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 Guidas on Feb 1, 2024 14:13:21 GMT -5
Still, its kind of indefensible that they don't even make a minor league signing in an entire month. Not my money. As the late great John Wooden, and his disciple Bill Walton, were fond of saying, "Do not confuse activity for achievement." Or, as an old boss of mine used to say, "Don't tell me about the labor, show me the baby." Btw, if anyone can answer the question I posed here, I'll be most appreciative: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/7208/technical-issue-using-site?page=1&scrollTo=670710If they were mediocre last year and don't address that, is that an achievement?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 30, 2024 20:59:14 GMT -5
Could honestly be worse in terms of the buyer. This isn’t a Cohen situation. Rubenstein and his partners will have enough cash to extend all the Orioles’ best players and pay for some pitchkng.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 28, 2024 16:13:16 GMT -5
McAdam says Sox losing “tens of millions” on NESN by virtue of fielding a crap team 3 out of the last 4 years. Beyond that here’s some numbers on the dramatic ratings drops: “Ratings have cratered in recent seasons, especially in the second half when the team has drifted into irrelevancy. While NESN telecasts once routinely pulled 8.0 or 9.0 ratings, the team last year often averaged between 2.0-3.0. Part of that can be attributed to widespread cord-cutting, as younger viewers choose streaming options over cable. But it’s still a precipitous drop, and given the expectations for this season, not one that’s going to be reversed anytime soon.“ Full story: www.masslive.com/redsox/2024/01/some-things-i-think-i-think-on-dwindling-tv-ratings-for-red-sox-and-more.html
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 23, 2024 14:44:30 GMT -5
I understand players who prefer specific geographic locations when it comes to choosing a team. I understand even when this preference trumps money. I just don't ever remember (in this century) so many times I've seen "Aww shucks, X player just preferred to play elsewhere" as an excuse/reason for not getting the players we targeted. It sounds lame. And it's even more lame that we didn't have acceptable plan Bs and Cs in place, apparently. Serious question: Was that kind of statement ever made or seen as viable reasoning before, say, 2020? I'm old enough to remember players actually wanting to play in Boston. I understand there were cases like Mark Teixeira (who was from Maryland which resulted in Nationals/Orioles interest), etc. where geography was a factor in the bidding. But I don't ever remember the Sox hoping and wishing that a player would merely accept playing in Boston before these recent years. I am terrified of the Dodgers business model. Despite their lack of championships, they are set to dominate the next 10 years of baseball, grow their brand exponentially, and print money to the tune of giving out other megacontracts. I'm actually extremely jealous to the point that it might turn me off of the sport if the lack of parity becomes so ridiculous. I'm just glad we're not in the NL. I'm enamored with it and wish this ownership group would take note, embrace and find the inefficiencies to exploit.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 23, 2024 11:56:08 GMT -5
This is everything they teach you not to do in front offices - bank on the uncertain MLB future of prospects. And it puts a huge amount of pressure on these kids. I agree, more or less, but I'd add that the future of MLB free agents is also uncertain. Or how did it go with Sandoval, Ramirez, Price, Story...? It makes as much sense to count on Mayer as the everyday shortstop in 2026 as Story. But the way to deal with that uncertainty is to try to be good in every season without sacrificing the future, not to hold out for some utopian future. To that end... Sounds fine to me. But this is yet another article that is annoyingly framed around why they didn't sign a top-tier pitcher this offseason. If the goal is to be competitive now while counting on prospects for the the future, then sign some mid-tier guys on 1- or 2-year deals! Giolito was a start, but he compensates for Sale's departure at best. I get why they didn't sign Yamamoto or Montgomery; I don't get why not a single one of Imanaga, Paxton, Maeda, Stroman, Montas, Manaea, etc. suited their taste.
