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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by bstrong on Jul 22, 2015 14:20:18 GMT -5
Also, continually labeling your suggestions "Aggressive!!" or "Ballsy!!" doesn't make them so, nor does it make them any better. You can insert a CGI graphic of a diving, screaming bald eagle too, if you like. It's just spin-doctoring, and second-degree self-aggrandizement. You don't need to hype your suggestions if they stand on their own merit. Telson13....your opinions are noted. The topic of this thread though is "What can be done to fix the Sox?", not what can be done to fix my use of the English language. Stick with the topic at hand and quit being a nit-pic and lighten up. In review of many of your postings and replies,you spend alot of effort emphasizing certain words with bulleting and such just the same. In conclusion,you write statements your way and let others write statements their way.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 22, 2015 14:28:30 GMT -5
Allen Craig is a 31-year-old bad-defensive corner outfielder with a .713 OPS at Triple-A who only counts against the salary ceiling or the 40-man if he's added back to the major league roster. He hit .130/.235/.192 with the Red Sox. The idea that Victorino is blocking young players but the Red Sox need to find out what they have with Craig just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 22, 2015 15:14:15 GMT -5
Also, continually labeling your suggestions "Aggressive!!" or "Ballsy!!" doesn't make them so, nor does it make them any better. You can insert a CGI graphic of a diving, screaming bald eagle too, if you like. It's just spin-doctoring, and second-degree self-aggrandizement. You don't need to hype your suggestions if they stand on their own merit. Telson13....your opinions are noted. The topic of this thread though is "What can be done to fix the Sox?", not what can be done to fix my use of the English language. Stick with the topic at hand and quit being a nit-pic and lighten up. In review of many of your postings and replies,you spend alot of effort emphasizing certain words with bulleting and such just the same. In conclusion,you write statements your way and let others write statements their way. I don't label my own ideas "genius" or "shrewd." It was much less about your use of language and more about your use of advertising. You can tell me I'm nit-picking, but I'm asking for you to give a cogent rationale as to why your proposals have merit...some sort of factual basis, not just because you think your ideas are "ballsy" or "aggressive." An example: "sending a message" by cutting a player who gets a minor injury strikes me as absolutely the worst thing to do for clubhouse morale or team culture. That's a perfectly reasonable (though not necessarily smart) move if you're running a fantasy-league team, but it doesn't seem like a remotely rational thing to do in the real world. Try getting a FA to sign with your team after that. Do you also cut Napoli, Victorino, and Castillo, who've also been injured and/or have underperformed? And if not, how is a lack of internal consistency with your policies going to go over in the clubhouse? Is throwing away one of the better pitchers in the AL this year, who has an ultra-team-friendly contract, and whose production will (obviously, looking at the rest of the rotation this year) be hard to replace a good way to build towards the future?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 22, 2015 15:29:45 GMT -5
Also, continually labeling your suggestions "Aggressive!!" or "Ballsy!!" doesn't make them so, nor does it make them any better. You can insert a CGI graphic of a diving, screaming bald eagle too, if you like. It's just spin-doctoring, and second-degree self-aggrandizement. You don't need to hype your suggestions if they stand on their own merit. Telson13...your opinions are noted. The topic of this thread though is "What can be done to fix the Sox?", not what can be done to fix my use of the English language. Stick with the topic at hand and quit being a nit-pic and lighten up. In review of many of your postings and replies,you spend alot of effort emphasizing certain words with bulleting and such just the same. In conclusion,you write statements your way and let others write statements their way. Regardless, I apologize for getting on your case, I'm probably just in a mood.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,965
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 22, 2015 16:06:24 GMT -5
