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 mandelbro on Jul 24, 2015 10:22:30 GMT -5
The problem is what needs to be done, and what flies in this market, are not one and the same.
Dumping Sandoval/Ramirez is going to get cheaper and cheaper as they get deeper into their contracts and there is less salary to eat. And they might improve from being the worst players at their positions to average, or at least better at different positions. So as bad as it looks now, you've got to lie in the bed you made and bear them out.
In the immediate... trade Koji to a contender for some organizational depth. I like Taz but we've rode the guy hard over the past two years, if someone is hard after him then that would be a trigger worth pulling. Vic and Napoli, shake their hands and cut them loose so they can go sit on the back of bench for a WS contender. Those guys are A+ and I think the goodwill is more valuable than some 24 year old in A ball.
I like Miley. You know he's going show up every start and he's going to be consistently mediocre. He's gonna pitch quickly and act like an angry hick and stay in the game when he's getting shelled. But we have a lot of LHP, so if we could find someone who has a lot of something we really need and needs a reliable back end guy then that trade would be worth exploring.
I would explore trading Javier Guerra before he gets eaten up by more advanced pitching, and Margot if the return is strong enough to dictate it (a cost-controlled front end pitcher in the right age range like Julio Teheran). Devers and Espinoza should not be touched.
I think the organization needs to rethink their total aversion to low value positions. The general thought process that first basemen/low defensive spectrum players and relief pitchers aren't worth developing and should be stiffs off the street is taken too far to the extreme. Sam Travis is the only credible 1B in the system, Pat Light the only reliever.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2015 10:35:32 GMT -5
Not impugning you specifically here, dcsoxfan, but, 1) I've been hearing this refrain one way or another since 2010 save one year. That one year is a pretty big deal. It's also a big fat outlier and not an excuse for bookend mediocrity, poor player evaluation internally and externally,and 8 years of not being able to develop (or take for) more than a #5 starter internally - again, save for 1 example - IMHO. You (i.e. The Red Sox) want to be the Cardinals or whomever, great - go hire their #2 guy (if he's not indicted) make him your GM. If you want to develop and trade for pitching like Oakland or Tampa or whomever, then go hire the person they have doing that for a job with a title that's a step or two better that what he has and put him to work. I was not kidding this past winter when I said the Sox missed a big opportunity when Friedman became available. he's one of 3 or 4 guys I'd give the keys to the Mercedes and the Platinum card to solely base on their success since 08 of being very competitive with less than 25% of the Red Sox resources. Ditto Billy Beane, who I would offer an ownership percentage, and Moziliak. But if you can't get those guys then go get the best guys they have. I will repeat though, The same thinking that got you into a fix won't get you out of it. Ben's public comments recently seem to indicate he still hasn't learned that lesson. I strongly believe this organization either needs to change significant components of its philosophy or they need to change several key people who execute this philosophy. Or just keep on doing what you've been doing since 2010 (save for the outlier) and expect success. There is an Internet meme/word for that, too.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 24, 2015 10:37:42 GMT -5
So they really have done the same thing every year since 2010?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 24, 2015 10:45:40 GMT -5
Who cares if you have four lefties in the rotation for the rest of 2015? Not to mention that whole thing is over-rated. Every day is a new game and it doesn't matter what arm the guy the day before threw with. You're either a good starting pitcher or you're not. You want to have an inferior guy just because he throws with the other arm?
However, all that matters this year is seeing the individuals not the team as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by caseytins on Jul 24, 2015 11:24:17 GMT -5
The problem is what needs to be done, and what flies in this market, are not one and the same. Dumping Sandoval/Ramirez is going to get cheaper and cheaper as they get deeper into their contracts and there is less salary to eat. And they might improve from being the worst players at their positions to average, or at least better at different positions. So as bad as it looks now, you've got to lie in the bed you made and bear them out. In the immediate... trade Koji to a contender for some organizational depth. I like Taz but we've rode the guy hard over the past two years, if someone is hard after him then that would be a trigger worth pulling. Vic and Napoli, shake their hands and cut them loose so they can go sit on the back of bench for a WS contender. Those guys are A+ and I think the goodwill is more valuable than some 24 year old in A ball. I like Miley. You know he's going show up every start and he's going to be consistently mediocre. He's gonna pitch quickly and act like an angry hick and stay in the game when he's getting shelled. But we have a lot of LHP, so if we could find someone who has a lot of something we really need and needs a reliable back end guy then that trade would be worth exploring. I would explore trading Javier Guerra before he gets eaten up by more advanced pitching, and Margot if the return is strong enough to dictate it (a cost-controlled front end pitcher in the right age range like Julio Teheran). Devers and Espinoza should not be touched. I think the organization needs to rethink their total aversion to low value positions. The general thought process that first basemen/low defensive spectrum players and relief pitchers aren't worth developing and should be stiffs off the street is taken too far to the extreme. Sam Travis is the only credible 1B in the system, Pat Light the only reliever. I agree very much with this post.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 24, 2015 11:32:33 GMT -5