Agree to a point on this - we can all point to free agent successes and failures. The massive difference is that the free agents, at least the high priced ones, have produced significant success at the MLB level. The key in paying most of them is doing due diligence on known injuries and the projected decline and luck vs. the length of years. Regardless, the best case is always, hope for the kids, but surround them with established talent. The idea of waiting for these guys to come up, establish themselves and be above average MLB players and THEN we'll add some stars around them via free agency is more risky, although much less so in a cash outlay sense. It's a strategy for a low revenue/cheap owner team. And it asking for the fans to be patient for another 2-3 years, unless all these kids have first years like Corbin Caroll or James Outman. The odds on that are about equivalent to one of us hitting the Powerball jackpot Wednesday night. I will also echo what so many have said here: None of these guys are pitchers. And the Breslow/Bailey magic pitching dust is reminiscent of the "Bloom is an expert at developing pitching" refrain we heard in late 2019. It may prove to be true this time, but results remain to be seen. And, for the moment, they can only work with the arms they have.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 23, 2024 11:07:29 GMT -5
This is everything they teach you not to do in front offices - bank on the uncertain MLB future of prospects. And it puts a huge amount of pressure on these kids.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 21, 2024 10:41:26 GMT -5
Since when in this century has the FO ever used the "oh well, our division is too hard, let's just fold" excuse? So because we've won in the past we should be content with mediocrity? Also, for the sake of argument, say Breslow signed Stroman and E-Rod: you'd be worried about blocking the 'kids'? I see you have fundamentally missed the point . Why is building from within now suddenly "Mediocrity" and why is trying to win a different way now suddenly "folding"? Twins, Orioles, Rays, Braves, Reds, etc, have all done it and put quality product on the field. Wins are not a guarantee, spending huge $ on FA has failed as often as it has succeeded, but for me watching kids develop and rise through the system is honestly more fun . If we get a FA . I will welcome them to the team and the city and root for them to be successful, but yes, you are right I would rather see a team of homegrown studs make an impact. Clay B throwing a no hitter. The killer Bs dancing in the outfield. This what makes it fun. The Rays don't just build from within. If you look at their MLB roster, it's an almost 50-50 mix of developing and acquisitions from trading high- and mid-ranked prospects for undervalued players from other teams. A large part of the Braves' starting team was built through trades and free agent acquisitions. Most successful teams need a strong farm and populating some key positions with lower-costs MLB average players or better. But they also supplement that home-grown talent with free agents and trades from all tiers of their farm system. Also, if you're one of the high revenue teams in baseball, your model should not be a tank and bank team like the Orioles or Reds, or a mid-budget AL Central team like the Twins. Also, and this is just a personal peeve, the phrase "Quality Product" is one ownership pushes for a team that doesn't enthuse fans on its own. It's like saying, "This Kia is, in many ways, just as good as that Porsche!" Of course, in Boston, the ownership will charge you for the Porsche, even if they are giving you a Kia, but still...
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 21, 2024 10:31:32 GMT -5
I love all the optimism about Breslow/Bailey finding and fixing pitching, improving pitching development and punching-up "low hanging fruit," but the chatter sounds a lot like what we heard and what was posted on this board when Chaim Bloom was hired. Developing pitchers and spotting untapped pitching talent was supposed to be his carrying tool, after all. And, completely to his credit, he did have some successes, most notably Whitlock, Pivetta, Braiser and Wacha. I am less comfortable giving him credit for, say, Bello, Houck and Crawford as they had already come up several levels through the system and spent most of their growth and development time in previous player development programs.
I'll add, however, that Pivetta was also one of the worst starters in MLB in 2022, Braiser became unfixable in late 2022 and most of 2023, Whitlock couldn't stay on the mound as a starter for large periods of time and may be better as a super reliever (like Pivetta) and Wacha was then let go and had a low cost, productive year for his next team.
There's also trading away Springs for nothing who then became a near ace for TB, and letting Perez walk, who then went on to have an All Star first half for Texas and a great year, and Braiser's stupifying and sudden bounce-back with LAD. And then there's the great Cory Kluber pick-up. All the while, the Bloom regime's draft strategy - whether it was him or Tobloni - never really altered regarding pitching.
All this is saying, we've heard this "pitching guru/savant/development genius" hype before. I remain hopeful that Breslow and company do in fact have the secret sauce and are ready to sprinkle it liberally on Wikleman Gonzalez, Luis Perales, Hunter Dobbins and [insert your favorite high ceiling low floor pitching prospect here] but I really can't get excited until I see MLB results with whatever "low-hanging fruit" they've found the the Sox system.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 20, 2024 15:09:28 GMT -5
Orioles will be good until Angelos doesn’t want to pay his young stars , if they sell that team to a good owner who will spend Red Sox and the AL East are screwed Only if the Red Sox continue to play this shell game.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2024 20:09:08 GMT -5
Bookmark this and we’ll see all y’all next year.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2024 19:49:52 GMT -5
I feel like we are missing some important data point. This ownership has made a pivotal shift in the last few years that doesn't track with their history over the previous two decades. I refuse to believe they've decided to squeeze this team into a higher-margin business. Is NESN hemorrhaging? That's the only piece to the equation that I could see cause them to dramatically shift payroll. They reap the benefits of owning a regional network when it's booming, but now that model is floundering and they are immediately feeling the impact of lower advertising dollars. They don't get the benefit of being locked into a contract. With all that said, I fear they are managing to the death spiral. Revenues are down because performance is down, and rather than fix performance to generate higher revenues, they cut expenses and get less interest, leading to even lower revenues. This model of interchangeable parts doesn't make this team marketable either. Data Point, Sept, 2019: John Henry and Tom Werner see the Rays making the playoffs year after year on a shoestring budget. They think, "WtF are we doing spending all this money? Sam, go hire a smart guy who can do that for us, and we'll even spend up to the tax and be, like, the East Coast Dodgers!!!" Data Point, Jan, 2024: "Well, wtf do y'know — we've been losing on the field all but one year and overall revenues are the same give or take 10 mil! Hmmm, maybe we don't have to spend up to the tax..."
