|
Post by oilcansman on Aug 1, 2014 11:14:45 GMT -5
The reason oakland does it that way is because of financial limitations. The problem I have with this philosophy as it applies to the sox is it takes it marginalizes its greatest strength - spending. We need to keep in mind that as great as Beane is even he wasn't able to prevent the A's from being at or below .500 from '07 to '11.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Aug 1, 2014 11:21:00 GMT -5
The reason oakland does it that way is because of financial limitations. The problem I have with this philosophy as it applies to the sox is it takes it marginalizes its greatest strength - spending. We need to keep in mind that as great as Beane is even he wasn't able to prevent the A's from being at or below .500 from '07 to '11. We are taking a middle ground approach between them and the Yankees. You can't honestly expect us to match the Yankee/dodger philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 1, 2014 11:22:51 GMT -5
The reason oakland does it that way is because of financial limitations. The problem I have with this philosophy as it applies to the sox is it takes it marginalizes its greatest strength - spending. We need to keep in mind that as great as Beane is even he wasn't able to prevent the A's from being at or below .500 from '07 to '11. We are taking a middle ground approach between them and the Yankees. You can't honestly expect us to match the Yankee/dodger philosophy. We did in the past and it worked. We just have to still draft smart.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 1, 2014 11:25:58 GMT -5
Anybody else think the Cespedes trade has at least something to do with giving the average fan who only cares about wins and knows very little about the farm and financial considerations that go into building a team a "name" in return for Jon Lester? If we did trade him for Joc Pederson most of us would've been ecstatic but more than 90% of the fan base has no idea who he is and thus would've been disappointed, the reigning homerun derby champ on the other hand... I was convinced the Kamp talk was basically the equivalent of Mike Lowell in the Beckett deal (a salary dump at the time) and that we'd need to take him in order to get one of the holy trinity from them but apparently he was the target. This board wouldn't have been happy with that at all.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Aug 1, 2014 11:29:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Aug 1, 2014 11:41:17 GMT -5
Anybody else think the Cespedes trade has at least something to do with giving the average fan who only cares about wins and knows very little about the farm and financial considerations that go into building a team a "name" in return for Jon Lester? If we did trade him for Joc Pederson most of us would've been ecstatic but more than 90% of the fan base has no idea who he is and thus would've been disappointed, the reigning homerun derby champ on the other hand... I was convinced the Kamp talk was basically the equivalent of Mike Lowell in the Beckett deal (a salary dump at the time) and that we'd need to take him in order to get one of the holy trinity from them but apparently he was the target. This board wouldn't have been happy with that at all. I wrote last Sunday that Kemp deal even up for Lester with LA paying 50% of Kemp's salary would have been an excellent deal for the Sox. Kemp has gone on a crazy hot streak since then. From a probability standpoint, its unlikely Pederson will ever be Cespedes. I think you really need to consider Beane's comment when he traded Addison Russell that the value of current major league talent has been discounted. What he was saying is that we are overvaluing prospects. That has been my belief for the past few years and has made me EXTREMELY unpopular on this website. The headline from yesterday is that the teams seem to agree that the search for prospects at the cost of premium MLB talent has gotten out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 1, 2014 12:18:42 GMT -5
Anybody else think the Cespedes trade has at least something to do with giving the average fan who only cares about wins and knows very little about the farm and financial considerations that go into building a team a "name" in return for Jon Lester? If we did trade him for Joc Pederson most of us would've been ecstatic but more than 90% of the fan base has no idea who he is and thus would've been disappointed, the reigning homerun derby champ on the other hand... I was convinced the Kamp talk was basically the equivalent of Mike Lowell in the Beckett deal (a salary dump at the time) and that we'd need to take him in order to get one of the holy trinity from them but apparently he was the target. This board wouldn't have been happy with that at all. Well, I think that you are underestimating the Sox fan base a bit. Regardless, like the Yankees, the Sox are more in a re-tool rather than longer-term rebuild mode. They would rather take the surer, nearer thing than fantasize over the higher risk/higher reward prospects that we might like.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 1, 2014 12:19:38 GMT -5
What he was saying is that we are overvaluing prospects. That has been my belief for the past few years and has made me EXTREMELY unpopular on this website. The headline from yesterday is that the teams seem to agree that the search for prospects at the cost of premium MLB talent has gotten out of hand. No, I think what has made you unpopular is the fact that you keep hammering home the same point time after time without seemingly being able to comprehend that there are other points of view. If I had to count the number of posts in the Lester thread in which you made the same point, I would need to borrow some toes and fingers. But, a little self-assessment is a good thing. In prospect parlance, you have good raw stuff but the delivery needs refining.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Aug 1, 2014 12:30:56 GMT -5
People are ignoring the fact that we already have a top 5 farm system. That's why Ben Cherington was able to make these kinds of moves. Because we have a bunch of highly regarded prospects already.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Aug 1, 2014 12:32:38 GMT -5
amfox1: I appreciate your perspective but I think you missed the point of my post. The big news coming out of yesterday is that GMs around baseball seem to be re-evaluating the value of prospects. It's been mentioned over and over by other news organizations (ESPN, Joel Sherman, MLB network) and its very interesting. This has been my refrain for quite a while.