Allen Craig is a 31-year-old bad-defensive corner outfielder with a .713 OPS at Triple-A who only counts against the salary ceiling or the 40-man if he's added back to the major league roster. He hit .130/.235/.192 with the Red Sox. The idea that Victorino is blocking young players but the Red Sox need to find out what they have with Craig just doesn't make sense to me. Counting Craig's salary towards the ceiling is the only reason not to bring him back up (there will be plenty of room on the 40-man after dumping all of the FAs to be). I don't know if they'll be under the cap if they jettison portions of the salaries of Napoli, Victorino, etc. The reason why you'd want to give Craig a shot in a platoon role is that there's something like a 3% he can do the job next year, so you might as well find out, if there's no downside.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 22, 2015 16:13:48 GMT -5
Allen Craig is a 31-year-old bad-defensive corner outfielder with a .713 OPS at Triple-A who only counts against the salary ceiling or the 40-man if he's added back to the major league roster. He hit .130/.235/.192 with the Red Sox. The idea that Victorino is blocking young players but the Red Sox need to find out what they have with Craig just doesn't make sense to me. Counting Craig's salary towards the ceiling is the only reason not to bring him back up (there will be plenty of room on the 40-man after dumping all of the FAs to be). I don't know if they'll be under the cap if they jettison portions of the salaries of Napoli, Victorino, etc. The reason why you'd want to give Craig a shot in a platoon role is that there's something like a 3% he can do the job next year, so you might as well find out, if there's no downside. That should be enough reason not to do it. And I think the salary cap is way over blown. Sox are eating his salary, no reason to make the penalties worse.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,965
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 22, 2015 16:30:12 GMT -5
Also, continually labeling your suggestions "Aggressive!!" or "Ballsy!!" doesn't make them so, nor does it make them any better. You can insert a CGI graphic of a diving, screaming bald eagle too, if you like. It's just spin-doctoring, and second-degree self-aggrandizement. You don't need to hype your suggestions if they stand on their own merit. Telson13....your opinions are noted. The topic of this thread though is "What can be done to fix the Sox?", not what can be done to fix my use of the English language. Stick with the topic at hand and quit being a nit-pic and lighten up. In review of many of your postings and replies,you spend alot of effort emphasizing certain words with bulleting and such just the same. In conclusion,you write statements your way and let others write statements their way. The advice I would give you is to take a look at the actual performance of players before opining what we should do with them. Offering defensible suggestions makes for good discussion. Making suggestions that others would likely regard as indefensible, without even an attempt at defending them, just makes people brand you (fairly or not) as clueless. The two examples that jumped out at me: Jackie Bradley, Jr. has been the best (edit!) 25-and-under hitter in all of AAA, hitting .314 / .387 / .487 at Pawtucket. He's also one of the two or three best defensive CFers in organized ball. Rusney Castillo is hitting .281 / .333 / .390 at Pawtucket. He's been 10% better than leage average, whereas JBJ has been 55% better. He's a good defender, but not in JBJ's class. So why is Castillo rather than Bradley in your lineup for next year? But that's not the really egregious one. Christian Vazquez was called up last year at the age of 23 after just half a season in AAA, caught 51 games worth of innings, and was 17 runs above average including 14 runs of pitch-framing. That's 45 runs, which is to say 5 wins, above average over the course of a full catcher season (135 games). He projected to be the 5th best catcher in MLB this year, even regressing the pitch-framing somewhat. Blake Swihart was called up this year at the age of 23 after just a quarter of a season in AAA, has caught 38 games so far, and has been 8 runs below average including average pitch-framing. That's 29 runs below average over a full season. Obviously we expect Swihart to improve, and in fact he has been hitting better recently. But Vazquez may well improve some, too. Swihart will close the gap next year. Eventually, say, by age 27, he may well close it completely. But right now he's an immense 74 runs per season behind Vazquez. So why would you put Swihart in MLB and Vazquez in AAA when the latter has been more than 8 wins better per season, so far? Swihart's the best all-around catching prospect in baseball, a guy with tools so good that his eventual blossoming into an All-Star seems likelier than not. But Vazquez is a once-in-a-generation defensive prodigy, a guy who has an enormous impact on the game, right now. Vazquez is the guy you want to catch for the foreseeable future; Swihart is the guy whose trade value you want to continue to maximize, so you can make him the centerpiece (or all) of a deal for a cost-controlled young ace pitcher like Sonny Gray.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 22, 2015 16:34:40 GMT -5
Yo Eric, JBJ turned 25 in April, but rant on.
