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.
Sox: Headed up or headed down?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2014 4:41:37 GMT -5
I guess it's clear by now that I'm not Bill Gates when it comes to using a computer!! But in response to EV, you make some decent points but you're reaching on some others. Doubront was a below average ERA-plus P each year except for 2010, when he pitched all of 12 games. It's not a major surprise he stunk this year - since he generally wasn't any good before. And Clay barely made it through the PS last year, so is it any surprise he wasn't ready to start the season? Doubront had a mean PECOTA projected ERA of 4.68. Given that they had gotten him to do an off-season conditioning program for the first time in his career, it was not unreasonable to expect a 60th percentile (4.48) or even a 70th percentile (4.25) outcome. I would have bet on the latter. He actually had a 6.07 ERA for us. That's worse than his 10th percentile projection of 5.84. Clay was impossibly brilliant before his injury and very good when he came back, then had all off-season to recover. His mean PECOTA projected ERA was 3.63. His 10th percentile was 4.66. His ERA is 5.29. I don't think it's a reach to say that two guys whose outcomes were beyond 1-in-10-odds bad were unexpectedly bad. Oh, and ProBoards has a bug where it sometimes wipes out your whole reply when you try to edit down a quote while in Preview mode. I always try to do that in BBCode mode, than switch back.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 12, 2014 6:03:23 GMT -5
Well, here's an answer from Werner. I think this [hypothetical FA spending] coupled with the impressive amount of cost-controlled assets we have throughout the system means we are on the way up. And as Joshv02 points out above...we really can't sink any lower. Just think of it as following San Francisco's model of awful-World Series-awful-World Series! I know this is a joke, but this strategy Does Not Work! (Trying to build the best team every other year, then sucking) I get some people here would like it because we get high draft picks, and this forum loves draft picks, but it's a terrible strategy. Even if we did manage to build the best team every other year, we wouldn't win most of the time. In fact we would have a much greater chance of winning World Series' if we made the playoffs every year but were say, the 3rd best team in baseball from a record standpoint. Competing every year helps a ton because the playoffs (while definitely not a crapshoot like most people think) are not very easy to win in, even if you have the best team.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 12, 2014 7:57:56 GMT -5
I fear that the bad results will force them to do something dumb. Let's say they trade Betts and Bogarts for Hamels and sign John Lester to a 7 year contract. That should make the team more competitive in the short term but long term it would be a disaster.
Worse yet.....I am worried that they will continue to jerk.around Bogarts by either playing him at third or.sending him to the minors. If you listen to talk radio they all want Bogarts gone. This is exactly where I am. I don't have to win every year. Part of the fun in watching is building a team back up......particularly if one can do so with prospects. I don't want to use those prospects as trade bait nor do I want us to become Yankees 2.0. Don't squander the treasure. In direct answer to the thread question, the Sox are likely at or close to the bottom. Papi's impending (2 years?) demise may slow matters and our young pitchers do not excite to date...but we have some guys who will make it like Mookie and Bogaerts....and a few more coming that might. Couple that with wise, not extravagant, free agency spending and in a couple of years we should be back in the mix. The rise does not have to be meteoric...just progressive and smart for long term.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2014 9:08:33 GMT -5
We also made a lot of boneheaded, non-baseball decisions back then like letting Carlton Fisk go when he was 32 and still one of the best 2-3 catchers in baseball. And the pitching was never good enough. For those who don't remember, this is even worse than jimed's summary: Fisk was not just let go as a free agent, he was made a free agent early because the incompetent Haywood Sullivan mailed his contract to him a day late. And it was likely on purpose, because they hated Fisk who was fighting for higher pay for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 12, 2014 9:26:32 GMT -5
For those who don't remember, this is even worse than jimed's summary: Fisk was not just let go as a free agent, he was made a free agent early because the incompetent Haywood Sullivan mailed his contract to him a day late. And it was likely on purpose, because they hated Fisk who was fighting for higher pay for everyone. ...and all he did over the next 8 years was to go out and prove that he deserved every bit of that higher pay. Coming to you from the great northwest
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2014 10:16:26 GMT -5
And it was likely on purpose, because they hated Fisk who was fighting for higher pay for everyone. ...and all he did over the next 8 years was to go out and prove that he deserved every bit of that higher pay. Coming to you from the great northwest +3 more years. He truly was a freak of nature. I know Johnny Bench is probably best ever, but Fisk kills everyone for longevity.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 12, 2014 11:47:41 GMT -5
I fear that the bad results will force them to do something dumb. Let's say they trade Betts and Bogarts for Hamels and sign John Lester to a 7 year contract. That should make the team more competitive in the short term but long term it would be a disaster. I'd bet a good portion of my life savings that that wouldn't happen. There's no way they trade both of those guys for Cole Hamels. Heck, I'd be surprised if they trade one of them for Hamels. Those two guys are elite assets right now. Maybe one goes for someone like Stanton, a player in his prime, but I don't think one goes for a 30+ pitcher, even if his contract is actually not the problem people make it out to be (at 4/90 it's not far off from the "ridiculous" offer the Sox made Lester).
