|
Post by artfuldodger on Nov 23, 2014 21:08:05 GMT -5
I am wondering if the Braves demands for Upton led teams to inquire more seriously about Cespedes which is leading to Ramirez being fast tracked.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 23, 2014 21:10:18 GMT -5
Is Hanley in left drastically better than Cespedes? I don't think you can proclaim that...
However, if they can flip Cespedes for a good starter they certainly are better.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 23, 2014 21:13:07 GMT -5
Is Hanley in left drastically better than Cespedes? I don't think you can proclaim that... However, if they can flip Cespedes for a good starter they certainly are better. Should have clarified that but that is given they are motivated to move Cespedes to improve the rotation. Who knows how accurate everything is but seems to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Nov 23, 2014 21:15:16 GMT -5
I see how this might be the year we blow past the luxury tax, with so many league minimum regulars in Betts, Bogaerts, Vazquez, and possibly even at 1B in 2016 with Shaw, Cecchini, WMB. Not to mention we can fill back ends of the rotation and pen with league minimum, useful arms too. Give me anyone that can play at an all star level who signs for a majority of their prime years.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Nov 23, 2014 21:36:16 GMT -5
Strange, if I were paying for tickets I would care more about them trying to win than spending money but whatever rocks your boat. Crap. I didn't realize that Panda and Ramirez didn't want to win. PreviewYou are right. Let's load the lineup with unproven prospects and watch them grow. It worked great last year. Actually it it sucked last year. I don't expect a World Series every year. But I do expect meaningful games in September. That's what I want for these ticket prices. And 6-7 starting position players with a track record of ML performance is a great way to get there. So don't be a DB. Spending money is not a bad thing. Fact is, the Sox started last year with a lineup of proven starting position players. There were 2 rookies, Bogaerts and Bradley, and Bradley was a last minute replacement for Victorino, was who injured himself on the last day of ST. It was mostly the players who had a "proven track record" who underperformed. Most of the "unproven prospects" did quite well. It wasn't a good year, but it wasn't because of the prospects. Btw, the Sox were 5th in player payroll last season... how did that work out?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
|
Post by nomar on Nov 23, 2014 21:38:21 GMT -5
Linking Upton to Cespedes to Ramirez is getting carried away. I highly doubt Atlanta's asking price for Upton means we want to replace Cespedes in LF with Hanley. If we signed Ramirez right now, he's our 3B until/unless we sign Sandoval which I would doubt.
|
|
wb93
Rookie
Posts: 36
|
Post by wb93 on Nov 23, 2014 21:39:38 GMT -5
I see how this might be the year we blow past the luxury tax, with so many league minimum regulars in Betts, Bogaerts, Vazquez, and possibly even at 1B in 2016 with Shaw, Cecchini, WMB. Not to mention we can fill back ends of the rotation and pen with league minimum, useful arms too. Give me anyone that can play at an all star level who signs for a majority of their prime years. Interesting idea. Also perhaps with your first round pick protected you sign several top FA players in one year.
|
|
wb93
Rookie
Posts: 36
|
Post by wb93 on Nov 23, 2014 21:47:28 GMT -5
Crap. I didn't realize that Panda and Ramirez didn't want to win. PreviewYou are right. Let's load the lineup with unproven prospects and watch them grow. It worked great last year. Actually it it sucked last year. I don't expect a World Series every year. But I do expect meaningful games in September. That's what I want for these ticket prices. And 6-7 starting position players with a track record of ML performance is a great way to get there. So don't be a DB. Spending money is not a bad thing. Fact is, the Sox started last year with a lineup of proven starting position players. There were 2 rookies, Bogaerts and Bradley, and Bradley was a last minute replacement for Victorino, was who injured himself on the last day of ST. It was mostly the players who had a "proven track record" who underperformed. Most of the "unproven prospects" did quite well. It wasn't a good year, but it wasn't because of the prospects. Btw, the Sox were 5th in player payroll last season... how did that work out? Well that's not quite true. Bradley had a lousy year. Boegarts had a disappointing year. And WMB was hardly a proven player - and had a lousy year. And do catcher was about using an old veteran to hold it together until the prospect could come up. I counted three positions that had prospects starting, and a fourth where you didn't have an expectation of strong performance. That is too much risk in the portfolio. That at is my point.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 23, 2014 22:08:38 GMT -5
Before free agency started, there was speculation that Hanley might come here in a Beltre-style deal. Getting one year of him at a reasonable cost, and upgrading from a pick early in the 2nd or 3rd round to a sandwich pick in the process, would be hard to resist.
If they also sign Sandoval, Cespedes is obviously a goner, but I think he's already a goner. You need yet another move:
-- Dump Craig. He doesn't really project as an extra good long-term solution in LF or 1B, just a decent one at best, so this might be the most palatable solution, especially if Hanley proves to be a hit here and supplants him in that role by signing an extension. If the Hanley deal is multi-year, then it's an especially obvious choice.
--Trade Nava, who has actual value. It means that when an OF is hurt, you don't improve the lineup balance, and you're gambling a bit on Victorino and Craig as the bench.