|
|
|
Post by bstrong on Jul 22, 2015 17:22:37 GMT -5
Telson13....your opinions are noted. The topic of this thread though is "What can be done to fix the Sox?", not what can be done to fix my use of the English language. Stick with the topic at hand and quit being a nit-pic and lighten up. In review of many of your postings and replies,you spend alot of effort emphasizing certain words with bulleting and such just the same. In conclusion,you write statements your way and let others write statements their way. The advice I would give you is to take a look at the actual performance of players before opining what we should do with them. Offering defensible suggestions makes for good discussion. Making suggestions that others would likely regard as indefensible, without even an attempt at defending them, just makes people brand you (fairly or not) as clueless. The two examples that jumped out at me: Jackie Bradley, Jr. has been the best under-25-hitter in all of AAA, hitting .314 / .387 / .487 at Pawtucket. He's also one of the two or three best defensive CFers in organized ball. Rusney Castillo is hitting .281 / .333 / .390 at Pawtucket. He's been 10% better than leage average, whereas JBJ has been 55% better. He's a good defender, but not in JBJ's class. So why is Castillo rather than Bradley in your lineup for next year? But that's not the really egregious one. Christian Vazquez was called up last year at the age of 23 after just half a season in AAA, caught 51 games worth of innings, and was 17 runs above average including 14 runs of pitch-framing. That's 45 runs, which is to say 5 wins, above average over the course of a full catcher season (135 games). He projected to be the 5th best catcher in MLB this year, even regressing the pitch-framing somewhat. Blake Swihart was called up this year at the age of 23 after just a quarter of a season in AAA, has caught 38 games so far, and has been 8 runs below average including average pitch-framing. That's 29 runs below average over a full season. Obviously we expect Swihart to improve, and in fact he has been hitting better recently. But Vazquez may well improve some, too. Swihart will close the gap next year. Eventually, say, by age 27, he may well close it completely. But right now he's an immense 74 runs per season behind Vazquez. So why would you put Swihart in MLB and Vazquez in AAA when the latter has been more than 8 wins better per season, so far? Swihart's the best all-around catching prospect in baseball, a guy with tools so good that his eventual blossoming into an All-Star seems likelier than not. But Vazquez is a once-in-a-generation defensive prodigy, a guy who has an enormous impact on the game, right now. Vazquez is the guy you want to catch for the foreseeable future; Swihart is the guy whose trade value you want to continue to maximize, so you can make him the centerpiece (or all) of a deal for a cost-controlled young ace pitcher like Sonny Gray.
|
|
|
Post by bstrong on Jul 22, 2015 18:03:04 GMT -5
Ericmvan....a simple answer to statement, I didn't ever ask for any advice to be given nor do I feel any need to defend myself in any capacity. What was my opinion and reasoning is, it's still all there in Black and White. I did ask for a general opinion and feedback...I received it;end of discussion,feedback accomplished. If you are looking for the back and forth tennis volley from me, I'm not that guy. Now quit the whining,quit the nit-picking because things don't sound sensible to you and let one's opinion stand at face-value for what it is. Telson13 and you are two peas in a pod. But, if you or anyone else still feel the overwhelming desire to brand people as you say for one's opinion....then by all means continue if it gives you a rise. You might think it's constructive criticism but from where I come from,attempting to tear people apart until you have it your way,is called Weak.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 22, 2015 18:43:36 GMT -5
Clay got a shot from Dr. Andrews today. Shut down will be extended. The Jag needs more time. Wish we had a Ford 150 truck.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,965
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 22, 2015 18:50:00 GMT -5
Yo Eric, JBJ turned 25 in April, but rant on. Oops, meant 25 and under, the standard definition of "young talent," rather than "under-25." Fixed now.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Jul 22, 2015 18:58:46 GMT -5
Allen Craig is a 31-year-old bad-defensive corner outfielder with a .713 OPS at Triple-A who only counts against the salary ceiling or the 40-man if he's added back to the major league roster. He hit .130/.235/.192 with the Red Sox. The idea that Victorino is blocking young players but the Red Sox need to find out what they have with Craig just doesn't make sense to me. Just a baseball move focused on next year. Barring the Cardinals knowing how to fix him and trading for him Craig will be with the team next year, Napoli will not (and you'd be playing him at 1b presumably, so Victorino isn't part of this discussion). Moving salary in Victorino, Napoli, and to a lesser degree DeAza mitigates the impact of Craig's salary being added. They need to know heading into the winter if they need to fill a hole at first or not (most likely they do, but it's not like Napoli is carrying the team with his bat).