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Sept 12, 2014 12:28:22 GMT -5
Well, here's an answer from Werner. I think this [hypothetical FA spending] coupled with the impressive amount of cost-controlled assets we have throughout the system means we are on the way up. And as Joshv02 points out above...we really can't sink any lower. Just think of it as following San Francisco's model of awful-World Series-awful-World Series! I know this is a joke, but this strategy Does Not Work! (Trying to build the best team every other year, then sucking) Why do you think this is actually a strategy? It was an outcome, not necessarily something they set out to do. Sometimes teams have enough talent in-hand to pursue a low-risk strategy to success and sometimes they have to take great risks in order to reach their goals (and sometimes standing pat is a high risk strategy). Taking great risks means that huge failures are going to happen. Just because an outcome was terrible doesn't mean that 1.) it was intentional (or unintentional), and 2.) that it was a bad strategy. Point 2 is not very intuitive, but it is not wrong. If a front office is faced with taking a low-risk strategy that will most likely result in mediocrity (.500 or so), or a high risk strategy that will result in either great success or abysmal failure, I want then to take the latter strategy (unless they are the Pirates circa 2010, sometimes mediocrity is a vital goal). High risk short-term strategies that fail can also have very important secondary benefits. This year's team was high-risk, but the abysmal failure has yielded the silver lining of player development and evaluation. That may not be very satisfying to some, but it is a hell of a consolation prize. The Sox current record is not a referendum on the competency of the front office, it has to be taken into context of the past few years, and there is probably not enough data to make a judgment. Just like last year's title doesn't necessarily mean BC et. al. are brilliant, this year's failure doesn't mean they are slobbering idiots. The team is on it's way up. But it is probably not a linear path to contention. The league is not simple, other teams are trying to do the same things the Sox are trying to do, and there are a tremendous number of variables. I don't see intentional failure as a real thing in MLB. The NBA tanking strategy doesn't really apply to baseball. Even when a team is poorly constructed with a low payroll, the goal is not to lose, the goal is to make a boatload of money. I posted previously about the role of league wide parity that magnifies mistakes. Todays MLB is really not comparable to the MLB of ten years ago, it is a very different landscape, one where the Sox could be making mostly great decisions but not necessarily achieving great results.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2014 12:31:49 GMT -5
I fear that the bad results will force them to do something dumb. Let's say they trade Betts and Bogarts for Hamels and sign John Lester to a 7 year contract. That should make the team more competitive in the short term but long term it would be a disaster. I'd bet a good portion of my life savings that that wouldn't happen. There's no way they trade both of those guys for Cole Hamels. Heck, I'd be surprised if they trade one of them for Hamels. Those two guys are elite assets right now. Maybe one goes for someone like Stanton, a player in his prime, but I don't think one goes for a 30+ pitcher, even if his contract is actually not the problem people make it out to be (at 4/90 it's not far off from the "ridiculous" offer the Sox made Lester). I'd bet a good portion of my life savings that moonstone is exaggerating for the purpose of mocking the people who are whining about not winning every season. Because yeah, maybe we could do better yearly, but that WILL leave us in a position like we were in in 2012 at some point. It's impossible to avoid if you're signing every Ellsbury and McCann that is available every year and never caring one bit about the following 5 years.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 14, 2014 10:51:18 GMT -5