BTW, you arguably broke a key rule on this website by suggesting I seemingly don't have the ability to comprehend other points of view. Frankly, that's an ad hominem attack on me. You should know better. The rules apply to moderators too, right?
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Aug 1, 2014 12:37:42 GMT -5
amfox1: I appreciate your perspective but I think you missed the point of my post. The big news coming out of yesterday is that GMs around baseball seem to be re-evaluating the value of prospects. It's been mentioned over and over by other news organizations (ESPN, Joel Sherman, MLB network) and its very interesting. This has been my refrain for quite a while. BTW, you arguably broke a key rule on this website by suggesting I seemingly don't have the ability to comprehend other points of view. Frankly, that's an ad hominem attack on me. You should know better. The rules apply to moderators too, right? Since when is it considered an attack to call a spade a spade? He didn't call you an idiot...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 1, 2014 12:46:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Aug 1, 2014 12:47:51 GMT -5
amfox1: The big news coming out of yesterday is that GMs around baseball seem to be re-evaluating the value of prospects. It seems to me if anything, that prospects are valued even more highly, Colin Moran and Eduardo Rodriguez we're the highest rated prospects on the move yesterday, no GM wanted to part with their prospects. While I agree with you that the philosophy may shift soon (Beane and Cherington, trend setting?), I don't see where yesterday validates that point at all.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Aug 1, 2014 12:49:40 GMT -5
amfox1: I appreciate your perspective but I think you missed the point of my post. The big news coming out of yesterday is that GMs around baseball seem to be re-evaluating the value of prospects. It's been mentioned over and over by other news organizations (ESPN, Joel Sherman, MLB network) and its very interesting. This has been my refrain for quite a while. BTW, you arguably broke a key rule on this website by suggesting I seemingly don't have the ability to comprehend other points of view. Frankly, that's an ad hominem attack on me. You should know better. The rules apply to moderators too, right? And you really wonder why you have become extremely unpopular on this website.....
