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
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Sept 26, 2014 10:16:21 GMT -5
How do you plan on getting tulo and cole while retaining Mookie and xander? We trade Jim Leyritz and Bernie Williams for them. So larry, please explain further how you plan on putting this roster together.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Sept 26, 2014 10:26:07 GMT -5
It's not happening. Don't worry.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 26, 2014 10:30:09 GMT -5
On D & C yesterday Lucchino said that the team made a mistake in relying on so many rookies this season. I don't know whether it was the Bradley strategy or not, that convinced him. But Bogaerts, despite his peaks and valleys, has shown remarkable progress for a 21 yr. old. I have enjoyed watching the development of players like Betts, Webster and Vasquez along with Xander and look forward to the next wave of youngsters.
Larry is always looking to win it all all the time. This is not a bad trait, but sometimes you have to retool and look to your farm system that consistently provides talent either for the ML team or for trades.
"What we won't do is make the same mistake we made this year, which is to assume that so many of our young players are ready for prime time. We miscalculated the preparation level. Maybe more at bats at Triple A are required for some of these guys, more innings pitched."
This seems like public criticism of Ben Cherington, who, I believe, did a good job in setting the organization up to succeed in 2015 and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 26, 2014 10:52:43 GMT -5
Others in the organization have admitted they thought guys were ready who apparently weren't. Hazen, on Speier's podcast, said they were caught off guard by Bogaerts' struggles, in particular. But that said, given how well he did in April and May, was it really a matter of him not being ready, or the team not having a backup plan?
I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do here. They did bring in Sizemore to compete with Bradley, and in the end, they may have been kind of right that he can still play outfield in the majors (his line in July and August was great, although he's fallen off a cliff in September), but they didn't have time/the personnel to be able to wait him out. On the left side of the infield, what was the better option - bring back Drew? Which they wound up doing anyway and screwing everything up worse? He wasn't taking a one-year deal before the time he did.
The popular perception is going to be that the kids are the reason this team failed, particularly Bradley and Bogaerts not delivering. That's certainly part of it, but it's not the whole story. Pierzynski was an awful signing that's hard to defend. Victorino didn't play pretty much at all. Pedroia had a down year. Napoli played well but also struggled through some injuries.
There's more to this than the kids just like 2012 was about more than Bobby V. It's something to be corrected, but I hope (and have faith that) it's not something that'll be overcorrected.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Sept 26, 2014 10:54:18 GMT -5
Ugh. Can we trade Lucchino?
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Sept 26, 2014 11:04:52 GMT -5
Ugh. Can we trade Lucchino? We'll be willing to eat a majority of his contract if they take Werner too
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 26, 2014 11:07:14 GMT -5
Others in the organization have admitted they thought guys were ready who apparently weren't. Hazen, on Speier's podcast, said they were caught off guard by Bogaerts' struggles, in particular. But that said, given how well he did in April and May, was it really a matter of him not being ready, or the team not having a backup plan? I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do here. They did bring in Sizemore to compete with Bradley, and in the end, they may have been kind of right that he can still play outfield in the majors (his line in July and August was great, although he's fallen off a cliff in September), but they didn't have time/the personnel to be able to wait him out. On the left side of the infield, what was the better option - bring back Drew? Which they wound up doing anyway and screwing everything up worse? He wasn't taking a one-year deal before the time he did. The popular perception is going to be that the kids are the reason this team failed, particularly Bradley and Bogaerts not delivering. That's certainly part of it, but it's not the whole story. Pierzynski was an awful signing that's hard to defend. Victorino didn't play pretty much at all. Pedroia had a down year. Napoli played well but also struggled through some injuries. There's more to this than the kids just like 2012 was about more than Bobby V. It's something to be corrected, but I hope (and have faith that) it's not something that'll be overcorrected. The problem with having backup plans for rookies is that it's really difficult to have good ones without over-committing and thus blocking the prospects. You can't bring in Russell Martin for 3-4 years when you have Vazquez and Swihart. So what the hell else can we do for a backup plan in case Vazquez is hitting .120 in June? Sign AJP? I'm going with the kids still.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 26, 2014 11:07:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do here. . I think there was a ton that they could have done. They could have brought in any number of potential CF or CF platoon options (either supplementing or supplanting Bradley) -- Gentry, Denofria, Fowler, Heck - Julio Borbon would have been a useful pickup, etc. I don't think signing Sizemore should be a credible backup plan as I can't see how a scout would have viewed him as a viable CF option even if his bat became moderately useful. Would it have made a huge difference? Probably not - Gentry and Denofria kind of suck, Borbon couldn't crack a 40 man in September, etc. But, they should have had the internal options available. It was certainly poor roster construction to have no back-up CFer with Mike Carp and Dan Nava on the bench. SS was much trickier, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Sept 26, 2014 11:21:07 GMT -5
Victorino was a backup CF option, unfortunately he got hurt.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 26, 2014 11:21:09 GMT -5
They could almost have easily brought in a FA who tanked also. I think they made the right decision. It seemed unlikely that JBJ would tank, and Xander would go on his prolonged slump. I wish they would play the rooks even more often if anything. The only change I would make is to have more reliable back up but they got caught up in the Sizemore hype and Farrell knew him when...etc.
