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.
6/9-6/11 Red Sox @ Orioles Series Thread
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 11, 2014 22:13:15 GMT -5
WTF HERRARA!!!! BUNTING WITH 2 OUTS!!! What's the problem? It's not like swinging is likelier to give him a hit. Thorne pointed out that bunting might be even better with the wet grass.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 11, 2014 22:15:58 GMT -5
Xander still gets to play shortstop when the shift is on, apparently. (Red Sox normally moved 3B to short right but it's Herrera tonight.)
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 11, 2014 22:18:10 GMT -5
Why did they intentionally walk Machado? Coulda plunked him instead...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 11, 2014 22:20:22 GMT -5
Man, remember when Capuano was an elite bullpen arm for a few weeks there?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 11, 2014 22:27:53 GMT -5
TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 11, 2014 22:28:22 GMT -5
Man, remember when Capuano was an elite bullpen arm for a few weeks there? Yup. Now he's trying to compete for Mujica's "DFA when Doubront moves to pen" sticker.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 11, 2014 22:29:15 GMT -5
Why did they intentionally walk Machado? Coulda plunked him instead... Or maybe just pitched to him because he sucks.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 11, 2014 22:33:20 GMT -5
Not speaking directly about Abreu because I had my concerns. Just stating that it stings. On the broader point, I think the Sox are pretty risk averse, and I think that will have to change this off-season, including packaging our farm Why do you think the Sox are risk averse? The 2011 signings which ended in a historical collapse and an embarrassing 2012 season?? Yeah, let's do that again. They go away from high risk signings and do short term ones; Victorino, Napoli and Drew. Guess what? They won the bleepin World Series?? Didn't work this year. But, you'd like to go back to the 2011 and 2012 model? You'll be able to cherry pick the high risk signings that work. Yeah, that's the ticket.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 11, 2014 22:35:48 GMT -5
25-year-old Brock Holt was pretty awesome. 26-year-old Brock Holt sucks.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 11, 2014 22:42:53 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 1m Three nights at Camden Yards produced one run and two extra-base hits for the #RedSox
WUT
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 11, 2014 23:06:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 11, 2014 23:17:09 GMT -5
Not speaking directly about Abreu because I had my concerns. Just stating that it stings. On the broader point, I think the Sox are pretty risk averse, and I think that will have to change this off-season, including packaging our farm Why do you think the Sox are risk averse? The 2011 signings which ended in a historical collapse and an embarrassing 2012 season?? Yeah, let's do that again. They go away from high risk signings and do short term ones; Victorino, Napoli and Drew. Guess what? They won the bleepin World Series?? Didn't work this year. But, you'd like to go back to the 2011 and 2012 model? You'll be able to cherry pick the high risk signings that work. Yeah, that's the ticket. I love that people talk about the 2011 collapse as though it was an inevitable result of the Crawford/A-Gon acquisitions, or that the 2013 WS run was an inevitable result of the Napoli/Victorino/etc signings, and that those outcomes should dictate the Red Sox's actions forevermore. And by "love" I mean that I think it's stupid. Both of these seasons played out they way they did for lots of different reasons, most of them unrelated to the Red Sox's philosophies on player acquisition, and not the least of which being shear dumb luck. A bunch of crazy stuff happened. It doesn't have to have any greater meaning than that.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jun 12, 2014 6:25:51 GMT -5
My comments on Abreu and Tanaka were frustration -- I didn't advocate for them at the time, so my comments were based on hindsight lament at seeing the hightlights in the middle of the Sox struggles.
As to philosophy, fenway nailed it -- 2011 was not caused by long term contracts (though I disagreed with the Crawford one for the same reason I would not give one to Ellsbury this offseason). Nor was 2013 caused by the short term contracts, any more than that the "failure" of that philosophy is shown by this season. (If we are drawing conclusions, since shedding the contracts, they finished 7th worst in 2012, and are currently 6th worst in 2014. What does this suggest about the philsophy?)
I stated in the other thread that I hope the Sox don't fall into the risk averse philosophy simply because of 2013's success. At some point they need to "overpay" and take a risk. That doesn't mean I want them to pay for Ellsbury or even Lester if the price gets too high. They need a foundational bat to go with Bogaerts for the next 5 years, not a mix and match set, even if that worked in 2013. That means overpaying, either in money (though none are coming on the FA market this winter), or in prospects.
