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 Jul 2, 2015 5:09:25 GMT -5
I don't get that line of reasoning. Is it really too muxh to expect Rusney to learn MLB fundamentals enough to become the player we expected? The Sox will move more than $30M per year off the books in October just with Nap, Vic, Breslow. Probably more in other trades. The Sox don't need to move him for $$$ reasons. De Aza seems to be an above average 4th or 5th OF who, at 32, would likely get a reasonable contract under $5M. In that scenario moving a still untested Rusney and eating $$$$ to do so would only save a few Million, the cost of a not-excellent RP. Hanley, Betts, Bradley in 2016? What about 2017? What abojt 2016? I wouldn't get to much in to it as Olney in the past has been preaching what? ? Dump Hanley and Sandoval, or his “real concerns about the Red Sox,” where he then "identified problems with four of the five members of the rotation". and the fact that "Rick Porcello was the one guy who didn’t draw a negative comment." Not much of a quality newsday pipeline with those type of comments it seems to me. Yeah, agree with this...Olney has to fish around for info to feed the fans when he calls into local radio stations...and then makes two big inferences, one linked to the other: First, his own spin on what other team personnel have inferred the Sox will do in the offseason (talk about 2nd hand heresay guess work...)...Second, a further inference, based on the 2nd hand heresay guess work, that the shedding of payroll may lead to shedding Castillo...If you listen real close you'll also here Buster say that he heard at 31 Flavors last night that Ferris Bueller was seriously sick...Trust me, I get it, that's what Buster and these guys do and i like to read it and listen to it, but this sounds like total guess work all the way around. I don't think the Sox cut ties w/ the 28 year old Cuban OF who they just signed as in addition to giving up quickly on a young player w/ potential, I think it would hurt our reputation in the Cuban market...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jun 28, 2015 15:36:22 GMT -5
[/quote]You make a Valid point BUT. Last place in 12, again in 14 and 15 looking like another last place finish is just not acceptable in Boston.[/quote]
And herein lies a big part of the problem with the Red Sox...How do we separate our obvious goal to win every year (that's why we follow year in and year out right?!), with the realistic view that it's an impossible goal to achieve every year considering the cyclical nature of winning, and factoring in the passionate fan base and need for NESN ratings (i.e. The Monster), the cost of chasing the ring every year that can dig a deeper hole than admitting some years (maybe several in a row) just need to be reloading/developmental years...I think Theo started a good process of focusing the fan base on the farm system through the media (another way of saying, "look what's just over the horizon")
So, in 2015, the Sox have some young talent and some established talent, but the roster is a bit of a mess w/ too many OF, too many outs in the lineup (some of which was due to youth and some due to underachieving vets...), and too many inconsistent pitching performances. Every time they win a series the momentum ends the next series...We've learned that the AL East actually isn't all that bad comparatively, and the Sox are staring up at every team in the AL...While nothing is impossible, seems like this isn't going to be the year...the question is, isn't that ok after 3 WS in the past 10 years or so? I'd argue "yes", but still want to discuss the issues/problems i see as that's what i like to do...and i'm sure is why we're all here...but there's no such thing as "losing" not being acceptable in any giving market, it's an inevitability...sooner or later it has to happen albeit it is never a goal to achieve...maybe the more money you have, you can stave it off longer, but unless you have an unlimited budget, the cost of continuing to chase the ring will also catch up with you at some point and then ultimately push your time in between winning cycles off that much further...
So need to prepare to sell anything good we have (which won't be here when we're ready to compete again for a WS) which can bring back future/young talent that will be around when we can realistically compete for a championship again (which isn't that far away with young talent we supposedly have)...but need to build like the cubs and hold off on the expensive FA signings until we ready to pull the trigger again on making a WS run...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jun 28, 2015 12:47:33 GMT -5
How to fix the Red Sox? How about getting anyone from the cardinals organization to come here and tell us how its done.....Even the washroom attemdant. Or especially their computer forensics people...I hear they're really talented...too soon?
