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.
2014-15 offseason discussion
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Jan 16, 2015 1:03:09 GMT -5
Situations change, and Amaro doesn't. He's stubborn and just clearly not in touch with the way baseball works. It almost reflects worse on the Phillies ownership that he is still there though.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 16, 2015 2:06:24 GMT -5
Why would Amaro not be ridiculous with his demands with Scherzer and Shields still available? People are taking this Amaro meme way too far. I think he's doing just fine re Hamels. You could say the same thing about him with Lee two years ago and last offseason. And now see how that worked out. Since I doubt anyone here was up for selling Lester after the Sox's last first place finish - literally last year - I'm struggling with your point. Why the heck would Amaro have been motivated to sell Lee in '12 for anything less than what we would expect for Xander and Betts today? Lee was baseball's 6th best pitcher (fWAR) then. That he got hurt 2 years later and Amaro lost that market is a pretty lame argument against Amaro.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 16, 2015 2:24:01 GMT -5
My thinking is that he's needed to rebuild that team for a while, and he hasn't been able to take that on - for whatever reason. There were a series of costly contracts, and the draining of the farm system, to go along with an unwillingness to face reality and cut his losses by trading some of that expensive talent for prospects when he had the chance to do so. The Phillies have an aging core, yet Rollins is the only one to get traded and that just happened. The team needs to get younger, and the longer they wait, the tougher it's going to be.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2015 7:43:25 GMT -5
You could say the same thing about him with Lee two years ago and last offseason. And now see how that worked out. Since I doubt anyone here was up for selling Lester after the Sox's last first place finish - literally last year - I'm struggling with your point. Why the heck would Amaro have been motivated to sell Lee in '12 for anything less than what we would expect for Xander and Betts today? Lee was baseball's 6th best pitcher (fWAR) then. That he got hurt 2 years later and Amaro lost that market is a pretty lame argument against Amaro. The Phillies have needed to rebuild for a few years now, at least since he started listening to offers for Lee, at the 2013 trade deadline. He started out demanding Bogaerts and 3 other prospects which wasn't even a start. If you never trade anyone then you never rebuild. The risk of someone like Lee getting hurt and/or declining is something he should have calculated. There is no legitimate option to let every asset he has sit and rot until there is no trade value left, like he has done with Lee. He'll probably do the same thing with Hamels unless ownership steps in. I don't really get what you're talking about with selling Lester after a last place finish because we actually did that and people were pretty ok with it. And the Red Sox didn't even need to rebuild like the Phillies who are absent the prospects like Betts, Bogaerts and all the pitchers and catchers. Great gm'ing. I mean they're not far from basically having to rebuild like an expansion team through high draft picks. And they can't even get high enough draft picks because they're holding onto players they should trade.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 16, 2015 8:03:50 GMT -5
Crazy thought for the day. If Victorino and Craig are healthy this spring, we easily have enough trade chips, without mortgaging the future, to trade for two aces. It's do-able.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Jan 16, 2015 9:48:44 GMT -5
Crazy thought for the day. If Victorino and Craig are healthy this spring, we easily have enough trade chips, without mortgaging the future, to trade for two aces. It's do-able. Definitely won't happen either way though.
|
|
|
Post by southpaw12014 on Jan 16, 2015 9:54:11 GMT -5
From Ken Rosenthal this morning -
Boston Red Sox The entire industry knows the Sox need an ace to front their rotation and cap off their offseason. But the team is not exactly rushing to acquire Hamels, in part because it may be involved in other pursuits. Rob Bradford of Boston's WEEI.com quoted a source Thursday as saying the Phillies were "unrealistic in their expectations" on a potential return for Hamels. Such comments are not unusual in the middle of negotiations -- the Phillies want the best deal possible, and rival teams want to knock down the price. The bottom line is that the Sox could trade catcher Blake Swihart, a pitching prospect such as Matt Barnes and a hitting prospect such as Garin Cecchini and still be left with a deep collection of young talent. But teams generally do not want to give up steep prospect packages and assume steep contracts. Hamels, 31, is owed four years and $96 million, and given that the Sox are on his nine-team no-trade list, he could demand that they guarantee his vesting option, bringing the package to five years, $110 million. Then again, the Sox could play hardball with Hamels, effectively saying, "Do you want to play for a potential World Series contender or remain stuck with the Phillies?" If it came to that, Hamels would need to make a decision.