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 22, 2015 19:02:40 GMT -5
Allen Craig is a 31-year-old bad-defensive corner outfielder with a .713 OPS at Triple-A who only counts against the salary ceiling or the 40-man if he's added back to the major league roster. He hit .130/.235/.192 with the Red Sox. The idea that Victorino is blocking young players but the Red Sox need to find out what they have with Craig just doesn't make sense to me. Just a baseball move focused on next year. Barring the Cardinals knowing how to fix him and trading for him Craig will be with the team next year, Napoli will not (and you'd be playing him at 1b presumably, so Victorino isn't part of this discussion). Moving salary in Victorino, Napoli, and to a lesser degree DeAza mitigates the impact of Craig's salary being added. They need to know heading into the winter if they need to fill a hole at first or not (most likely they do, but it's not like Napoli is carrying the team with his bat). By team you mean the Pawtucket Red Sox right? There is a 0% chance he is on the Boston Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 22, 2015 19:43:05 GMT -5
Allen Craig is a 31-year-old bad-defensive corner outfielder with a .713 OPS at Triple-A who only counts against the salary ceiling or the 40-man if he's added back to the major league roster. He hit .130/.235/.192 with the Red Sox. The idea that Victorino is blocking young players but the Red Sox need to find out what they have with Craig just doesn't make sense to me. Counting Craig's salary towards the ceiling is the only reason not to bring him back up (there will be plenty of room on the 40-man after dumping all of the FAs to be). I don't know if they'll be under the cap if they jettison portions of the salaries of Napoli, Victorino, etc. The reason why you'd want to give Craig a shot in a platoon role is that there's something like a 3% he can do the job next year, so you might as well find out, if there's no downside.The obvious downside is that you're taking playing time away from other players you want to evaluate who are much more likely to help the team next year. Between Bradley, Castillo, and Nava needing major league playing time, and the strong possibility that they can't move one or more of Napoli/Victorino/De Aza, there just aren't enough reps to go around.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 22, 2015 19:56:31 GMT -5
Or Shaw. Or some player possibly not yet in the organization. I'd rather give the at-bats to some Chris Parmalee type who is probably a Quad-A guy but might not be. If you're going to go for a "let's just play some dude to evaluate him" then it should be someone with a somewhat realistic chance to be good - and ideally someone a lot cheaper than Craig would be if his contract were purchased.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 22, 2015 20:00:46 GMT -5
Or Shaw. Or some player possibly not yet in the organization. I'd rather give the at-bats to some Chris Parmalee type who is probably a Quad-A guy but might not be. If you're going to go for a "let's just play some dude to evaluate him" then it should be someone with a somewhat realistic chance to be good - and ideally someone a lot cheaper than Craig would be if his contract were purchased. Byung-ho Park?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 22, 2015 20:07:12 GMT -5
It depends on one's definition of backup. In my use of it, I meant that when the team did not receive the quality of pitching that was expected, it did not make the moves necessary to gain that quality. Having unproven minor league pitchers available is a backup plan to fill rotation slots if there is a calamity, or total failure - which is almost the situation this year. However, the risk they took for which they had no backup plan, was thinking that unproven, injured, mid-range pitchers could perform at higher levels - or at least some could. There was no ace, no stopper, but they thought that on average the pitching performances would be good enough to offset that. When that proved not to be the case, replacing those pitchers with the minor leaguers also did not yield high quality results - with the exception of some of Rodiguez's performances. Because of roster rules and the fact that you need to keep backup starters stretched out (and therefore can't really keep them in the bullpen, at least beyond April/May), very few teams have a sixth or seventh starter who is a proven veteran major leaguer. For instance, look at Fangraphs' starting pitcher depth charts. Just about every team in the league's sixth/seventh starter is an "unproven minor league pitcher." There's the Nationals and the Mets, and noone else. The fact that their depth consisted of guys like Rodriguez, Wright, Johnson and Owens is something to be praised, not criticized. It's rare that a team has four potential legit major league starters in AAA. As soon as next year, we'll wish we had that luxury. Honest question: you replace, say, Masterson with Cole Hamels. Are they a playoff team, or even a .500 team? Probably not (certainly not by the WAR-type value metrics). This narrative that if only they had a stopper, maybe they'd be a good team-- total wishcasting myth. The failures of the 2015 Red Sox go beyond not having an ace. It goes to players with a track record of success having unexpectedly terrible years in the prime of their career (Porcello, Sandoval, (to a lesser extent) Miley), veterans having bad year (Napoli, Ortiz, Nava), a poor projection of Hanley's defense, a few buy-low busts (Craig, Masterson), young players taking a step back rather than a step forward (Kelly, Castillo), and injuries (Vazquez, Hanigan, (to a lesser extent, since their injury risk was known) Victorino and Buchholz). Some of that is bad luck, but a lot of it is bad player evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 22, 2015 20:39:02 GMT -5