I guess it's clear by now that I'm not Bill Gates when it comes to using a computer!! But in response to EV, you make some decent points but you're reaching on some others. Doubront was a below average ERA-plus P each year except for 2010, when he pitched all of 12 games. It's not a major surprise he stunk this year - since he generally wasn't any good before. And Clay barely made it through the PS last year, so is it any surprise he wasn't ready to start the season? Doubront had a mean PECOTA projected ERA of 4.68. Given that they had gotten him to do an off-season conditioning program for the first time in his career, it was not unreasonable to expect a 60th percentile (4.48) or even a 70th percentile (4.25) outcome. I would have bet on the latter. He actually had a 6.07 ERA for us. That's worse than his 10th percentile projection of 5.84. Clay was impossibly brilliant before his injury and very good when he came back, then had all off-season to recover. His mean PECOTA projected ERA was 3.63. His 10th percentile was 4.66. His ERA is 5.29. I don't think it's a reach to say that two guys whose outcomes were beyond 1-in-10-odds bad were unexpectedly bad. Oh, and ProBoards has a bug where it sometimes wipes out your whole reply when you try to edit down a quote while in Preview mode. I always try to do that in BBCode mode, than switch back. Well, maybe those projection systems aren't Gospel. I consider them fun to look at, but highly flawed. They don't take into account a player's individual circumstances. I think you acknowledge this by noting that Doubront's situation was unique because he reportedly kept himself in better condition last off-season. The irony, of course, is that his performance went in the other direction. But the point is the same. The projection systems don't account for a guy's off-season workouts, nutritional program, personal situation or numerous other factors that could affect his performance. A guy could be going through a rough divorce or a family illness. On the other hand, a guy could have married a 23-year-old stripper during the off-season and be blissfully happy! To take it a step further, a guy could be going through a divorce and actually be helped by it. Keith Foulke talks in one of the '04 books about how he was motivated by wanting the season to continue as long as possible so that he wouldn't have to face his personal situation. And Pete Rose got hot during a personal crisis - I don't recall whether it was a divorce or a paternity suit - and famously blurted out something like "These personal problems seem a lot worse when you're hitting .250 than when you're hitting .350!" PECOTA, Zips, etc. don't take any of this into account. On Doubront, he had ERA-plus numbers of 87 and 95 the previous two years. He was only above average in one year and that was 2010, when he was 102 in a SSS. I'm not surprised that a P who had proven to be below average and to have a bad work ethic put up a particularly bad stinker in '14. I'd also note that ERA is, as we all know, a very volatile stat, especially when you're talking about a low number of innings. Doubie pitched only 59 innings for the RS this year. He sat at 5.19 after his last start on June 20 and 4.99 after his first relief appearance on June 24. Some bad relief appearances caused his ERA to go up. His last relief appearance was especially hideous - 6 ER in .2 IP. That alone moved his ERA from 5.28 to 6.07. Take away his relief appearances - especially those last .2 IP - and his ERA would be more in line with the projection you cited (though still pretty lousy). Clay had some good appearances once he came back last year but I was referring to the way he ended the season. He was clearly cooked by game 4 of the WS and had to reach pretty deep into his guts to give us 4 IP and 66 pitches.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 14, 2014 15:13:24 GMT -5
The notion that this season was ruined by a whole bunch of bad off-season decisions just doesn't hold water.Every projection system in the world had JBJ hitting well enough to be a perfectly fine replacement for Ellsbury (in fact, an upgrade, I think, when you include the defense). You would have had to be psychic to foresee what happened. Giving WMB another shot at 3B was very defensible. They had reason to expect good things from the rotation, with hopes that someone in AAA would take Peavy's spot from him. Buchholz being terrible and Doubront sliding backwards: again, you'd have to be psychic. They needed to find a catcher to play half a season, until Vazquez was ready, and they picked a guy who was not only below replacement level but not a good clubhouse fit, and it was a move roundly criticized here. I wanted to trade for Ryan Hanigan, and had other things broken in their favor, the 3.3 wins they would have gained thereby might have been huge. As it so happens, though, the prospect(s) it would have taken to get Hanigan (perhaps Brian Johnson) would have been wasted. We went back and forth about the backup OF situation, and in retrospect the folks who wanted to sell high on Mike Carp and get someone better as insurance against an unexpected Bradley offensive struggle and/or an expected Victorino series of injuries were right. But add the WAR difference of that mistake and we're still not in contention. They should have started Sizemore at Pawtucket and been more patient with Nava and given Gomes less PT early in the season. Still don't think we're in contention yet. They made an incredibly bad panic move in re-signing Drew. Guys