The problem is what needs to be done, and what flies in this market, are not one and the same. Dumping Sandoval/Ramirez is going to get cheaper and cheaper as they get deeper into their contracts and there is less salary to eat. And they might improve from being the worst players at their positions to average, or at least better at different positions. So as bad as it looks now, you've got to lie in the bed you made and bear them out. In the immediate... trade Koji to a contender for some organizational depth. I like Taz but we've rode the guy hard over the past two years, if someone is hard after him then that would be a trigger worth pulling. Vic and Napoli, shake their hands and cut them loose so they can go sit on the back of bench for a WS contender. Those guys are A+ and I think the goodwill is more valuable than some 24 year old in A ball. I like Miley. You know he's going show up every start and he's going to be consistently mediocre. He's gonna pitch quickly and act like an angry hick and stay in the game when he's getting shelled. But we have a lot of LHP, so if we could find someone who has a lot of something we really need and needs a reliable back end guy then that trade would be worth exploring. I would explore trading Javier Guerra before he gets eaten up by more advanced pitching, and Margot if the return is strong enough to dictate it (a cost-controlled front end pitcher in the right age range like Julio Teheran). Devers and Espinoza should not be touched. I think the organization needs to rethink their total aversion to low value positions. The general thought process that first basemen/low defensive spectrum players and relief pitchers aren't worth developing and should be stiffs off the street is taken too far to the extreme. Sam Travis is the only credible 1B in the system, Pat Light the only reliever. Well done. I only take issue with Miley. He will provide innings and his salary isn't bad. Sox will need someone to eat innings next year. Fewer and fewer guys around doing that.
|
|
wbcd
Rookie
Posts: 33
|
Post by wbcd on Jul 24, 2015 11:53:26 GMT -5
Or just keep on doing what you've been doing since 2010 (save for the outlier) and expect success. There is an Internet meme/word for that, too.<abbr></abbr> Well actually, the outlier was a pretty big success and did come first. So what you are really saying is that Ben should have realized that 2013 was a complete fluke and changed his strategies. Plus the fact that Ben could continue to do what he is doing (signing second-tier and below guys for shorter deals and keeping his prospects) and have success if the prospects develop as we all think they will. To me, the real issue for Ben is that when he took over, he was faced with what happened to be a pretty barren farm system, particularly with reagrd to the upper tiers. Until X came up, the Sox got virtually nothing out of their farm system (except being able to get out of the Crawford/AGon contracts) and wasn't able to develop any major league pitching. In the current state of team building (IMO), a hole like that is extremely difficult to overcome in the FA market on a regular basis. I don't think Ben should be fired but he's in a profession that gets measured on wins and losses, so whether or not all of his moves were defensible, I wouldn't be surprised if Henry fires him. And I suspect that if Ben gets fired, he will say basically the same thing that Nieves said when he was let go.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2015 12:18:25 GMT -5
So they really have done the same thing every year since 2010? Give or take a move, sure seems like it to me.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2015 12:35:37 GMT -5
Well actually, the outlier was a pretty big success and did come first. So what you are really saying is that Ben should have realized that 2013 was a complete fluke and changed his strategies. Plus the fact that Ben could continue to do what he is doing (signing second-tier and below guys for shorter deals and keeping his prospects) and have success if the prospects develop as we all think they will. To me, the real issue for Ben is that when he took over, he was faced with what happened to be a pretty barren farm system, particularly with reagrd to the upper tiers. Until X came up, the Sox got virtually nothing out of their farm system (except being able to get out of the Crawford/AGon contracts) and wasn't able to develop any major league pitching. In the current state of team building (IMO), a hole like that is extremely difficult to overcome in the FA market on a regular basis. I don't think Ben should be fired but he's in a profession that gets measured on wins and losses, so whether or not all of his moves were defensible, I wouldn't be surprised if Henry fires him. And I suspect that if Ben gets fired, he will say basically the same thing that Nieves said when he was let go. Nope. I'm saying Ben's tenure as GM from late '11 through to '15 looks pretty similar in a lot of ways to me, including bringing up players who weren't ready, trading away good talent for bad and, sloppy play in the field, and poor evaluation of pitching. Granted, Ben inherited a big mess and got a great do-over in 12. But if he gets credit for being part of the org before and making great player development decisions then he shares blame for the same mistakes, including not being able to draft or trade for and develop a single starter worth a damn since Buchholz except for Rodriguez. And I am putting that within the context of The Cardinals - whom this organization has repeatedly and publicly said they are trying to emulate going back to around 2010 or 11. My opinion, but I did go back and look at the transaction pages on this site from 2010 forward. Lot of similarities. Or do people here not believe Crawford and, say, Panda or Hanely, don't look like Deja Vu? Bobby Jenks anyone? Andrew Bailey? Joel Hanrahan? I mean we've gone over this ground. You guys want to defend this front office, fine. I'm of the opinion that they have some significant flaws they they just aren't addressing and that the solution is either need new leaders in key positions or some changes in their core philosophies. And by the way, in what business do you reward repeated failure at a high level, especially when that business is an industry leader in expenditures?