If they don't play Mookie next year they are nuts but granted JBJ needs to go back to AAA. And I think they should sign at least 2 quality starters and a good catcher. That's where they should spend their money. Counting on Vasquez to be THE guy next year is risky but he has definitely earned a reserve role.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 26, 2014 11:27:43 GMT -5
And now what happens if JBJ is OPSing .950 in AAA next July and Castillo has a .290 OBP?
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Sept 26, 2014 11:38:56 GMT -5
Everyone talks about Bradley, but really it's Middlebrooks that stands out to me. He isn't an elite defender and he struggled a lot at the plate in 2013, yet we handed him a starting job. There is the trade value argument, and upside argument, etc, but when you look at the whole roster it seems like one too many gambles.
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Sept 26, 2014 12:07:41 GMT -5
Others in the organization have admitted they thought guys were ready who apparently weren't. Hazen, on Speier's podcast, said they were caught off guard by Bogaerts' struggles, in particular. But that said, given how well he did in April and May, was it really a matter of him not being ready, or the team not having a backup plan? I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do here. They did bring in Sizemore to compete with Bradley, and in the end, they may have been kind of right that he can still play outfield in the majors (his line in July and August was great, although he's fallen off a cliff in September), but they didn't have time/the personnel to be able to wait him out. On the left side of the infield, what was the better option - bring back Drew? Which they wound up doing anyway and screwing everything up worse? He wasn't taking a one-year deal before the time he did. The popular perception is going to be that the kids are the reason this team failed, particularly Bradley and Bogaerts not delivering. That's certainly part of it, but it's not the whole story. Pierzynski was an awful signing that's hard to defend. Victorino didn't play pretty much at all. Pedroia had a down year. Napoli played well but also struggled through some injuries. There's more to this than the kids just like 2012 was about more than Bobby V. It's something to be corrected, but I hope (and have faith that) it's not something that'll be overcorrected. The problem with having backup plans for rookies is that it's really difficult to have good ones without over-committing and thus blocking the prospects. You can't bring in Russell Martin for 3-4 years when you have Vazquez and Swihart. So what the hell else can we do for a backup plan in case Vazquez is hitting .120 in June? Sign AJP? I'm going with the kids still. One a one-to-one basis I see what you're saying, but if you look at roster construction a little more broadly I think you can back up the rookies better than we did without blocking them. For instance, going into the year 2/3 of our outfield was covered by JBJ, Shanf & Sizemore. Totally reasonable to count on Shanf to be productive but probably only for 120-130 games. Then you've got JBJ who, while good in AAA was coming in with a lot of risk as a rookie who hadn't shown anything in the majors yet PLUS Sizemore who was simply a lottery ticket. That's a hell of a lot of risk in the outfield ... there's a number of foreseeable outcomes that are horrible. I know I didn't mention Gomes but let's be honest, Gomes is very limited defensively and he was Nava's crutch, I mean platoon mate. If Gomes is backing up someone else, it means you've got Nava facing lefties. I'd rather have JBJ put up an 0-fer than have Nava playing RF vLHP. The infield situation was much worse with the left side covered by a rookie playing next to the huge question mark that is WMB. Sure Bogaerts had much less risk of failure than JBJ, but Middlebrooks was a disaster waiting to happen. I know I'm in the minority, but I would have been a lot more comfortable going into the season with Drew on board. Yes, he was a train wreck this year but I don't think you could have predicted that ... past results indicated he should have been productive and maybe he would have been with a normal spring training. But I digress, the point is that a rookie playing next to a big question mark without real depth options to fall back on is going to backfire on you more often than not. With Drew, we would have had a reliable defender with a history of decent hitting and between them, we would have had coverage for 3 infield positions (assuming Drew would back up 2b if Pedey got hurt). I know it seems like everything went wrong this year but consider that Napoli, Ortiz and Pedroia were all on the field for most of the first half of the season. Our catching situation was similar: two old catchers neither of whom was likely to be a positive with the bat. We would have been better served with a younger catcher on a 2-3 year contract considering Ross' age and that fact that Swihart was never going to be MLB ready this year. Yes, eventually if the prospects pan out you need to trade or cut someone but if we're talking about second tier FA's the money is small enough that you can cut without too much handwringing. As much as a love Ross, at his age I have my doubts about him returning next year ... then again, Swihart is a year closer to MLB ready so who knows.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Sept 26, 2014 12:16:56 GMT -5
I see 2014 in many ways as the cost of 2013. The Red Sox added Victorino, Napoli, Dempster, Uehara, Drew and Gomes prior to 2013, and those players contributed over 20 WAR in 2013. Acquiring them for 2013 in most cases meant keeping them in 2014, and they contributed only a handful of WAR.
Unfortunately, one cost of acquiring free agents is that you usually have to pay them for more years than you want or need them. I would be very hesitant to sign any free agent to a long-term contract unless they address a long-term need (like top of the rotation starter(s)).