who hit something like .319 / .394 / .506 over 282 PA routinely toss in 50 to 80 PA into the middle where they hit something like .147 / .193 / .212 -- Manny used to do that about twice a year. What's truly odd is for that slump to last 250 PA, as it did for Xander. You will never convince me that the extraodinary duration of that slump was uncorrelated to his simultaneously trying to play a largely unfamiliar position he had every reason to believe he shouldn't be bothering with, and butchering it to the tune of -29 UZR / -32 DRS. Get that right, and maybe now you're in contention -- but I bet you're still missing the playoffs. And if we're going to miss the playoffs, I want what else happens to be in our best long-term interests. None of the things that ruined this season seem likely to have long-term negative impact. They didn't struggle because they had tried to upgrade CF by trading Billy Conigliaro for Tommy Harper and had tossed in George Scott essentially for nothing, and then tried to fix that hole by trading Sparky Lyle for Danny Cater. They didn't struggle because the manager had buried Ferguson Jenkins or Bill Lee the previous year because he didn't like their recreational habits, so that we had given them away for nothing. They didn't struggle because they had traded Cecil Cooper to get George Scott back. Any veteran Sox fan could go on like this for a good while. They struggled because they rolled the dice a number of times, almost all of them reasonable gambles, and came up snake-eyes every time. I'm not going to bitch too much about that given that the previous year they did the same thing and got almost a complete run of 7s and 11s. I completely disagree with that, Eric, and I stated so on April 1 of this year. While all those projections give rationalizations for why the logic should've been sound, each one requires a significantly larger leap of faith than acquiring player in their prime or coming into their prime. They gambled that integrating rookies and (inexplicably) believing Victorino would play 100 or more games and that Sizemore could somehow play significant games would still net them in the range of 00-92 wins, which they believed would put them in solid contention for the division. However, this team did not get better by April 1st and thus they got worse. There was opportunity for them to potentially integrate the pieces you mention above but the likelihood for success was much less than getting players to fill gaps who were near or at their prime and producing at identical or better WAR than those they lost. That said, I also stated on April 1 that was giving this team a mulligan because of the World Series win, and to be honest I think they took one playing a long game rather than re-signing Ellsbury or Saltalamacchia or trying to acquire a better stater than Peavy or a 2.5 WAR or better SS. They rolled the dice on some positions, actually seemed to believe that Victorino would be able to play 100 games and somehow believed that Sizemore would be able to play CF well enough to spell Bradley as he was integrated into a full time roll. On virtually every gamble they lost. This was a direct product of moves made and not made over the off season. That goes back to decisions made by the front office and ownership. I am not saying I would've done too much differently - though I would never have signed Pierzynski and stated it at the time, and I was on the fence about matching the Yankees' offer to Ellsbury and trading Bradley while his value was at it's zenith. Regardless, I get what they did and why they did it, but I think it's completely disingenuous to try to absolve the front office for a strategy that quite clearly didn't work. The bad moves include the ones they passed up on.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Sept 14, 2014 15:27:30 GMT -5
I can't believe they didn't sign Choo last offseason....
This year sucked overall but I'm not so sure what else they should've done. It's easy to say they should've upgraded one spot or another but without siting specifics it's kind of a fools errand. They were in an awkward spot this year with young guys may enormous quite ready but it's not easy to sign the perfect fill in for one year.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 14, 2014 15:36:19 GMT -5
The exercise becomes difficult without knowing what was available to them via trades, too, For example, more than one report had Cherrington admitting that teams had been asking for Nava and Doubront - and given the projections cited here, it's easy to see why. Another report I remember reading (might've been Cafardo or Edes) cited a proposed deal for Stanton that Cherrington refused to make because the one player too far was Cecchini. Again, we don't know any of the other players other than Bradley and Cecchini, so how to evaluate?
