20:48:08 GMT -5
Man, as optimistic as I try and be about the Sox FO/Cherington (as i'm a big fan of stability in jobs), I can't help thinking of two things: 1) The farm system is so robust, yet we've let good assets go stale (on the MLB roster too) and get past their primes in certain cases it terms of value (salary, versatility, trade value) w/out turning much of those assets into anything usable...leading to 2) The MLB roster planning is such a mess almost as if the thought was nothing can go wrong if we stockpile players at all positions and store them away in AAA...But in reality this isn't fantasy baseball and their needs to be a plan for constant turnover, which hopefully involves keeping your best prospects and players and turning lesser prospects/players into something useful to replenish the roster when more turnover is needed... I almost feel like Ben can't pull the trigger on trading any of the lesser prospects as he may over value them to the point where it's hurting the organization or is just fearful he may miscalculate a lesser prospect and doesn't want to trade the next Bagwell...Really what you need to do is be the braves, identify and hold on to your best prospects while being ok w/ trading away that second layer of prospects to clear a way for turnover/transition...which goes to another point, 3) Is Cherington too deliberate (albeit, this coming from a guy, me, who preaches patience) in the sense that he's not a good or decisive decision maker...I think you can be patient and bold at the same time, but it requires guts and decision making ability at the highest level to not fear being wrong...and again, what the hell do i know, but from the looks of it Cherington has no problem being bold or wrong at the MLB level, but seems to fear being wrong trading away any prospect...sorry for the ramble, but can't shake this feeling You mean like how he traded Lowrie and Reddick and Pimentel and Iglesias and Montas and De La Rosa and Webster and Ranaudo? What exactly are you talking about? And what exactly do you expect to get back for "lesser prospects" anyway? Good point! And just for a little clarity i was more angling toward prospects not at the MLB level (i.e. the unproven ones)...I look at Lowrie, Pimentel, Inglesias, De La Rosa and Webster as guys they evaluated at the MLB level at least in part and probably thought they could do better...I think where i see some need for improvement is the understanding that there needs to be regular turnover at the prospect level to keep the entire cycle going...while ensuring you don't trade your best ones yet not being afraid to trade the second tier for something of value prior to the second tier prospect losing value...if any of that makes sense. I always look to the Braves for having that down to a science...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 28, 2015 20:42:36 GMT -5
Man, as optimistic as I try and be about the Sox FO/Cherington (as i'm a big fan of stability in jobs), I can't help thinking of two things: 1) The farm system is so robust, yet we've let good assets go stale (on the MLB roster too) and get past their primes in certain cases it terms of value (salary, versatility, trade value) w/out turning much of those assets into anything usable...leading to 2) The MLB roster planning is such a mess almost as if the thought was nothing can go wrong if we stockpile players at all positions and store them away in AAA...But in reality this isn't fantasy baseball and their needs to be a plan for constant turnover, which hopefully involves keeping your best prospects and players and turning lesser prospects/players into something useful to replenish the roster when more turnover is needed...I almost feel like Ben can't pull the trigger on trading any of the lesser prospects as he may over value them to the point where it's hurting the organization or is just fearful he may miscalculate a lesser prospect and doesn't want to trade the next Bagwell...Really what you need to do is be the braves, identify and hold on to your best prospects while being ok w/ trading away that second layer of prospects to clear a way for turnover/transition...which goes to another point, 3) Is Cherington too deliberate (albeit, this coming from a guy, me, who preaches patience) in the sense that he's not a good or decisive decision maker...I think you can be patient and bold at the same time, but it requires guts and decision making ability at the highest level to not fear being wrong...and again, what the hell do i know, but from the looks of it Cherington has no problem being bold or wrong at the MLB level, but seems to fear being wrong trading away any prospect...sorry for the ramble, but can't shake this feeling The argument to horde prospects is not to hope that every one of them pans out. It's that you don't trade away prospects that turn into All-Stars, like Iglesias and Reddick. Imagine if they traded Betts as a throw-in on the Peavy trade because Pedroia was blocking him. You don't need to get full value out of every prospect. When you try to, you'll end up missing out on the rest of the value when he develops further because you thought you were selling high when you traded him for a relief pitcher who was good for one year and then the prospect turned into a Hall of Fame player. It's worth it to let 10 prospects bust if you keep that one guy. And since prospect for prospect trades pretty much never happen, I'm leery of any 4 for 1 trades when the 1 is 28-30 years old. They just seem to never work out well. Trust me, i totally get it! Just that you need that balance of being able to identify who to trade and who to keep, while factoring in the premise that you can't storehouse prospects too long as at some point their value can start going the wrong way thus losing the potential to turn a prospect (a valuable prospect who's peaking) into something of value to assist with the replenishment of the farm or for a piece at the MLB level...then starting the cycle all over again...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 28, 2015 20:35:12 GMT -5