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2024 19:30:55 GMT -5
Sell the team. We deserve better. Why would they. Last reported revenue from NESN alone was $97 million - and that's after all the book cooking. They own the stadium outright, have a sweetheart deal on Jersey Street and are about to get more givebacks on a bigger development. It's a veritable cash cow and they will milk it, and us, and, barring some sort of apocalyptic event, it will never run dry. Personally, I don't mind a bit of any of this if they actually try to win. But we're in our fifth bridge year. This is not the standard they set.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2024 19:25:00 GMT -5
I know this is probably a “shoot the messenger” kind of reaction, but there is just something about Sam Kennedy that I intrinsically, intensely dislike. He’s like the Smithers to John Henry’s Mr. Burns He's an unctuous lizard who either thinks the fan base is filled with fools and morons, or he's just an unctuous lizard who doesn't care. All the way to the bank.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2024 16:24:21 GMT -5
the thing is, closers are one of the most volatile positions in baseball.. Even if we trade Jansen you can still be competitive.. I mean Koji only became the closer after Bailey, and Joel Hanrahan failed to hold down the job... and both of them were proven closers when the sox acquired them Matt Barnes was an amazing closer until he wasn't Kimbrel was lights out until he wasn't... Yeah, I think you need to trade him now. I guess it's possible you could get a bigger return at the deadline, but you run the risk that he blows up this season and then you get nothing. I'd take the best deal I can get before spring training. If one believes they can get by without him and still compete, or one believes the Sox are building for 2025, then I concur with this. Move him now before he potentially hits the skids or gets hurt before the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2024 15:18:18 GMT -5
Breaking News: The Red Sox were "interested" in Josh Hader before he signed with the Astros. "Red Sox Were In The Mix"™ is Boston's new tagline.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2024 15:17:00 GMT -5
Any team valuing Kenley Jansen as a closer, he just became very affordable, if not a bargain, according to the market. If you are one who believes that, despite chatter of the Sox fielding a competitive team, they are looking more to 2025 or 2026 or 2027, this is the time to deal to whomever missed out on Hader and might see Jansen as a "not as good but very good" replacement. If you are one who believes the Sox will be legit competitive in 2024, then you hang onto Jansen and see how things sit at the trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2024 10:18:43 GMT -5
During the last 20 years, have we had so many higher value free agents still unsigned this late in the season, or am I just suffering from recency bias?
Bellinger Snell Montgomery M. Chapman Hader Soler
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 16, 2024 17:37:03 GMT -5
I see what you did there - moving the goalpost from "black sheep" (i.e. just winning their division or getting into the playoffs for the last 11 years) to "juggernaut status". Got it. If you really believe Boston is going for "juggernaut status," please lay out that plan. And yes, NYY has a player who hit 62 HRs. What other great position players have they developed in the last 10 years? I certainly heard they had a bunch of can't miss superstars in the pipeline like Gary Sanchez, Mason Williams, Greg Bird, Didi Grigorius and Luis Severino. The point above was both these teams get into the playoffs consistently - NYY in all but one of the last 20 years. We all know the data for what happens after a team gets in. I just want a team that is a legitimate competitor for the division title and gets into the playoffs consistently. If they get a juggernaut, fine, but that's not a reasonable standard, even for a high revenue team. The black sheep years were the last gasp of the McCourt era, when the Dodgers were absolutely one of the more embarrassing organizations in baseball. I presumed it was clear that I wasn’t including the black sheep period in the decade-long run of dominance. I don’t really know why you’re acting like Gary Sanchez, Didi Gregorious, and Luis Severino weren’t key players on some excellent Yankees teams, either. Those four guys plus Brett Gardner were the five best players on the 2017 Yankees! The 2018 Yankees are probably as good as the Red Sox if Severino hadn’t gotten hurt. Edit: the Yankees have also missed the playoffs in three of the past ten years (and 4 of the past 11) so I’m not quite sure where you’re getting “all but one of the last 20 years” from. Meant to write winning record, so yes. And the original point was that it shouldn't take 7-8 years for this team to leverage player development and one of the five largest revenue flows to be a consistent playoff team. But that's the apparent track they're on.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 16, 2024 16:45:28 GMT -5