Anyway, as I've said all along, Mulligan year.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 14, 2014 15:48:26 GMT -5
The exercise becomes difficult without knowing what was available to them via trades, too, For example, more than one report had Cherrington admitting that teams had been asking for Nava and Doubront - and given the projections cited here, it's easy to see why. Another report I remember reading (might've been Cafardo or Edes) cited a proposed deal for Stanton that Cherrington refused to make because the one player too far was Cecchini. Again, we don't know any of the other players other than Bradley and Cecchini, so how to evaluate? Anyway, as I've said all along, Mulligan year. If this is true, I'm really pissed
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 14, 2014 15:52:31 GMT -5
I spent fifteen twenty minutes looking for that Cecchini/Stanton report and couldn't find anything, nor do I remember reading anything of the sort (and I'd like to think I'm fairly well-informed about Red Sox news/rumors). ADD: this is probably the closest I could find, but it doesn't suggest anything close to the idea that refusing to include Cecchini blew up a Stanton trade.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 14, 2014 16:30:13 GMT -5
I spent fifteen twenty minutes looking for that Cecchini/Stanton report and couldn't find anything, nor do I remember reading anything of the sort (and I'd like to think I'm fairly well-informed about Red Sox news/rumors). ADD: this is probably the closest I could find, but it doesn't suggest anything close to the idea that refusing to include Cecchini blew up a Stanton trade. I remember pretty clearly reading it, but it was a source I discounted - which means Cafardo, Gammons or Edes. I will see if I can find.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Sept 14, 2014 18:04:23 GMT -5
I'd bet a good portion of my life savings that that wouldn't happen. There's no way they trade both of those guys for Cole Hamels. Heck, I'd be surprised if they trade one of them for Hamels. Those two guys are elite assets right now. Maybe one goes for someone like Stanton, a player in his prime, but I don't think one goes for a 30+ pitcher, even if his contract is actually not the problem people make it out to be (at 4/90 it's not far off from the "ridiculous" offer the Sox made Lester). I'd bet a good portion of my life savings that moonstone is exaggerating for the purpose of mocking the people who are whining about not winning every season. Because yeah, maybe we could do better yearly, but that WILL leave us in a position like we were in in 2012 at some point. It's impossible to avoid if you're signing every Ellsbury and McCann that is available every year and never caring one bit about the following 5 years. I listen to WEEI maybe a little too much. Every other call is some genius who thinks Bogarts isn't any good and should be shipped out of town for a veteran. Usually the veteran in question is Stanton, but quite often another successful veteran's name comes up. The Red Sox ownership definitely listens to talk radio. Sometimes moves are made that seem.inspired by those callers. They jerked Boegarts around this year which I think definitely hindered his development. The CEO overruled baseball opps and hired an awful manager in 2012. I think there's an argument to be made that the best strategy is to throw all these pitchers against the wall. and see what sticks. There's no way they do that though. The talk radio callers would complain. Dan Shaughnassy would write an article or four. Felger and Mazz would accuse the ownership of siphoning money for the Liverpool soccer club. They can't have that. They may not sell the farm for Hammels, but they are much more likely to do that. than to pursue the strategy outlined in.the Bradford article. And they may very well do something stupid that the talk show callers will love.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 14, 2014 19:48:09 GMT -5
The exercise becomes difficult without knowing what was available to them via trades, too, For example, more than one report had Cherrington admitting that teams had been asking for Nava and Doubront - and given the projections cited here, it's easy to see why. Another report I remember reading (might've been Cafardo or Edes) cited a proposed deal for Stanton that Cherrington refused to make because the one player too far was Cecchini. Again, we don't know any of the other players other than Bradley and Cecchini, so how to evaluate? Anyway, as I've said all along, Mulligan year. That's a bunch of complete crap and insane to hold that against him.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 14, 2014 20:00:40 GMT -5
You yourself, with the 1st line gave the most excellent reason as to why they would ignore the complete nonsense that comes forth on talk radio from a town/area like NE.