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Aug 1, 2014 12:52:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Aug 1, 2014 12:54:14 GMT -5
And you just proved jmei's point
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 1, 2014 12:55:33 GMT -5
He specifically criticized your arguments. Namely, that they were repetitive and failed to respond to the points of others.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Aug 1, 2014 13:07:34 GMT -5
amfox1: I appreciate your perspective but I think you missed the point of my post. The big news coming out of yesterday is that GMs around baseball seem to be re-evaluating the value of prospects. It's been mentioned over and over by other news organizations (ESPN, Joel Sherman, MLB network) and its very interesting. This has been my refrain for quite a while. BTW, you arguably broke a key rule on this website by suggesting I seemingly don't have the ability to comprehend other points of view. Frankly, that's an ad hominem attack on me. You should know better. The rules apply to moderators too, right? And you really wonder why you have become extremely unpopular on this website..... I enjoy your posts, totheights, so I'll explain my position. I noticed from nearly my first post that many, if not most, view this as a fan-booster site for Red Sox prospects, instead of a serious discussion. Some, however, view it the way I do - an opportunity to discuss the role of the Red Sox minor leagues in the success of the big league team. I love the minor league system and have been reading about the Sox minors since Peter Gammons started discussing the same in his notes columns 30 years ago. I notice how many of the people that post here seem to lose sight of something that no GM does - the minor leagues are a means to an end not an end to itself. No GM takes Baseball America seriously for that reason. 95% of the kids in the minors will not change the fortunes of an MLB team for the better. Certainly more that 5% will play in the big leagues but few will really matter. To read Baseball America and this site, though, you would think that about 20-30% of the kids are future game changers. Its a massive distortion of reality. What makes things fascinating, though, is that a successful minor league system is nearly indispensable to the success of the big league team. I simply choose to remind people of this. I enjoy the minors as much as probably 80% of the people on this site and have followed it, I dare say, longer than 90% of the people. I'm 50 years old and have followed minor league ball since about 15 years old.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 1, 2014 13:11:10 GMT -5
The other point of the Baseball Prospectus article is that rebuilding a team with prospects takes far more time, and is far more risky, than acquiring proven talent. He references the Astros, but there have been other examples.
The Red Sox are in a superb position because they were able to acquire some proven veterans without giving up any top prospects. So, they basically have the best of both worlds. They have an excellent farm system with many good prospects, and they have been able to fill some holes the farm system could not with proven players.
They should be able to bounce back from this season into contention next year.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 1, 2014 13:13:00 GMT -5
So I'm not sure which thread it was written in so I'm putting this hear.
Jmei, remember when you wrote about there being no greater risk to Cliff Lee being injured because he's been so healthy over his career even though he's old and had what you described as a minor elbow injury this season? Yea about that...
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 1, 2014 13:16:04 GMT -5
People are ignoring the fact that we already have a top 5 farm system. That's why Ben Cherington was able to make these kinds of moves. Because we have a bunch of highly regarded prospects already. We have some excellent prospects and a boatload of good ones and was hoping for excellent ones so we could start packaging that boatload of good ones for better ones, major league pieces or ones farther away.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 1, 2014 13:21:21 GMT -5
I feel like I just relived 10th grade english.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Aug 1, 2014 13:24:09 GMT -5
So I'm not sure which thread it was written in so I'm putting this hear. Jmei, remember when you wrote about there being no greater risk to Cliff Lee being injured because he's been so healthy over his career even though he's old and had what you described as a minor elbow injury this season? Yea about that... Of course, this is an fair point, but this type of accuracy will cause trouble here, rjp313jr.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 1, 2014 13:24:50 GMT -5
amfox1: I appreciate your perspective but I think you missed the point of my post. The big news coming out of yesterday is that GMs around baseball seem to be re-evaluating the value of prospects. It's been mentioned over and over by other news organizations (ESPN, Joel Sherman, MLB network) and its very interesting. This has been my refrain for quite a while. BTW, you arguably broke a key rule on this website by suggesting I seemingly don't have the ability to comprehend other points of view. Frankly, that's an ad hominem attack on me. You should know better. The rules apply to moderators too, right? I didn't miss the point of your post. I chose to amplify on your self-assessment of your popularity on this site with what I believed was a constructive analysis. Rather than take such constructive criticism in the spirit in which it was offered, your response was to lash out in a manner consistent with my analysis. BTW, I hardly believe that one trade deadline - where two GMs (Cherington and Friedman) took major league players back in trades for star pitchers - proves your thesis that GMs around baseball are re-evaluating the value of prospects. And citing news organizations, with the attention span of fruitflies, hardly bolsters your case. It may or may not be true, but yesterday's trades provide far too small a data point to prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 1, 2014 13:38:04 GMT -5
So I'm not sure which thread it was written in so I'm putting this hear. Jmei, remember when you wrote about there being no greater risk to Cliff Lee being injured because he's been so healthy over his career even though he's old and had what you described as a minor elbow injury this season? Yea about that... It's OK, just means he'll be even cheaper this offseason
|
|