That's a strawman (or strawperson, if you prefer). The data show that, once in the playoffs, reaching the series is a essentially a coin flip in every round. Those data may change now that MLB is getting closer to the NFL in playoff structure. For now, it holds. The point is, those two teams get into the playoffs nearly every year, and one of them is not very good at (non-relief pitcher) player development. The team that’s good at player development has won their division for a decade straight, has won at a 104 win pace over the past seven years(!!), has won a World Series, frequently goes deep in the playoffs, and just signed the best player on the planet because they’ve been able to manage their long-term payroll by relying on internal fixes. The team that’s bad at player development has missed the playoffs three times in the past decade, won at a 94-win pace over that timespan (with their two best seasons by far being the ones furthest in the rear view mirror), and have come exactly as close to the World Series as the disastrous Red Sox have over that time period. And despite being bad at player development, they developed a guy who hit 62 home runs in a season. Their absolute peak over the past fifteen years, the only period where they can even touch the team that’s been good at player development, came when, surprise, surprise, they had that guy for the league minimum. The Yankees and Dodgers really aren’t comparable. The Dodgers are multiple levels above the Yankees. They’ve won 104 games a year over a seven year stretch! They’ve dealt with injuries to their expensive ace starter and allowed young stars to walk, and it hasn’t mattered because they’ve been able to replace from within year after year. Edit: since this addresses some stuff that you mentioned in your reply to me, I’ll just reiterate here: the Dodgers did not become the juggernaut they are until 2017. That team was built through player development and shrewd free agent signings that we (and I do include myself in this) would condemn as dumpster diving. I see what you did there - moving the goalpost from "black sheep" (i.e. just winning their division or getting into the playoffs for the last 11 years) to "juggernaut status". Got it. If you really believe Boston is going for "juggernaut status," please lay out that plan. And yes, NYY has a player who hit 62 HRs. What other great position players have they developed in the last 10 years? I certainly heard they had a bunch of can't miss superstars in the pipeline like Gary Sanchez, Mason Williams, Greg Bird, Didi Grigorius and Luis Severino. The point above was both these teams get into the playoffs consistently - NYY in all but one of the last 20 years. We all know the data for what happens after a team gets in. I just want a team that is a legitimate competitor for the division title and gets into the playoffs consistently. If they get a juggernaut, fine, but that's not a reasonable standard, even for a high revenue team.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 16, 2024 16:26:54 GMT -5
This is a bit loose with the facts regarding the Dodgers. They changed their philosophy to spend big AND focus on player development around 2011 (they last won their division in 2009). They won 86 games in 2012 but missed the playoffs, and made the playoffs every year after that. Their philosophy took an almost exponential leap after 2014 when Friedman was brought on board. So, yes, after winning their division in 2008 and 2009 they had two down years and then were back to winning in year three and made the playoffs every year after. Far from being black sheep, they went through a three year cycle and were back on top. And like a lot of teams, they had key players being injured along the way. The Sox, meanwhile stepped out of the playoffs in 2019, changed POBOs, missed 3 out of next 4 years, changed POBOs again and now are telling us - or intimating since they seem to be so bad at telling us anything - to wait until these current three young players Mayer, Anthony and Teel (before it was Mayer, Casas and Yorke) are on the MLB team and then we can talk about some long term pick-ups. All well and good, but realistically, with adjustment periods to MLB pitching, we're looking at probably 2026 or 2027 for the current crop. You can talk about taking time and pointing to the Dodgers as a case study, but they made their full turn in three years not 8 or 9. And that was before Friedman came on and truly took both sides of the house - player development and spending full throttle - pedal to the metal. Re: Dodgers Playing in a sorry ass division helps a lot. Unfortunately it’s not the case when you’re in the AL East. I can't accept this as an excuse. Not from a high revenue club that has the resources to compete with the best teams in the league (Also, the WS winner in 2010, 2012 and 2014 came out of the LAD's sorry-ass division)
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 16, 2024 16:00:31 GMT -5