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 26, 2014 12:21:17 GMT -5
I see 2014 in many ways as the cost of 2013. The Red Sox added Victorino, Napoli, Dempster, Uehara, Drew and Gomes prior to 2013, and those players contributed over 20 WAR in 2013. Acquiring them for 2013 in most cases meant keeping them in 2014, and they contributed only a handful of WAR. Unfortunately, the cost of acquiring free agents is that you have to pay them for more years than you want or need them. I would be very hesitant to sign any free agent to a long-term contract unless they address a long-term need (like top of the rotation starter(s)). Napoli was 1y, Gomes was just 2y, Uehara was just 1y. Dempster gave them an out on his 2y.. So it became a 1y. Drew was a 1y that the team unwisely decided to resign. The only one which possibly bit them was Victorino and the Indians offered him 4y. The FA signs were NOT the issue.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 26, 2014 12:51:02 GMT -5
And now what happens if JBJ is OPSing .950 in AAA next July and Castillo has a .290 OBP? Call up Bradley and platoon them in CF to start. If Bradley continues to hit and Castillo scuffles, adjust playing time accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 26, 2014 13:25:23 GMT -5
And now what happens if JBJ is OPSing .950 in AAA next July and Castillo has a .290 OBP? Trade him.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Sept 26, 2014 14:41:14 GMT -5
him who?
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 26, 2014 14:49:51 GMT -5
Why JBJ of course. Why would you trade Castillo after a half year of service having committed $72 million to him? With an OPS over .900 Jackie should command a good return.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 26, 2014 15:08:45 GMT -5
Why JBJ of course. Why would you trade Castillo after a half year of service having committed $72 million to him? With an OPS over .900 Jackie should command a good return. Sure, should. Except it never works like that unless you don't want to trade a guy.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Sept 26, 2014 17:07:54 GMT -5
From Laws chat today. Curious if they want WMBs to play winter ball so he can regain some value. espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/51164Chris (Boston) Do we have even the slightest idea of what the Red Sox are planning this winter? Klaw (2:50 PM) Sign one of the big FA starters, trade Middlebrooks/JBJ for ... something.
|
|
|
Post by slam761 on Sept 26, 2014 17:29:13 GMT -5
Does anyone think Hanley might take a 1 year deal like Beltre? With his injury history and inconsistency, plus the fact that he'd still be just 32 after the season, a year in Fenway could help him get one last big contract like Beltre did. It would also give the Sox another year to see if Cecchini, Marerro or even Coyle could be ready to help at SS/3B.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,966
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 26, 2014 20:03:53 GMT -5
Does anyone think Hanley might take a 1 year deal like Beltre? With his injury history and inconsistency, plus the fact that he'd still be just 32 after the season, a year in Fenway could help him get one last big contract like Beltre did. It would also give the Sox another year to see if Cecchini, Marerro or even Coyle could be ready to help at SS/3B. No way. He has a 132 OPS-plus in 127 games. Beltre in 2009 put up an OPS-plus of only 83. Surprisingly, Beltre had a WAR of 3.3 with 2.2 of it coming on defense. But I don't think WAR was as common a measure of performance back then as it is now. Hanley will get his big contract this off-season and I'm hoping it will be in NY. If they give him 6 years/$120 million at the age of 32, it'll be another ball-and-chain contract well before year 6. Also, the deep LF in Yankee Stadium won't be friendly to him. Go get him, BCash! Edit: They'd also surrender their 1st round pick like they do just about every year. I always look forward to the day they give up their pick with a bloated FA contract the way I look forward to Christmas!
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Sept 27, 2014 1:45:32 GMT -5
One of my friends brought up the idea, what about Bryce Harper? Young, Left-Handed power bat in the outfield. He's been hurt, had some controversy with management, and underachieved to a degree. Mookie Betts and another piece or two? would allow them to move Rendon to Third full time, Betts to Second, Either Zimmerman to Left or 1st - Allows them to bring up either Michael Taylor, Stephen Souza, or Matthew Skole depending if they decide to pick up LaRoche or Spans options. Michael Brantley, has had a great year I don't see him traded though. Jay Bruce, Jason Heyward, Christian Yelich are some other names.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan1994 on Sept 27, 2014 3:35:34 GMT -5
One of my friends brought up the idea, what about Bryce Harper? Young, Left-Handed power bat in the outfield. He's been hurt, had some controversy with management, and underachieved to a degree. Mookie Betts and another piece or two? would allow them to move Rendon to Third full time, Betts to Second, Either Zimmerman to Left or 1st - Allows them to bring up either Michael Taylor, Stephen Souza, or Matthew Skole depending if they decide to pick up LaRoche or Spans options. Michael Brantley, has had a great year I don't see him traded though. Jay Bruce, Jason Heyward, Christian Yelich are some other names. I can't imagine a scenario where the Nationals would trade Harper. You would have to give them something like Xander, Devers, Owens and then a lot more than that...not only is he one of the most promising young players in the game, but a huge reason that people go to/watch Nats games...
|
|
|