That all relates to good player evaluation, and hearing that they saw Tanaka as a third starter (Alex Speier), and possibly their assesment of Abreu (not as known, maybe they really liked him but didn't offer as much because they were risk averse, see point 2, above) makes me worried.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 12, 2014 7:28:51 GMT -5
But that didn't happen, so we move on. Some of us more than others That is the sadly part.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 12, 2014 7:45:01 GMT -5
Why do you think the Sox are risk averse? The 2011 signings which ended in a historical collapse and an embarrassing 2012 season?? Yeah, let's do that again. They go away from high risk signings and do short term ones; Victorino, Napoli and Drew. Guess what? They won the bleepin World Series?? Didn't work this year. But, you'd like to go back to the 2011 and 2012 model? You'll be able to cherry pick the high risk signings that work. Yeah, that's the ticket. I love that people talk about the 2011 collapse as though it was an inevitable result of the Crawford/A-Gon acquisitions, or that the 2013 WS run was an inevitable result of the Napoli/Victorino/etc signings, and that those outcomes should dictate the Red Sox's actions forevermore. And by "love" I mean that I think it's stupid. Both of these seasons played out they way they did for lots of different reasons, most of them unrelated to the Red Sox's philosophies on player acquisition, and not the least of which being shear dumb luck. A bunch of crazy stuff happened. It doesn't have to have any greater meaning than that. Agreed. Both 11 and 12 were more about pitching cratering as much as anything. It can be dangerous to think in absolutes. No market value, longer term (5-8 year) contracts is a risk, but as many have pointed out here some of those are successful, some are busts. A team like Boston that has a strong farm which, ostensibly can fill 1 to 2 MLB spots every year with MLB minimum salary talent and spends to the luxury tax limit can take a chance on 1 or 2 of those high salary players every 3-4 years. Certain factors can mitigate risks in those contracts such as player age at point of acquisition and injury history (and having a good GM/Front Office team, and smart owner doesn't hurt). But as with any higher risk move, failure becomes magnified. Then again the incentive to make a higher risk move is higher rewards. Btw, has anyone else noticed that Billy Beane, who is usually ahead of the curve in terms of trends and finding value efficiencies, has built these last few winning teams in part by trading several of his prospects when their external perceived value was high? Added - 7 of his Top 12 from 2012, according to this piece by Fox Sports.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jun 12, 2014 7:50:07 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 1m Three nights at Camden Yards produced one run and two extra-base hits for the #RedSox WUT For the road trip, the team hit just .140 with RISP. We've got to get someone in the #3 hole that can drive in runs. Capuone looks to have a dead arm. He may need some time on the DL to give it some rest.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jun 12, 2014 8:13:46 GMT -5
My comments on Abreu and Tanaka were frustration -- I didn't advocate for them at the time, so my comments were based on hindsight lament at seeing the hightlights in the middle of the Sox struggles. As to philosophy, fenway nailed it -- 2011 was not caused by long term contracts (though I disagreed with the Crawford one for the same reason I would not give one to Ellsbury this offseason). Nor was 2013 caused by the short term contracts, any more than that the "failure" of that philosophy is shown by this season. (If we are drawing conclusions, since shedding the contracts, they finished 7th worst in 2012, and are currently 6th worst in 2014. What does this suggest about the philsophy?) I stated in the other thread that I hope the Sox don't fall into the risk averse philosophy simply because of 2013's success. At some point they need to "overpay" and take a risk. That doesn't mean I want them to pay for Ellsbury or even Lester if the price gets too high. They need a foundational bat to go with Bogaerts for the next 5 years, not a mix and match set, even if that worked in 2013. That means overpaying, either in money (though none are coming on the FA market this winter), or in prospects. That all relates to good player evaluation, and hearing that they saw Tanaka as a third starter (Alex Speier), and possibly their assesment of Abreu (not as known, maybe they really liked him but didn't offer as much because they were risk averse, see point 2, above) makes me worried. Are there any Tanaka, Abreu, Cespedes, Puig types on the horizon, if anyone knows? It is nice that we have a group of dirt dogs that complement one another, but especially after Papi goes, we will need an infusion of some outstanding talent. Hopefully Holt is not a mirage, WMB and Bradly evolve...but.... a snapshot view is not encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 12, 2014 8:19:33 GMT -5
Do we need to explain to you why we didn't get him again? (HINT BIDDING ENDED WHEN WE WERE IN THE WS) Sure please do, as the hint is pretty irrelevant (hint, it didn't stop us from bidding about $50 mil. Does the ws bar us from bidding above that?) Boo hoo. We can't have everything. Suffer with just the WS victory.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 12, 2014 8:25:43 GMT -5
I love that people talk about the 2011 collapse as though it was an inevitable result of the Crawford/A-Gon acquisitions, or that the 2013 WS run was an inevitable result of the Napoli/Victorino/etc signings, and that those outcomes should dictate the Red Sox's actions forevermore. And by "love" I mean that I think it's stupid. Both of these seasons played out they way they did for lots of different reasons, most of them unrelated to the Red Sox's philosophies on player acquisition, and not the least of which being shear dumb luck. A bunch of crazy stuff happened. It doesn't have to have any greater meaning than that. Agreed. Both 11 and 12 were more about pitching cratering as much as anything.