I am not giving up Betts, Blake or Xander in any deal for Hamels, no way. Not for a guy that is 31 with that kind of money owed and terrible splits in the AL....Stay strong Ben...
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jan 16, 2015 10:30:49 GMT -5
The entire industry knows Translation: "All the media pundits love screaming this, whether true or not."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2015 10:37:01 GMT -5
You can't give up $50 million worth of prospects, pay Hamels $110 million and say it's a good deal.
I don't know how many times they can write the same thing. We need pitchers and catchers to report.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,838
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 16, 2015 11:47:03 GMT -5
You can't give up $50 million worth of prospects, pay Hamels $110 million and say it's a good deal. I don't know how many times they can write the same thing. We need pitchers and catchers to report. It is making me sick to keep hearing that we need a so-called ace at this time. Usually I like Rosenthal, but he is also calling for this action as a necessary. No organization has what we have coming at the AAA level. Few organizations have the potential of three 200-inning starters like we do. IMO we are in a very good place. By the end of March we will know a lot about guys like Craig, Victorino, Masterson, and Buchholz. We have a lot of trade chips at our disposal and no reason to over-react to the so called media-experts. One last thing, many of you have been on a certain Nick Cafardo. My eyes have been open wide. I believe you oh smart ones. This man has no right to be talking Red Sox baseball or any other teams. It amazes me how ill-prepared some folks are. The comment Cafardo made about Moncada and the Sox was so ridiculous. When I see him on the MLB network I get quite ill. I'm sorry I doubted you all.....he stinks!
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 16, 2015 11:56:59 GMT -5
I liked Rosenthal a lot more before he started giving opinions.
Who did he want us to trade Xander for again, Cliff Lee? Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2015 12:31:56 GMT -5
Woo-hoo! BSOHL sighting! The unofficial start of spring training for me ... always seems to fall right around mid-January. Who had January 15 in the pool? Some other squares on my Spring Training Bingo card: - Story explaining the key adjustment/improvement/health fact that explain why this is the year Clay turns it around - Quote after pitchers-and-catchers appear with some variation of "no one can replace Jon Lester" - Picture of David Ortiz showing how much he's worked out and how slim he is - Story explaining how Bogaerts has "adjusted," still has "star potential," and is ready for a Big Year - An article on Porcello that mentions Julio Lugo (bonus win if its by Speier) - Piece on Hanley mentioning how playing in Boston fits his personality and how playing left field will keep him healthy - Medical revelation that could change the game for a Sox player (e.g. WMB's eyesight last year) Let's add this to the list: Gary Striewski @garystriewski #RedSox Mookie Betts' offseason program has him up 10lbs. since September. Was 170 then, 180 now. Wants to get to 185. #GainzSZN
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 16, 2015 12:33:41 GMT -5
Dammit, we forgot the weight gain/loss story. Good work, JE14.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Jan 16, 2015 13:47:50 GMT -5
One last thing, many of you have been on a certain Nick Cafardo. My eyes have been open wide. I believe you oh smart ones. This man has no right to be talking Red Sox baseball or any other teams. It amazes me how ill-prepared some folks are. The comment Cafardo made about Moncada and the Sox was so ridiculous. When I see him on the MLB network I get quite ill. I'm sorry I doubted you all.....he stinks! Cafardo has some of this best sources in the industry. But his opinions are hot garbage. I seem to remember him clamoring for the sox to sign Josh Hamilton a couple years ago right after they got out from the Crawford contract.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 16, 2015 13:54:19 GMT -5
One last thing, many of you have been on a certain Nick Cafardo. My eyes have been open wide. I believe you oh smart ones. This man has no right to be talking Red Sox baseball or any other teams. It amazes me how ill-prepared some folks are. The comment Cafardo made about Moncada and the Sox was so ridiculous. When I see him on the MLB network I get quite ill. I'm sorry I doubted you all.....he stinks! Cafardo has some of this best sources in the industry. But his opinions are hot garbage. I seem to remember him clamoring for the sox to sign Josh Hamilton a couple years ago right after they got out from the Crawford contract. The saddest thing about Cafardo is that he has the rollodex to add a lot of value. But he's too lazy to put those contacts to good use. So if there's a narrative he won't bother to check out that narrative he'll just call the one guy whom he knows will back that narrative regardless of that source's conflicts of interest or reliability on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 16, 2015 14:05:10 GMT -5