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jun 16, 2015 5:06:22 GMT -5
Oh and Hanley's defense has been so bad in so many ways. What a piss poor effort here. Runners on 1st and 3rd w/ JBJ there, and likely Castillo/Mookie. If he's not going to produce with the bat, there's no reason to have JBJ sit in AAA. Trust me, i know Hanley's body language comes across as "I don't care"...but if you look close at that video even Panda is directing the throw to 2nd...and with one out, and little chance of throwing the runner out due to him having to move to his left to field the ball (i.e. away from his throwing angle to home plate), the smart play is to throw to second to keep the double play in order...if he threw home from that angle the runner scores and you have a man on second...I wish i saw more fire from Ramirez too, but we have to be realistic in the things we attack him for...His helmet flying off w/ every swing in April when he hit 10hrs was funny, now that we're all upset with this team he embodies all of the problems...the truth is probably somewhere in between although i also can't believe how bad he's been in the field just not necessarily on that play
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jun 7, 2015 7:12:34 GMT -5
Just a couple items from my end on Farrell: 1) Let's face it, no manager is perfect...Maddon, seems great, but let's face facts, how many world series has he won...Scioscia, has been rumored to be on the chopping block several times, La Russa was essentially let go in St. Louis, Torre was essentially let go in NYY...bottom line is that other than Bochy and Bobby Cox all managers get criticism and eventually get let go...remember all the talk about "the first manager who wins the series w/ the Sox will have a job for life" talk...bottom line is there's no such job in professional sports, it's all "what have you done for me lately"... 2) That said, long term stability is the most important thing in sports...from ownership to baseball operations, to field operations...and we definitely have great ownership and for the last 10+ years that ownership has put in place a great baseball operations staff...and done the right thing on the field (hired Francona and he had a long run, fired Valentine quickly, and hired Farrell who has won a WS for us)...tough to fault that type of ownership w/out being extremely picky and searching for Utopia 3) A good 10 year run w/ 3 WS is more than any of us could hope for...yet of course none of us would be here if we didn't want to see success every year...which we all know is not possible...So although this year has been a tough one i'd argue that Farrell is a good manager working w/ a good baseball ops staff who trusts him and who works w/ a good ownership crew who trusts them...we're still in a good place 4) We're slowly blending in a lot of youth and hopefully talent into the MLB roster and some of the money spent this year has catapulted expectations...but think the only other thing that keeps us around besides winning is to see the youth movement/development...who doesn't love the prospect of a good youngster and we have plenty to follow...i'm sure they all won't turn into all stars, but such is prospect development...yet, we have more potential talented youth than most teams...especially than most teams who've competed year in and year out...sure, some teams have ebbs and flow (Marlins, Royals etc...) but how many competed every year...better yet, how many are expected to compete every year? tough to compete every year and actually try and develop young players...Sure you could argue the Cardinals, but honestly, it hasn't been that tough to own the NL Central...if they had been in the AL East the last 10-15 years they wouldn't have been in the playoffs to compete in WS as regularly as they have.... 5) So, i'll be watching along w/ everyone else and praying for a turnaround this year...but honestly, i still think we're bridging the gap w/ this current/new core: (Hanley, Panda, Papi, Pedroia, Nap)...until the current young guys prosper into the new core along w/ Pedroia and the revamped pitching staff...but think that Farrell is the right guy to ride this out with as managers come and go, despite success, and we have an good ownership and baseball ops staff who trust him...and that's good w/ me. John...is that you? Nah, just a concerned citizen showing that some of us are behind that officer all the way...albeit, not necessary...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jun 6, 2015 19:16:53 GMT -5
Just a couple items from my end on Farrell:
1) Let's face it, no manager is perfect...Maddon, seems great, but let's face facts, how many world series has he won...Scioscia, has been rumored to be on the chopping block several times, La Russa was essentially let go in St. Louis, Torre was essentially let go in NYY...bottom line is that other than Bochy and Bobby Cox all managers get criticism and eventually get let go...remember all the talk about "the first manager who wins the series w/ the Sox will have a job for life" talk...bottom line is there's no such job in professional sports, it's all "what have you done for me lately"...
2) That said, long term stability is the most important thing in sports...from ownership to baseball operations, to field operations...and we definitely have great ownership and for the last 10+ years that ownership has put in place a great baseball operations staff...and done the right thing on the field (hired Francona and he had a long run, fired Valentine quickly, and hired Farrell who has won a WS for us)...tough to fault that type of ownership w/out being extremely picky and searching for Utopia
3) A good 10 year run w/ 3 WS is more than any of us could hope for...yet of course none of us would be here if we didn't want to see success every year...which we all know is not possible...So although this year has been a tough one i'd argue that Farrell is a good manager working w/ a good baseball ops staff who trusts him and who works w/ a good ownership crew who trusts them...we're still in a good place
4) We're slowly blending in a lot of youth and hopefully talent into the MLB roster and some of the money spent this year has catapulted expectations...but think the only other thing that keeps us around besides winning is to see the youth movement/development...who doesn't love the prospect of a good youngster and we have plenty to follow...i'm sure they all won't turn into all stars, but such is prospect development...yet, we have more potential talented youth than most teams...especially than most teams who've competed year in and year out...sure, some teams have ebbs and flow (Marlins, Royals etc...) but how many competed every year...better yet, how many are expected to compete every year? tough to compete every year and actually try and develop young players...Sure you could argue the Cardinals, but honestly, it hasn't been that tough to own the NL Central...if they had been in the AL East the last 10-15 years they wouldn't have been in the playoffs to compete in WS as regularly as they have....