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 24, 2015 12:36:08 GMT -5
So they really have done the same thing every year since 2010? Give or take a move, sure seems like it to me. You may have forgotten AGon and Crawford.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2015 12:37:10 GMT -5
Give or take a move, sure seems like it to me. You may have forgotten AGon and Crawford. You mean Hanley and Panda? and btw, I thought AGon was the best move of that whole year. At the time I was Crawford fan and thought he would make a huge impact with the Sox. I was right, but in the wrong way. Just like this organization.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 24, 2015 12:50:53 GMT -5
You may have forgotten AGon and Crawford. You mean Hanley and Panda? and btw, I thought AGon was the best move of that whole year. At the time I was Crawford fan and thought he would make a huge impact with the Sox. I was right, but in the wrong way. Just like this organization. Hanley and Panda are nowhere close to Crawford and AGon (and Beckett). And this current team is able to take players on like that because of guys like Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, ERod, Vazquez, etc, which we had zero of ready to contribute in 2011. Imagine this team without those guys now and that's about what we had in 2012. It's so different.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2015 13:20:21 GMT -5
You mean Hanley and Panda? and btw, I thought AGon was the best move of that whole year. At the time I was Crawford fan and thought he would make a huge impact with the Sox. I was right, but in the wrong way. Just like this organization. Hanley and Panda are nowhere close to Crawford and AGon (and Beckett). And this current team is able to take players on like that because of guys like Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, ERod, Vazquez, etc, which we had zero of ready to contribute in 2011. Imagine this team without those guys now and that's about what we had in 2012. It's so different. Is that because after 08 there was a player development gap? Or because they decided to leverage what were - at the time - highly prized assets (Kelly, Rizzo Fuentes) for a long term solution (Agon) whom they kept less than 2 years? Or because they mis-evaluated both Middlebrooks and Beltre and let Beltre walk and then tried to fill some of the departing offense with Crawford? Or if they hadn't traded Lowrie and Reddick for zero return. Or cause they can't develop pitching? I actually would've loved to see this team in 12 with Gonzalez and Beltre anchoring the infield, Lowrie being the utility guy and Reddick platooning in the OF. And hey, with Beltre signed for 5 years imagine the kind of package you could've anchored with Middlebrooks, who would've been blocked, when his value was at his zenith and evaluators were thinking he could've been a Longoria-type. You make it sound like they woke up in 2012 and the cupboard was just bare. It got that way because of organizational philosophy and execution.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 24, 2015 13:32:41 GMT -5
The Red Sox have assembled the best collection of under-23 talent in baseball. Unfortunately, very few players under the age of 23 are ready to perform at a Major League level. Fortunately all of that under 23 talent is working just as fast as it can to become under 24 and under 25 talent. I think the Red Sox and their fans might just have to be patient -- just like the fans of 27 or 28 other teams frequently do. Not impugning you specifically here, dcsoxfan, but, 1) I've been hearing this refrain one way or another since 2010 save one year. 2) Fans of those 27-28 other teams don't have owners who are willing to spend $189M+ every year. If you have an outstanding advantage over your competition you need to maximize it. It's not just player development. It's trades and smart purchases of free agents. A lot of other teams can't indulge in the latter to the degree the Sox can, or their owners are just too cheap. 1. And how long do you expect it to take for 18 year old HS draftees and 16 year old IFA's to become 22 year old major leaguers? For a number of reasons -- trades, transition after Hoyer's departure, some bad luck (e.g. Ryan Westmoreland), the Red Sox are currently receiving nothing from their 2006 through 2010 drafts and have only one IFA of note (Bogaerts). 2. At current market rates, $190 million gets you 6 Max Scherzer types or nine Pandas. Even with their financial resources, you cannot build a team around high end veterans. 3. The return on prospects is very low -- they are an under-valued asset. Since John Henry bought the Red Sox traded prospects have accrued more than twice the WAR of acquired veterans -- and the ratio is growing (Iglesias, Rizzo) You can catch lightning in a bottle trading prospects for veterans and through savvy FA acquisitions, but you cannot build a sustainable winner without a core of low-cost young players. If the Red Sox cannot do that, they cannot be a consistent competitor. Right now the Red Sox number one priority should be creating that core. Quick fixes aren't going to work.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 24, 2015 14:02:24 GMT -5