The Yankees and Dodgers compete every single year for a post-season spot. Why do we keep pretending it's impossible? The Yankees literally just had their worst season in decades last year, missing the playoffs and only barely beating a Red Sox lineup missing its three best hitters for the last month of the season. The Dodgers, for a very long time, were a black sheep of the league, not too different from the Angels. High payrolls, expensive veterans, little stability and disappointing results. Through a decade of exceptional team-building, creating the best player development machine in the league and being very disciplined with free agent spending, they’ve been able to become a juggernaut. It didn’t happen overnight and it’s not all down to big payrolls. This is a bit loose with the facts regarding the Dodgers. They changed their philosophy to spend big AND focus on player development around 2011 (they last won their division in 2009). They won 86 games in 2012 but missed the playoffs, and made the playoffs every year after that. Their philosophy took an almost exponential leap after 2014 when Friedman was brought on board. So, yes, after winning their division in 2008 and 2009 they had two down years and then were back to winning in year three and made the playoffs every year after. Far from being black sheep, they went through a three year cycle and were back on top. And like a lot of teams, they had key players being injured along the way. The Sox, meanwhile stepped out of the playoffs in 2019, changed POBOs, missed 3 out of next 4 years, changed POBOs again and now are telling us - or intimating since they seem to be so bad at telling us anything - to wait until these current three young players Mayer, Anthony and Teel (before it was Mayer, Casas and Yorke) are on the MLB team and then we can talk about some long term pick-ups. All well and good, but realistically, with adjustment periods to MLB pitching, we're looking at probably 2026 or 2027 for the current crop. You can talk about taking time and pointing to the Dodgers as a case study, but they made their full turn in three years not 8 or 9. And that was before Friedman came on and truly took both sides of the house - player development and spending full throttle - pedal to the metal.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 16, 2024 15:35:16 GMT -5
And the Yankees, in particular, have done with Aaron Judge, Brett Gardner, and . . . Anthony Volpe (!) being their best homegrown players over the past decade. That's literally it, they haven't developed anyone else who has been an impact player on their roster. It's complete bullshit that the only way to win is through a homegrown core. That's just the cheapest way to win. The Yankees haven't been to, much less won, the World Series since 2009. But apparently they are 'winners'. That's a strawman (or strawperson, if you prefer). The data show that, once in the playoffs, reaching the series is a essentially a coin flip in every round. Those data may change now that MLB is getting closer to the NFL in playoff structure. For now, it holds. The point is, those two teams get into the playoffs nearly every year, and one of them is not very good at (non-relief pitcher) player development.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 16, 2024 14:08:52 GMT -5
To me, this screams we aren’t signing Montgomery or Snell and even says they aren’t gonna make a big splash on the trade market. To me, this makes the Bloom firing a bit more quizzical, if not some kind of ham-handed PR move. This quote is virtually indiscernible from statements Bloom made last year. They must've really disliked something(s) about his process because this sounds like the same general plan.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 15, 2024 13:17:31 GMT -5
Just watched a video on YouTube on how Sox pretty much going to get through the next 2 years and try to compete in 2026 when Teel, Mayer and Anthony are all in the bigs. Hated to watch that but it really does make sense. Casas Devers Grissom Teel Mayer and Anthony all would be under cheap control. Its like every offer we've made is 2 years we have no interest in signing someone today to be on the 2026 team. We want to have cap space then. Just trying to stay somewhat competitive until then. Only thing is we should be offering Snell and Monty 5 year deals so they can be a part of that 2026 rotation that doesn't look too promising. I guess its still a possibility. I think we can find threads on this very site that have the same arguments made for 2024...or 2025...or even 2027. Look, I love prospects as much as anyone here and, like most of us I have my favorites. But this is also a place where we embrace data, priors and percentages (said the Bayesian). If this is the really the Front Office's strategy, then they need to completely reassess their outlook or clean house of anyone advancing this plan. You cannot plan on prospects who are 1-3 years away being MLB-average players or better. Even the Rays don't do this. They are constantly trading from their stock of minor league talent - including and especially guys who are ranked and hyped on the way up - to improve their minor league and major league rosters. Planning two or three years ahead with the development of certain prospects as cornerstones to propel your team into contention is planning on almost certain mediocrity and peril.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 14, 2024 17:30:42 GMT -5
So what are the plausible landing spots for Snell and Montgomery at this point? I've sort of lost track. The only obvious ones that come to mind are Boston (who are reported to be not likely to sign either) and San Francisco (who have traded for Ray and claim to want Hicks to start, so aren't obviously in on those guys either). Guessing - Dodgers, Giants, Texas, Philly, Atlanta, Boston and Boras Mystery Team.
|
|
|