Ericmvan....a simple answer to statement, I didn't ever ask for any advice to be given nor do I feel any need to defend myself in any capacity. What was my opinion and reasoning is, it's still all there in Black and White. I did ask for a general opinion and feedback...I received it;end of discussion,feedback accomplished. If you are looking for the back and forth tennis volley from me, I'm not that guy. Now quit the whining, quit the nit-picking because things don't sound sensible to you and let one's opinion stand at face-value for what it is. Telson13 and you are two peas in a pod. But, if you or anyone else still feel the overwhelming desire to brand people as you say for one's opinion....then by all means continue if it gives you a rise. You might think it's constructive criticism but from where I come from,attempting to tear people apart until you have it your way,is called Weak.You put your opinion out there, and it--not you--is what's being shredded. Take that however you like. You asked for general opinion, and now you seem very upset that your opinions weren't immediately met with nodding heads. Your response has been to accuse others of "whining," "nitpicking," and being "weak." If you don't want peoples' thoughts on your opinions, and you can't handle being disagreed with, why post in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 22, 2015 20:40:18 GMT -5
It depends on one's definition of backup. In my use of it, I meant that when the team did not receive the quality of pitching that was expected, it did not make the moves necessary to gain that quality. Having unproven minor league pitchers available is a backup plan to fill rotation slots if there is a calamity, or total failure - which is almost the situation this year. However, the risk they took for which they had no backup plan, was thinking that unproven, injured, mid-range pitchers could perform at higher levels - or at least some could. There was no ace, no stopper, but they thought that on average the pitching performances would be good enough to offset that. When that proved not to be the case, replacing those pitchers with the minor leaguers also did not yield high quality results - with the exception of some of Rodiguez's performances. Because of roster rules and the fact that you need to keep backup starters stretched out (and therefore can't really keep them in the bullpen, at least beyond April/May), very few teams have a sixth or seventh starter who is a proven veteran major leaguer. For instance, look at Fangraphs' starting pitcher depth charts. Just about every team in the league's sixth/seventh starter is an "unproven minor league pitcher." There's the Nationals and the Mets, and noone else. The fact that their depth consisted of guys like Rodriguez, Wright, Johnson and Owens is something to be praised, not criticized. It's rare that a team has four potential legit major league starters in AAA. As soon as next year, we'll wish we had that luxury. Honest question: you replace, say, Masterson with Cole Hamels. Are they a playoff team, or even a .500 team? Probably not (certainly not by the WAR-type value metrics). This narrative that if only they had a stopper, maybe they'd be a good team-- total wishcasting myth. The failures of the 2015 Red Sox go beyond not having an ace. It goes to players with a track record of success having unexpectedly terrible years in the prime of their career (Porcello, Sandoval, (to a lesser extent) Miley), veterans having bad year (Napoli, Ortiz, Nava), a poor projection of Hanley's defense, a few buy-low busts (Craig, Masterson), young players taking a step back rather than a step forward (Kelly, Castillo), and injuries (Vazquez, Hanigan, (to a lesser extent, since their injury risk was known) Victorino and Buchholz). Some of that is bad luck, but a lot of it is bad player evaluation. Who were the bad player evaluations?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 22, 2015 21:38:17 GMT -5
Acquisition of Kelly and Craig for Lackey. Signing of Castillo. Signing of Sandoval. Signing of Hanley to play LF. I'm still bullish on Porcello, but his acquisition and extension do not look great right now.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 22, 2015 21:42:04 GMT -5
Acquisition of Kelly and Craig for Lackey. Signing of Castillo. Signing of Sandoval. Signing of Hanley to play LF. I'm still bullish on Porcello, but his acquisition and extension do not look great right now. Not sure it's fair to fault the Sox for not anticipating two prime aged players (Sandoval and Porcello) would suddenly become literally two of the worst players in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 22, 2015 21:47:47 GMT -5