One quick one on Vic: When Cherington got the job, one thing i remember him saying is that he was going to acquire players who baseball actually matters too (I always thought that was a subtle jab at players like JD Drew...)...Vic was definitely one of those players. Typical Boston media now questioning the contract and "if" they would have one the WS w/out him...What an absolute joke...Because the one thing i know was that they did win the WS w/ him and trying to surgically extract a player from a winning equation 2 years after the fact to try and make the player/team look bad for a contract is the epitome of armchair quarterbacking...Vic had an excellent year in 2013 and some clutch hits in the playoffs (if not an excellent entire playoff)...His D was "Evans-eque"...just a good overall player in every facet but one who couldn't stay healthy for the Sox...That said, needed to trade him to clear a way to give the last two months to Castillo who's doing no good in AAA...If that time wasn't now for Castillo it was never...next to go should be De Aza for JBJ (who fits the same thing, now or never for him)...actually, part of me wonders if they're keeping JBJ in AAA to trade him (i.e. because he's hitting and they don't want to risk him being exposed again in MLB after he's reestablished value again)... Seriously, how you can write this about Victorino and not think the exact same thing applies to Drew is beyond me. 1. Incredible defense. 2. Don't win in 2007 without him. 3. 2013 Vic playoffs v. 2007 Drew playoffs: 642 OPS vs. 783 OPS. Vic's game winning grand slam was obvious worth more (e.g., has a higher WPA), but Drew's grand slam helped force a game 7 against Cleveland (then in a zero-zero game), and Vic's 2013 playoffs was dominated by a ton of huge strikeouts and kept afloat by 7 lean-in HBPs. 3 out of 5 years, Drew played more games than Victorino's career high with the Sox - and the 5th year he was 35 and by that point broken down. I find Victorino to be a fun player for his personality off the field, but Drew was the significantly better player and added more to both the regular season and his own World Series victory. Whatever "baseball matters to him" means it must at least partially include playing the actual games and playing them well. Sorry to the rest of the board for falling into the obvious trap. But this idea of how to build a baseball team with dirty, gritty players is stupid in large part because we have only partial insight into who the dirty, gritty players are. Sorry, my bad, I think this is a combination of me not being clear enough in my original post and maybe you reading a bit too much into it...I agree on Drew, I was a big fan of his and loved the signing at the time...what i meant was i thought Cherington's statement was a dig on Drew, not that i agreed w/ the statement...of course its just total speculation on my part...Not sure how that led to the whole "gritty player" argument...Vic and Drew were both good all around players who had trouble staying healthy, but when healthy were winning players on winning teams who could contribute in a multitude of ways...wish we had more players with those abilities which was more to my point of the media trying to pick apart the Vic signing, which i think is ridiculous...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 28, 2015 4:42:19 GMT -5
Man, as optimistic as I try and be about the Sox FO/Cherington (as i'm a big fan of stability in jobs), I can't help thinking of two things: 1) The farm system is so robust, yet we've let good assets go stale (on the MLB roster too) and get past their primes in certain cases it terms of value (salary, versatility, trade value) w/out turning much of those assets into anything usable...leading to 2) The MLB roster planning is such a mess almost as if the thought was nothing can go wrong if we stockpile players at all positions and store them away in AAA...But in reality this isn't fantasy baseball and their needs to be a plan for constant turnover, which hopefully involves keeping your best prospects and players and turning lesser prospects/players into something useful to replenish the roster when more turnover is needed...I almost feel like Ben can't pull the trigger on trading any of the lesser prospects as he may over value them to the point where it's hurting the organization or is just fearful he may miscalculate a lesser prospect and doesn't want to trade the next Bagwell...Really what you need to do is be the braves, identify and hold on to your best prospects while being ok w/ trading away that second layer of prospects to clear a way for turnover/transition...which goes to another point, 3) Is Cherington too deliberate (albeit, this coming from a guy, me, who preaches patience) in the sense that he's not a good or decisive decision maker...I think you can be patient and bold at the same time, but it requires guts and decision making ability at the highest level to not fear being wrong...and again, what the hell do i know, but from the looks of it Cherington has no problem being bold or wrong at the MLB level, but seems to fear being wrong trading away any prospect...sorry for the ramble, but can't shake this feeling
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 28, 2015 4:20:53 GMT -5