5) So, i'll be watching along w/ everyone else and praying for a turnaround this year...but honestly, i still think we're bridging the gap w/ this current/new core: (Hanley, Panda, Papi, Pedroia, Nap)...until the current young guys prosper into the new core along w/ Pedroia and the revamped pitching staff...but think that Farrell is the right guy to ride this out with as managers come and go, despite success, and we have an good ownership and baseball ops staff who trust him...and that's good w/ me.
|
|
|
Post by chud on May 22, 2015 14:20:17 GMT -5
I just don't believe this idea that teams which are trying to contend will deliberately play a player they believe to be significantly inferior in order to "showcase" him and increase his trade value. You could be totally right, just an observation on my part to try and rationalize something that doesn't make sense otherwise...I like Nava for what he is, a cheap/versatile player with a little bit of talent...but assuming a few things: 1) the Sox know what Nava is by now and what he isn't and what he isn't is a valuable asset when he starts to cost more and when he doesn't have options like now...2) JBJ is a player they like on some level and don't want to give up on until they fully vet what he is, which i don't think they know yet at the mlb level...3) castillo has to be on the mlb roster...and with their view of trying to balance short and long term views of the mlb roster i think it makes sense to try over a short period of time to pull Nava's "norm" out of him to make him attractive to someone in order to get something a little more long term from another team and then keep both castillo/jbj...and think they also tried that w/ Craig if we can believe what was reported, and when they couldn't get anything from him, they demoted him...makes some sense to me and think that will be balanced with the 2015 team (i.e. if Nava doesn't get in going shortly to bring something in return back, he'll be put on waivers)...again, what the hell do i know, just my best guess
|
|
|
Post by chud on May 21, 2015 23:29:33 GMT -5
Where, in that article, is there any evidence that the reason they aren't playing him is because he went gutless versus three pitchers? My memory is a little fuzzy, but didn't JBJ have some attitude issues last season when he was called up? (it was something about fixing his swing or working in the cage?) If I had to guess, the reason Nava is getting the playing time over JBJ is that they're trying to get him going at the plate to showcase him for trade...bring up Castillo, trade Nava (although i still like his versatility), carry Castillo, Hanley, Betts, JBJ, Victorino in the OF...
|
|
|
Post by chud on Nov 8, 2013 11:04:48 GMT -5
The only thing better than hot stove baseball is winning the world series, and since we have both, this is the best time of year. What I'm about to propose is total baseless speculation, although i'm trying to base it in some type of reality...We keep talking about Stanton, is he worth trading for isn't he worth it, despite the fact that he might not even be available...and i think why everyone focuses on a 24 year old power hitting star being available is that everyone assumes the Marlins won't have the money to sign him long term...which may be totally accurate.
But what about this...I think that the Sox and Angels actually match up extremely well if the Angels would be willing to discuss Trout. I know, I know, Trout is probably untouchable, but hear me out. The Angels gambled and lost huge with two unmovable contracts in Pujols an Hamilton...two older position players w/ $100m plus contracts ($200m w/ Pujols) that no way is anyone taking on...Can the Angels afford to give another $100m + contract to a position player? Maybe...but can they be competitive and have three $100m position players, two of which are past/way past their primes? I'm not sure they can. And if they can't, what's the point... Again, they gambled and lost, no use crying over spilled milk...how can they absorb those contracts and compete...of course by surrounding them selves with cheap, young talent...and w/out a very good farm system, that means acquiring that cheap young talent.
The Sox could absolutely provide them w/ that talent on both sides of the field...a package of JBJ, Owens, WMB, and probably one of the following Webster, Renaudo, Barnes could do it. This would then fill the gap for the Sox in CF, and the Sox could make Trout one of their $100m + position players when the time comes as he fits every things they'd want to invest in of course and join Pedroia as the face of the Sox. It then gives the Angels their CF and 3B, along w/ the young pitching they so desperately need. While admittedly leaving the sox thin in young pitching...but they have 6 starters at the MLB level and could survive it for a while until they restock a bit...