Dammit, we forgot the weight gain/loss story. Good work, JE14. Ah, kicking myself over that one ... should've even foreseen that it'd be Mookie. The "gained X pounds of muscle" is a classic for the young, thin ballplayer. Oh well, wasn't meant to be comprehensive list, I guess (I left off the inevitable "Pablo Sandoval's defense is better than you think" story and the equally inevitable story with Farrell quote on how the Sox are encouraged about Vazquez's "offensive potential" after a 2-2 day at the plate for Christian). Also, early favorite in the betting for "rookie or washed-up relief vet who sets the camp abuzz with big K numbers in late inning appearances" is Eduardo Rodriguez, Matt Barnes coming on as a dark horse.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2015 14:19:22 GMT -5
Pablo has lost X pounds...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2015 14:26:30 GMT -5
I feel like Clay Buchholz deserves his own bingo square. He's been in so many best shape/healthy/focused/new trainer/gained weight stories over the last decade that I feel like he's become his own category.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 16, 2015 17:23:07 GMT -5
Great piece by Alex Speier on Sox recent history of guessing wrong on some top prospects: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/16/with-top-prospects-red-sox-have-been-selling-low-lately/I know we all loves us our prospects here, but I've been pretty clear that, with ver, very few exceptions (currently Mookie and Bogaerts) that if you have a competitive team and can get a prime or near prime All Star in a position of need but you have to give up a couple of your top prospects, you give up a couple of top prospects. I say this really liking and not wanting to give up Swihart or Margot, and knowing what the org thinks about Owens (and they know much more about their guys than me. But I would deal Swihart and Owens right now for Cole Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2015 17:27:05 GMT -5
Great piece by Alex Speier on Sox recent history of guessing wrong on some top prospects: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/16/with-top-prospects-red-sox-have-been-selling-low-lately/I know we all loves us our prospects here, but I've been pretty clear that, with ver, very few exceptions (currently Mookie and Bogaerts) that if you have a competitive team and can get a prime or near prime All Star in a position of need but you have to give up a couple of your top prospects, you give up a couple of top prospects. I say this really liking and not wanting to give up Swihart or Margot, and knowing what the org thinks about Owens (and they know much more about their guys than me. But I would deal Swihart and Owens right now for Cole Hamels. Only if they brought back steroids. That wasn't a very good article by Speier considering he didn't mention that the "top prospects" were top prospects when the system was at its weakest points. None of those guys had the same value as Swihart. But he did bring up a good point about not selling low on Rizzo even though they did.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 16, 2015 19:14:13 GMT -5
Great piece by Alex Speier on Sox recent history of guessing wrong on some top prospects: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/16/with-top-prospects-red-sox-have-been-selling-low-lately/I know we all loves us our prospects here, but I've been pretty clear that, with ver, very few exceptions (currently Mookie and Bogaerts) that if you have a competitive team and can get a prime or near prime All Star in a position of need but you have to give up a couple of your top prospects, you give up a couple of top prospects. I say this really liking and not wanting to give up Swihart or Margot, and knowing what the org thinks about Owens (and they know much more about their guys than me. But I would deal Swihart and Owens right now for Cole Hamels. Swihart & Owens & $110m ? Ruben ? Only if they brought back steroids. That wasn't a very good article by Speier considering he didn't mention that the "top prospects" were top prospects when the system was at its weakest points. None of those guys had the same value as Swihart. But he did bring up a good point about not selling low on Rizzo even though they did. I don't think a prospect having future success is the litmus test for selling low. Rizzo was traded when his value was rising, not falling. . . . The most significant off season news is in.....................