One quick one on Vic: When Cherington got the job, one thing i remember him saying is that he was going to acquire players who baseball actually matters too (I always thought that was a subtle jab at players like JD Drew...)...Vic was definitely one of those players. Typical Boston media now questioning the contract and "if" they would have one the WS w/out him...What an absolute joke...Because the one thing i know was that they did win the WS w/ him and trying to surgically extract a player from a winning equation 2 years after the fact to try and make the player/team look bad for a contract is the epitome of armchair quarterbacking...Vic had an excellent year in 2013 and some clutch hits in the playoffs (if not an excellent entire playoff)...His D was "Evans-eque"...just a good overall player in every facet but one who couldn't stay healthy for the Sox...That said, needed to trade him to clear a way to give the last two months to Castillo who's doing no good in AAA...If that time wasn't now for Castillo it was never...next to go should be De Aza for JBJ (who fits the same thing, now or never for him)...actually, part of me wonders if they're keeping JBJ in AAA to trade him (i.e. because he's hitting and they don't want to risk him being exposed again in MLB after he's reestablished value again)...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 19, 2015 10:14:20 GMT -5
Honestly, they have a nice young core in Eduardo, Xander, and Mookie - they just need to be patient and surround them with the right complementary players. The complementary players this year were a disaster, so the young guys didn't have the time to grow into their roles. Agreed, patience is the key! The Sox have good, young pieces at the MLB level and seemingly below...I've stated before the cyclical nature of winning is unavoidable and if you want to build a sustainable winning organization (7-10 years of being in contention) it needs to be done w/ patience where a player development process is in place that provides talent, and a MLB evaluation process that can identify MLB complementary talent to surround the younger guys. It also depends upon an acceptance of the "winning cycle" and not to do anything to screw with it that might push that cycle off longer... The Sox have pieces to sell right now that most likely won't be of as much value to the team when the next winning cycle comes up and might provide a return of talent back to the organization at some varying level (i.e. Koji, Nava, De Aza...it hurts not to have Buchholz in here...)...And some pieces to shed to allow for the future development of some of the younger players who still need time at the MLB level to assess their ability to help the team next year and beyond (i.e. Napoli, Victorino, Masterson...) Hopefully we can accomplish a little or a lot of both prior to the trade deadline to evaluate the Sox talent and needs for 2016
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 19, 2015 9:58:29 GMT -5
Cannot believe we are in the same situation as last year, BUT we need to make the most of it. I miss being in contention / I miss being the big bad Red Sox Totally agree w/ the first statement, while we need to be careful of the last one even though I totally agree as i'm sure everyone on this board does..."Needing to make the most of it" is the key...So, while not chasing a high draft pick, there's things we should be looking to do at the deadline (i.e. selling) that might provide a better pick next June...So I'm all for looking to 2016 w/ our trade deadline moves and will certainly take the benefit of a high pick should it assist us in that fashion...I just hope the Sox FO/Ownership understand that despite not wanting to be in this situation (another possible last place finish in the AL East) they need to plan from this point in time and not from a point in time when they hoped the season would have played out better...as that time is long gone.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 18, 2015 10:08:34 GMT -5
Yeah, if the goal is to trade for good, young, MLB pitching (great goal by the way) that will cost us for sure if it's even a possibility...the key for any organization is to know your own prospects better than any other team knows them w/out looking through rose colored glasses...that way you know who to keep and who to potentially trade (the Braves had this down to a science at one point)...and ultimately, when to trade those prospects you've identified as trade chips as if you hold them too long they could be exposed and their value goes down somewhat to a ton...Perfect case is Checchini, he may have a resurgence of course but it certainly seems like he hit his peak as a trade chip and has gone back the other way...but then the Sox may have identified him as a keeper too and thus allowed him to potentially surpass the risk/reward on him as a player for the team vs. his value 2 years ago as a trade chip...either way, the Sox have a lot of interchangeable pieces in the minors and they need to make the absolute right decisions on who to keep, who to trade, and then to trade them prior to losing value.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 13, 2015 16:24:51 GMT -5
The two worst things happened to the Sox at about the same time...Buchholz get's injured and they drop 2 or 3 to NYY. Despite their winning ways of late I'm still of the opinion that it's too little too late and there are too many teams to hurdle to make a true playoff run (more realistic is to see if they finish above .500)...
With that said here's the catch 22, the one player that could keep the winning ways going gets hurts (Buch) and if the Sox muddle at about 6/7 games out as we near the end of the month they'll be planning toward next year yet w/out a potential huge trade chip (Buch) because he's hurt...Although I doubt they'd trade him, I was of the opinion that a team might overpay for him (if he could keep to the dominant Buchholz) in which case they'd owe it to the organization to listen...all out the window if he doesn't come back healthy and in time to prove his health...Seriously, I told a co-worker about a week prior to the injury that we've seen the inconsistent Buchholz, and then the dominant Buchholz, and were still waiting for the injured Buchholz and now he's here...Like clockwork...