Again, probably never going to happen, but i think the match up is right there...so if we're discussing Stanton, why not Trout.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Nov 2, 2013 9:35:44 GMT -5
Boras has already come out and made huge comps for Jacoby and noted the number of teams interested in him. Boras works for Ellsbury but, if Ellsbury had told him only to seek a deal with the Red Sox, he would not be taking this public approach. He is going to the highest bidder, period, and wishcasting is not going to change that fact. You could absolutely be correct. My point wasn't to say what was going into this negotiation at all...but merely to say that just because Boras is the agent doesn't necessarily mean that the only important thing to the player is every last dollar. People make work related decisions in life based on a lot of factors that we could never pretend to know...nor could I possibly predict what ellsbury is going to make his decision based upon...and nor am i "wishcasting", as in actuality i'm indifferent to ellsbury staying...I'm more confident in the fact that if the sox let him walk, they'll do so knowing that the money they don't spend on him will be creatively spent in a way that improves the team over signing just him with that money...that above all things makes me happy...the confidence in the front office to make the best decisions possible despite how they may turn out...my last point, in explaining the varitek stance, that was specific to varitek and has nothing to do w/ ellsbury...of course boras will make his stance to drum up as much money for his client as possible...as he did in public during those same negotiations involving varitek...but in reality we don't know what's going on behind the scenes between what ellsbury's said to dictate boras'actions...but we do know that it just doesn't necessarily mean it's all about getting every last dollar...and we also know, that doesn't mean he's going to stay either...no worries either way, but wanted to clarify my post...personally i think he's going to leave, but like i said earlier, what the hell do i really know about it, nothing!
|
|
|
Post by chud on Nov 2, 2013 7:06:59 GMT -5
I know a lot of people make the automatic connection between having boras as an agent and seeking every last dollar, as seems to be his strategy. But I wanted to make one point and reference one thing in regard to Ellsbury specifically. Michael Jordan said it best when it was talked about that David Falk was driving him to another team for more money, Jordan said in a tv interview, "David works for me, i don't work for David". And although Boras would advise his clients on a strategy to make the most money, they similarly can direct him on what actions to take. Varitek told him not to negotiate w/ any other teams, other than the sox during one negotiation and he did it...Weaver signed in season for below market money because he wanted to stay w/ the Angels. So Ellsbury not Boras is in control...Now, although i don't have the link i remember reading an article when ellsbury switched to Boras the reason he gave...He said something to the effect of the boras corp handling everything for his players in terms of scheduling workouts, clinics, medicals, basically everything so that all he had to do was worry about playing...I remember that vividly...so, although we only really see the money side of boras, i'm betting he offers his clients a lot more than that to keep them happy and some of that may be as important/more important than money to some...maybe not for the lower end clients where money is more important, but possibly for the higher end clients...just a thought
|
|
|
Post by chud on Oct 21, 2012 10:33:18 GMT -5
To me, the absolute most important thing in this hire is not whether or not Farrell is going to work out or whether Ausmus was the better pick etc...you need a crystal ball to know that...but the important thing was that it appears that Cherrington was able to make this pick, and that the bonus was that ownership was all in with that selection.
Valentine was an absolute disaster on many levels...although i had no idea how he'd be as a manager baseball wise, my guess originally was that he'd be in the middle of too much controversy to be very effective...never guessed it would be nearly as bad as it was though...all that being the case, the true disaster was that the Sox hired a new GM and didn't let him choose the guy he wanted to manage the team...you hire a guy to run the baseball operations, you need to sink or swim with what he wants to do...more or less, and removing huge financial decisions from that equation... that lack of trust in turn led to a lack of trust in Valentine...makes sense, it wasn't cherrington's pick, and there was no way he was going to trust valentine to make decisions on the present/future of the organization, coaches, philosophy...and i wouldn't have either...and from there, that lack of trust was filtered down from Valentine to his coaches, players etc...
so, back to Farrell. I'm all on board with this and like what i've always read about him since he was in Boston. Who knows if it will work in Boston, that's impossible to tell. But, i'm just very excited that we now appear to have a full management team that's committed to the same thing, that trusts each other, and can build toward the future with the same philosophies. Whether it works or not, this is the absolute right hire.
|
|
|