Just why would they want to listen to all those tools, who know little to nothing about baseball, yet will call in and proclaim to offer up some preposterous deal? Or call in with some article they have read.. Maybe by some tool named Minahine, Shaugnessy that contained 5% fact and 95% fantasy?
There is no reason for any of them to relegate themselves to listening to talk radio.. They would have aides who might go over some transcripts if anything came out they needed to know of course, tho that is it.
Talk radio is fantasy.. No more and no less at ALL levels and places.. Sorry guys.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 14, 2014 21:19:40 GMT -5
The exercise becomes difficult without knowing what was available to them via trades, too, For example, more than one report had Cherrington admitting that teams had been asking for Nava and Doubront - and given the projections cited here, it's easy to see why. Another report I remember reading (might've been Cafardo or Edes) cited a proposed deal for Stanton that Cherrington refused to make because the one player too far was Cecchini. Again, we don't know any of the other players other than Bradley and Cecchini, so how to evaluate? Anyway, as I've said all along, Mulligan year. That's a bunch of complete crap and insane to hold that against him. I don't hold it against him. For all we know MIA wanted 7 guys back. The more I think about it the more I am sure it was Gammo and it was either something he said on MLB net or was reported that he said, but I remember reading it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 14, 2014 22:10:25 GMT -5
Here's the article you're talking about: www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-marlins-looking-for-third-second-and-catching-help/It says the Marlins approached the Red Sox about Cecchini, but that the Red Sox told Miami that they had no interest in moving him. However, Stanton's name is conspicuously absent, and the article is in the context of the Marlins adding to their core, not breaking it apart. I certainly wouldn't read it as saying that Cecchini held up a Stanton deal.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 14, 2014 22:43:13 GMT -5
Here's the article you're talking about: www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-marlins-looking-for-third-second-and-catching-help/It says the Marlins approached the Red Sox about Cecchini, but that the Red Sox told Miami that they had no interest in moving him. However, Stanton's name is conspicuously absent, and the article is in the context of the Marlins adding to their core, not breaking it apart. I certainly wouldn't read it as saying that Cecchini held up a Stanton deal. Yup that's the one he is taking about. Nothing about stanton Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Sept 14, 2014 23:59:57 GMT -5
You yourself, with the 1st line gave the most excellent reason as to why they would ignore the complete nonsense that comes forth on talk radio from a town/area like NE. Just why would they want to listen to all those tools, who know little to nothing about baseball, yet will call in and proclaim to offer up some preposterous deal? Or call in with some article they have read.. Maybe by some tool named Minahine, Shaugnessy that contained 5% fact and 95% fantasy? There is no reason for any of them to relegate themselves to listening to talk radio.. They would have aides who might go over some transcripts if anything came out they needed to know of course, tho that is it. Talk radio is fantasy.. No more and no less at ALL levels and places.. Sorry guys. Personally I listen to it because it keeps me awake in the car. The ownership group does listen. As you'll recall Henry walked into the Felger and Mazz show because he didn't like what he was hearing. Like it or not the callers on talk radio represent the average fan and Nesn viewer. Clearly they have had influence over the years and continue to.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 15, 2014 7:29:54 GMT -5
It's funny. At the start of the season we were talking about how great the pitching was, but how bad the offense was. Now it's a complete 180. I'm more than comfortable rolling out this offense next season (although they could use an upgrade at 3B). It's the pitching that I'm frightened about. I want Kelly and Rubby to be the 4/5 going into next season, but there's no one in the system who looks like they'll be an immediate 1/2/3 (Ownes is at least a year away).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 15, 2014 10:28:54 GMT -5
Here's the article you're talking about: www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-marlins-looking-for-third-second-and-catching-help/It says the Marlins approached the Red Sox about Cecchini, but that the Red Sox told Miami that they had no interest in moving him. However, Stanton's name is conspicuously absent, and the article is in the context of the Marlins adding to their core, not breaking it apart. I certainly wouldn't read it as saying that Cecchini held up a Stanton deal. No it was more recent than that. Late June/July 2014. And I am now convinced it was Gammo. I actually thought I posted it here too and we kind of laughed it off, but I looked and I didn't. Grrr - Sheesh - I knew I should've saved.
|
|
|