Then losing 2 of 3 to NYY was the worse case scenario to me...A sweep either way would have given some clear direction for the Sox FO...winning 2 of 3 would have put them 4.5 games out and a little bit more hope for contention (or the illusion of serious contention) which I think gives the FO some conviction...Now, again just in my opinion, the FO knows the hurdle is too big but can't punt the season yet and thus leaves us in a little "no man's land" for the time being despite this team not being a serious playoff/WS contender...
I like the rumors of looking for cost controlled good young pitching ...can't go wrong there...well, let me caveat that by emphasizing "good" and "young"...it's a kind of safe haven approach to the deadline...just that I'd be more willing to give up non helpful 2015 and beyond MLB pieces than i think the FO will in this "no man's land" which i think is where it really hurts us...again, just my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 5, 2015 10:19:15 GMT -5
I'm an optimist in normal life, so could I make a case that the Sox make a run in the AL East being behind only 7 games...Sure I could...But, I'm also a planner in normal life and because of that I'd like to be realistic and say 7 games in the East, 3rd worst record in the AL, and 8th worst in MLB may be too far of a climb with too many teams in front of them to do any damage...So, for that reason I thought it might be a good time to put a thread out there to suggest what we'd all like to see the rest of the way, assuming playoffs are out...Here's my list:
1) Definitely keep on keeping on with the linear trajectory of the killer B's (Betts / Bogaerts)
2) Development of the Young Pitching/Pitchers...See if ERod can hold up in his first go around then cut him off if/when his innings get too high, and need to give B Johnson a taste prior to next year...Owens is not quite ready yet, but would like to see who the in-house successor to Koij will be (Light?, Kelly?) if there is one for 2017
3) Straightening out the OF alignment for 2016...Assuming Betts is locked into one of the 3 spots, and assuming Hanley is the long term DH, who will be the other 2...I'd like to see what we have in Bradley as he's too potentially valuable to give up on prior to absolutely knowing what he is and what he isn't...I'm hopeful they can clear some playing time for him w/ a Victorino trade at some point even if they have to eat salary as he's not a fit next year and won't be useful to this team in a non-playoff year...then, of course, you also need to find some time for Castillo...Either way, this log jam needs to be squared away showing a clear plan for the out years of 2016-2017...right now, this OF juggling has been the hardest thing for me to understand in terms of how the Sox have handled it with the long term planning outlook...I think they thought they could trade a few pieces like Vic and Adams to clear space at the start of the season or a bit into it, which they couldn't due to lack or productivity/injury, but now is time to force the issue somehow...
4) Development of the plan for the SP's going forward...Think it's clear that Miley, Porcello, and ERod are in 3 spots (i'm a guy who thinks Procello will figure this out as he's not this bad)...I think the Sox should see what a Buchholz trade could fetch, which should and would be a ton...the irony is that everyone wants him traded when he's pitching badly and then wants to hold him when he's pitching well...but the reality is, he could be a part of the future staff or could be a huge poker chip bringing in a bonanza at the deadline and think teams would be salavating over what might be the best overall SP available (to include current health) with 2 more years of control...if the Shark as a FA brought in Russell, imagine what Buch could bring in...Either way, if there's a team willing to pay equal value the Sox should listen, and if there's a team that's willing to overpay, the Sox should pull the trigger...Then there's Joe Kelly who's had plenty of MLB time to figure out what he is and what he isn't...His stuff is probably too good for AAA hitters to realize how big of a detriment his lack of control is...so the minors probably won't do much for his future development...Personally, I think he's the future closer, who's stuff will dominate over one inning, in situations where hitters might be more impatient as opposed to him as a SP where hitters know they have a whole game to wait him out...
5) Finally, the continued development of the farm...Personally, if some of the high level prospects continue to develop as they are, the Sox trade Buch for a huge haul, and the B's are still a year away from carrying the load, I'm ok w/ next year also being a developmental year...But I'd just like to see a plan that that is the case as opposed to the plan being one thing w/ the reality turning the plan on it's head
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 2, 2015 5:16:39 GMT -5
Whether it's the bats or the starting pitchers, it's not happening this year because this may be the least consistent team the Sox have fielded since their successful run started in the early 2000s...we can see the potential on any given night, but for the love of god, there's zero ability to keep the stretch going which they would need to do to contend...And it's not just losing, it usually ends with the Sox getting 2 hit, or one of their SP's getting shelled and not completing 4 innings...it's so odd...but seriously, all the more reason not to get wrapped up in 2 wins in a row or winning 3 of 5...as they seriously just cannot sustain it...and my personal opinion is, if they were losing games 4 to 3, that would be one thing, but i'd imagine those 3 inning starts w/ the SP's give up 5 runs get pulled fell like 10 loses in a row to the players
|
|
|