-- Dump Victorino. No guarantee that Hanley is any better than him, though, when you factor in defense. Crazy sideways move.
-- Trade Napoli. No guarantee that Hanley can play a decent 1B, and (admittedly for personal reasons, as a fellow sufferer) I'm half-convinced that Napoli is due for a big year after his apnea surgery.
If they get both guys, they've got the same surplus we thought they had before the wisdom of trading Cespedes for a #2 starter became clear: which of Nava, Victorino, or Craig do you trim from the bench? It's not an awful dilemma: selling low on an apparent sunk cost like Craig actually only hurts you if he proves to be better than what you end up with.
So the way I read the tea leaves here is that they want Hanley for 3B, perhaps short-term, and they'd love Sandoval but have no confidence he comes here, but if they luck out and grab both, they can play Hanley in LF and deal with the roster jam.
Edit: a short version for the double-dip rationale is that after trading Cespedes to get your #2 starter, you're re-upgrading the lineup by swapping in Hanley for Craig. At the right price, that's hard not to like.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 23, 2014 22:13:23 GMT -5
Ramirez...Sandoval...Lester....cryongenic Ted Williams head. It's getting to the point of absurdity. I will say that I fully expect someone to be signed this week.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 23, 2014 22:31:10 GMT -5
The Sox are going to spend at or near the luxury cap at minimum. This whole "well they better spend $" thing is crap, and it's mentioned every year
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 23, 2014 22:31:21 GMT -5
Ramirez...Sandoval...Lester....cryongenic Ted Williams head. It's getting to the point of absurdity. I will say that I fully expect someone to be signed this week. One of those would be cool.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 23, 2014 22:37:21 GMT -5
Why would the Sox go after Ramirez who has proved a problem in the clubhouse with the Dodgers and when he was property of Boston? It would be interesting to know what the thinking is. Because that stuff is completely overblown. Can you show me any evidence of him being a legitimate clubhouse problem in LA? He's matured since he days in the Sox organization and with the Marlins. This article indicates he's been no problem whatsoever for LA, and he's very close with David Ortiz, with Papi referring to him as a "little brother."
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 23, 2014 22:38:01 GMT -5
Ramirez...Sandoval...Lester....cryongenic Ted Williams head. It's getting to the point of absurdity. I will say that I fully expect someone to be signed this week. Brilliant!!!
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 23, 2014 22:58:20 GMT -5
Eric, great post as always. I attended a medical workshop specifically on apnea and someone as highly intelligent as you is probably aware that the long term potential consequences are systemic and devastating, so please consult someone about it. Surgery is not necessarily an outcome, there are various devices (granted some past ones had issues, but they are getting better) to treat them. Otherwise I enjoy your "sleepless" posts.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 23, 2014 23:06:52 GMT -5
It seems very unlikely to me that they are really planning on signing both Ramirez and Sandoval. Heyman is known to be Boras's mouthpiece. We don't need two $100,000,000 3rd basemen. How this got a shred of credibility is beyond me. It could be Boras up to his mischief. It could be a team leverage play. It could be Boston moving on to Ramirez. It could be just a rumor only. What it doesn't seem likely to be is us signing both.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 23, 2014 23:15:42 GMT -5
Who said Hanley is getting 100m?
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 23, 2014 23:23:25 GMT -5
I think the only way they end up with both is if Hanley comes on a 1 year deal. Otherwise, I think they land only Hanley on a 4 year deal. Just don't see them ending up with Sandoval, though part of that may be because I don't want them to
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 23, 2014 23:25:11 GMT -5
5/90 for Hanley, locked up Monday. I prefer that to Sandoval at 5/95, even if he is a few years older
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 23, 2014 23:32:22 GMT -5
Let's try to keep all Hanley discussion to that specific thread. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Nov 23, 2014 23:54:40 GMT -5
Alex Speier ?@alexspeier No indications to this point that Red Sox' reported agreement with Hanley Ramirez diminish interest in signing Sandoval.
If the Sox sign Panda, there needs to be another move (ie trade).
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 23, 2014 23:55:34 GMT -5
Hopefully any additional signing at 3B indicates a willingness to go over the tax, at which point, who gives a crap about how much $ they're spending
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Nov 24, 2014 0:01:00 GMT -5
Wow and like that Hanley Ramirez is back.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 24, 2014 1:04:45 GMT -5
“@mlb_nl_al: The Boston Red Sox have signed Pablo Sandoval to a 5 year, 102 million dollar deal. Source with Hanley story has confirmed. It's done”
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 24, 2014 1:06:01 GMT -5
Hunter Golden ?@huntergbaseball 47s47 seconds ago Those dudes that broke the Hanley and Giancarlo thing just said Pablo's a done deal with #redsox 5 years, $102 million
Jake Wesley MLB @mlb_nl_al · 2m2 minutes ago The Boston Red Sox have signed Pablo Sandoval to a 5 year, 102 million dollar deal. Source with Hanley story has confirmed. It's done
Who the hell knows how legit these are but both reporting the same thing.
|
|