It can be dangerous to think in absolutes. No market value, longer term (5-8 year) contracts is a risk, but as many have pointed out here some of those are successful, some are busts. A team like Boston that has a strong farm which, ostensibly can fill 1 to 2 MLB spots every year with MLB minimum salary talent and spends to the luxury tax limit can take a chance on 1 or 2 of those high salary players every 3-4 years. Certain factors can mitigate risks in those contracts such as player age at point of acquisition and injury history (and having a good GM/Front Office team, and smart owner doesn't hurt). But as with any higher risk move, failure becomes magnified. Then again the incentive to make a higher risk move is higher rewards. Btw, has anyone else noticed that Billy Beane, who is usually ahead of the curve in terms of trends and finding value efficiencies, has built these last few winning teams in part by trading several of his prospects when their external perceived value was high? Which happened in large part because they had no prospects ready to contribute in case of injuries (traded) and no money left (Darvish, etc.). With shorter contracts, there is a lot more flexibility to change from year to year. 2012 was really easy to predict, but Ben couldn't do a damn thing until he blew it up.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jun 12, 2014 8:48:42 GMT -5
Sure please do, as the hint is pretty irrelevant (hint, it didn't stop us from bidding about $50 mil. Does the ws bar us from bidding above that?) Boo hoo. We can't have everything. Suffer with just the WS victory. Thanks for that substantive, well-articuled response. I take it that this means that you are not concerned (a) with where they are this season, and (b) their viability in 2015 and 2016. And from your response to Guidas I assume that you are against any long term contracts, as the existing prospects and the supplementary FA players gotten through free agency this offseason are sufficient for 2015 and 2016?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 12, 2014 8:53:09 GMT -5
Agreed. Both 11 and 12 were more about pitching cratering as much as anything.
It can be dangerous to think in absolutes. No market value, longer term (5-8 year) contracts is a risk, but as many have pointed out here some of those are successful, some are busts. A team like Boston that has a strong farm which, ostensibly can fill 1 to 2 MLB spots every year with MLB minimum salary talent and spends to the luxury tax limit can take a chance on 1 or 2 of those high salary players every 3-4 years. Certain factors can mitigate risks in those contracts such as player age at point of acquisition and injury history (and having a good GM/Front Office team, and smart owner doesn't hurt). But as with any higher risk move, failure becomes magnified. Then again the incentive to make a higher risk move is higher rewards. Btw, has anyone else noticed that Billy Beane, who is usually ahead of the curve in terms of trends and finding value efficiencies, has built these last few winning teams in part by trading several of his prospects when their external perceived value was high? Which happened in large part because they had no prospects ready to contribute in case of injuries (traded) and no money left (Darvish, etc.). With shorter contracts, there is a lot more flexibility to change from year to year. 2012 was really easy to predict, but Ben couldn't do a damn thing until he blew it up. Well, Darvish would've only counted $5.5M against the Lux Tax in his first year (2011), so please don't get me started on him, especially when they had money to throw at Jenks late in Dec and Bedard in July.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jun 12, 2014 10:54:00 GMT -5
Boo hoo. We can't have everything. Suffer with just the WS victory. Thanks for that substantive, well-articuled response. I take it that this means that you are not concerned (a) with where they are this season, and (b) their viability in 2015 and 2016. And from your response to Guidas I assume that you are against any long term contracts, as the existing prospects and the supplementary FA players gotten through free agency this offseason are sufficient for 2015 and 2016? If they were 10 games over .500 right now instead of 10 games under or whatever they are, you wouldn't be saying any of this. You're overreacting to a bad year (that might not even end up being a bad year), plain and simple. Were you on here crowing about risk aversion last year? If you were then I stand corrected. You're still wrong but at least you'd be consistent.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 12, 2014 12:22:43 GMT -5
Hey, can any of you folks give me an opinion about Rubby's start? From my perspective he made a nice recovery- it seemed that his changeup early on was left up and sometimes didn't have life, but later was darting more sharply downward. He seemed to also increasingly incorporate his slider (as opposed to his previous start) as he went along, and held velocity, still touching 96-7 close to 100 pitches. I think he's coming along nicely and hope if he is sent down soon he'll come up later.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 12, 2014 12:26:50 GMT -5
I thought Rubby struggled with his command early, but then ironed out the kinks and pretty much dominated the last few innings of his start. He's going to be really good if he can consistently throw fastballs in the bottom half of the plate.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 12, 2014 13:45:22 GMT -5
Right now I would rather see the Sox stick with Rubby rather than replacing him with either Buchholz or Doubront. I think he has a better future, and that's what the Sox need to be thinking about now. This team is not going to win anything this year.
|
|
|