Boston Red Sox ?redsox 44m44 minutes ago Just wrapped our 3rd annual "Conversations with Rookies" from the Rookie Dev. Program. Stay tuned for video next wk.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 16, 2015 19:59:33 GMT -5
Great piece by Alex Speier on Sox recent history of guessing wrong on some top prospects: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/16/with-top-prospects-red-sox-have-been-selling-low-lately/I know we all loves us our prospects here, but I've been pretty clear that, with ver, very few exceptions (currently Mookie and Bogaerts) that if you have a competitive team and can get a prime or near prime All Star in a position of need but you have to give up a couple of your top prospects, you give up a couple of top prospects. I say this really liking and not wanting to give up Swihart or Margot, and knowing what the org thinks about Owens (and they know much more about their guys than me. But I would deal Swihart and Owens right now for Cole Hamels. Phillies becomes what they are because they traded away young talents for old and proven players, which is exactly the same way you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 16, 2015 20:13:42 GMT -5
Great piece by Alex Speier on Sox recent history of guessing wrong on some top prospects: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/16/with-top-prospects-red-sox-have-been-selling-low-lately/I know we all loves us our prospects here, but I've been pretty clear that, with ver, very few exceptions (currently Mookie and Bogaerts) that if you have a competitive team and can get a prime or near prime All Star in a position of need but you have to give up a couple of your top prospects, you give up a couple of top prospects. I say this really liking and not wanting to give up Swihart or Margot, and knowing what the org thinks about Owens (and they know much more about their guys than me. But I would deal Swihart and Owens right now for Cole Hamels. Only if they brought back steroids. That wasn't a very good article by Speier considering he didn't mention that the "top prospects" were top prospects when the system was at its weakest points. None of those guys had the same value as Swihart. But he did bring up a good point about not selling low on Rizzo even though they did. Yeah, that's far from Speier's best ... he tries to illustrate the unpredictability of prospects by comparing the good results from 2005 Sox system to the bad results from 2009 as if they're an equivalent set of prospects, when they really aren't at all. And the Pedro Martinez example cuts both ways. Yes, it was great for the Sox to give up Pavano, Rose, and Armas Jr for Pedro. But it didn't work out so well for the Dodgers to give up the young pitcher Pedro Martinez for established major leaguer Delino Deshields, now did it? Really, his only point is "prospects are pretty unpredictable, and holding onto them too long is sometimes bad" which isn't exactly incisive commentary.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 16, 2015 20:43:42 GMT -5
Good to see Sox system continuing to get some love: Kiley McDaniel: Alright, I’ll tease what the top 5 is right now as the closer. Kiley McDaniel: (subject to change) 1. Cubs 2. Twins 3. Red Sox 4. Mets 5. Rangers 1:14 Kiley McDaniel: Astros were in the top 5 (4th I believe) until the Gattis trade. They’re now 7th, Reds are 6th. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kiley-mcdaniel-fangraphs-chat-11615/
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 16, 2015 22:24:46 GMT -5
Great piece by Alex Speier on Sox recent history of guessing wrong on some top prospects: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/16/with-top-prospects-red-sox-have-been-selling-low-lately/I know we all loves us our prospects here, but I've been pretty clear that, with ver, very few exceptions (currently Mookie and Bogaerts) that if you have a competitive team and can get a prime or near prime All Star in a position of need but you have to give up a couple of your top prospects, you give up a couple of top prospects. I say this really liking and not wanting to give up Swihart or Margot, and knowing what the org thinks about Owens (and they know much more about their guys than me. But I would deal Swihart and Owens right now for Cole Hamels. Phillies becomes what they are because they traded away young talents for old and proven players, which is exactly the same way you suggest. Well, I'm not saying trade ALL of them away. Then again, that's what Billy Beane's been doing for the last three years and he's had much more success over that time than the Phils. No abosolutes here. Just opportunities.
|
|
|