It depends on one's definition of backup. In my use of it, I meant that when the team did not receive the quality of pitching that was expected, it did not make the moves necessary to gain that quality. Having unproven minor league pitchers available is a backup plan to fill rotation slots if there is a calamity, or total failure - which is almost the situation this year. However, the risk they took for which they had no backup plan, was thinking that unproven, injured, mid-range pitchers could perform at higher levels - or at least some could. There was no ace, no stopper, but they thought that on average the pitching performances would be good enough to offset that. When that proved not to be the case, replacing those pitchers with the minor leaguers also did not yield high quality results - with the exception of some of Rodiguez's performances. Because of roster rules and the fact that you need to keep backup starters stretched out (and therefore can't really keep them in the bullpen, at least beyond April/May), very few teams have a sixth or seventh starter who is a proven veteran major leaguer. For instance, look at Fangraphs' starting pitcher depth charts. Just about every team in the league's sixth/seventh starter is an "unproven minor league pitcher." There's the Nationals and the Mets, and noone else. The fact that their depth consisted of guys like Rodriguez, Wright, Johnson and Owens is something to be praised, not criticized. It's rare that a team has four potential legit major league starters in AAA. As soon as next year, we'll wish we had that luxury. Honest question: you replace, say, Masterson with Cole Hamels. Are they a playoff team, or even a .500 team? Probably not (certainly not by the WAR-type value metrics). This narrative that if only they had a stopper, maybe they'd be a good team-- total wishcasting myth. The failures of the 2015 Red Sox go beyond not having an ace. It goes to players with a track record of success having unexpectedly terrible years in the prime of their career (Porcello, Sandoval, (to a lesser extent) Miley), veterans having bad year (Napoli, Ortiz, Nava), a poor projection of Hanley's defense, a few buy-low busts (Craig, Masterson), young players taking a step back rather than a step forward (Kelly, Castillo), and injuries (Vazquez, Hanigan, (to a lesser extent, since their injury risk was known) Victorino and Buchholz). Some of that is bad luck, but a lot of it is bad player evaluation. I contend if they had Hamels instead of Kelly and kept Lackey they'd be a playoff team and no need for Masterson as you'd have Buchholz Miley and Porcello and pick next guy up from AAA. Alternately, if they bought Scherzer as I and others avocated and kept Lackey, they'd also be a playoff team with the same alignment. They'd also have no need to extend Porcello (unless they really wanted to do that too) so would theoretically have his money in 2015-16 off season, plus never had Craig or Masterson or Kelly, and you're dumping Victorino's, Napoli's and Breslow's salary - about $66M all told beteen departures and no St Louis deal. You'd also have Bradley and Castillo to fill out the OF while you move Hanley to 1st. Or you trade Bradley and use part of that $66m to get Hayward or BJ Upton and the rest goes to a starter and the pen. The next year you have Scherzer, Buchholz, an extended Porcello or a new guy, Miley and ERod, Hanigan til Vaz is ready, Hanley, Pedroia, Xander, Panda, Castillo, JBJ, Mookie (or Mookie Heyward), plus Tazl, Koji and whomever they get to fill out the pen with Ortiz as DH vs RHP and Hanley vs LHP with Holt playing 1st those days. Spare parts/a couple creative moves fill it out, alter a player, but that's how I Would've done the last 12 months, and the next 6 going forward. Basically never make the Lackey trade and go get a gun, preferably by buying Scherzer. Big change this year is moving Hanley to 1st after Nap goes and deciding o either exteend Porcello or tale the snadwich pick and buy another guy (even with what I know, I probably lean to his extension as I advocated it at the time. Still gives you a potentially strong staff, solid line-up and cash and assets to play with. All that AND you made the playoffs in 2015. See, easy peasy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 22, 2015 21:56:18 GMT -5
Acquisition of Kelly and Craig for Lackey. Signing of Castillo. Signing of Sandoval. Signing of Hanley to play LF. I'm still bullish on Porcello, but his acquisition and extension do not look great right now. Not sure it's fair to fault the Sox for not anticipating two prime aged players (Sandoval and Porcello) would suddenly become literally two of the worst players in baseball. Sure, but both deals certainly had heir critics at the time (in the interests of full disclosure, I was against the Sandoval deal and for the Porcello trade and extension). At the most fundamental level, you want a front office that is a net better evaluator than the crowd or the Fangraphs projections.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 22, 2015 22:03:21 GMT -5
Not sure it's fair to fault the Sox for not anticipating two prime aged players (Sandoval and Porcello) would suddenly become literally two of the worst players in baseball. Sure, but both deals certainly had heir critics at the time (in the interests of full disclosure, I was against the Sandoval deal and for the Porcello trade and extension). At the most fundamental level, you want a front office that is a net better evaluator than the crowd or the Fangraphs projections. Of course, all I'm saying is no one could have possibly expected how atrocious those two would be this season. In fact I agree in that I never really loved the Sandoval deal, because even if he played at a predictable level it would have been barely worth it and not really made a ton of sense given the risk of him playing worse than predictably and the fact that he would block Hanley from playing the position he profiled best at. I'm just not sure it's an example of poor talent evaluation because correctly evaluating how good (bad) he would be this season would have been impossible.
|
|
|