Right now the Red Sox number one priority should be creating that core. Quick fixes aren't going to work. Agreed, which is why the Red Sox should be selling as many non-core pieces as possible in the next week.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2015 14:33:35 GMT -5
Not impugning you specifically here, dcsoxfan, but, 1) I've been hearing this refrain one way or another since 2010 save one year. 2) Fans of those 27-28 other teams don't have owners who are willing to spend $189M+ every year. If you have an outstanding advantage over your competition you need to maximize it. It's not just player development. It's trades and smart purchases of free agents. A lot of other teams can't indulge in the latter to the degree the Sox can, or their owners are just too cheap. 1. And how long do you expect it to take for 18 year old HS draftees and 16 year old IFA's to become 22 year old major leaguers? For a number of reasons -- trades, transition after Hoyer's departure, some bad luck (e.g. Ryan Westmoreland), the Red Sox are currently receiving nothing from their 2006 through 2010 drafts and have only one IFA of note (Bogaerts). 2. At current market rates, $190 million gets you 6 Max Scherzer types or nine Pandas. Even with their financial resources, you cannot build a team around high end veterans. 3. The return on prospects is very low -- they are an under-valued asset. Since John Henry bought the Red Sox traded prospects have accrued more than twice the WAR of acquired veterans -- and the ratio is growing (Iglesias, Rizzo) You can catch lightning in a bottle trading prospects for veterans and through savvy FA acquisitions, but you cannot build a sustainable winner without a core of low-cost young players. If the Red Sox cannot do that, they cannot be a consistent competitor. Right now the Red Sox number one priority should be creating that core. Quick fixes aren't going to work. I agree with this and have never stated otherwise, but signing free agents to 4 and 5 year deals aren't quick fixes, nor are trades for players with more than 2 years of control. If anything they define windows that are supposed to coincide with your core.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 24, 2015 16:12:23 GMT -5
1. And how long do you expect it to take for 18 year old HS draftees and 16 year old IFA's to become 22 year old major leaguers? For a number of reasons -- trades, transition after Hoyer's departure, some bad luck (e.g. Ryan Westmoreland), the Red Sox are currently receiving nothing from their 2006 through 2010 drafts and have only one IFA of note (Bogaerts). 2. At current market rates, $190 million gets you 6 Max Scherzer types or nine Pandas. Even with their financial resources, you cannot build a team around high end veterans. 3. The return on prospects is very low -- they are an under-valued asset. Since John Henry bought the Red Sox traded prospects have accrued more than twice the WAR of acquired veterans -- and the ratio is growing (Iglesias, Rizzo) You can catch lightning in a bottle trading prospects for veterans and through savvy FA acquisitions, but you cannot build a sustainable winner without a core of low-cost young players. If the Red Sox cannot do that, they cannot be a consistent competitor. Right now the Red Sox number one priority should be creating that core. Quick fixes aren't going to work. I agree with this and have never stated otherwise, but signing free agents to 4 and 5 year deals aren't quick fixes, nor are trades for players with more than 2 years of control. If anything they define windows that are supposed to coincide with your core. Free agents don't cost anything but money. In 4 or 5 years, Mookie, Xander, Moncada and Devers will be splitting MVP votes (sic) and they'll take the money spent on Hanley and Pablo to extend the core.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,140
|
Post by nomar on Jul 24, 2015 16:49:16 GMT -5
Right now the Red Sox number one priority should be creating that core. Quick fixes aren't going to work. Agreed, which is why the Red Sox should be selling as many non-core pieces as possible in the next week. It sucks that there's just no getting rid of Sandoval. I just pray that he has a good first half next year and we can trade him.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 24, 2015 17:04:52 GMT -5
Agreed, which is why the Red Sox should be selling as many non-core pieces as possible in the next week. It sucks that there's just no getting rid of Sandoval. I just pray that he has a good first half next year and we can trade him. He wouldn't be the worst contract to get traded in recent memory. Toronto got the Angels to take Vernon Wells with his terrible contract AND the Angels gave up Mike Napoli for the privilege of doing so. The Padres gave up Yasmani Grandal (currently hitting .286/.403/.520 as a catcher) for Matt Kemp's degrading hips. It wouldn't surprise me too much if the Red Sox found a taker for Sandoval.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 24, 2015 17:47:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought all the hype for Kemp and the disdain for Grandal were a bit misplaced. Also, Kemp is a lot nearer to the end of his career and Grandal a lot nearer to the beginning.
Petco, like it's mirror AL image up the Pacific Coast at Safeco, really distorts offensive performance, to the point that it can be hard to tell what you're looking at. Beltre fell into a black hole in Seattle, only to supernova again when he emerged from under that maritime layer. He had me fooled. Makes me wonder who else on those teams might be hiding in plain sight.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,140
|
Post by nomar on Jul 24, 2015 17:56:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought all the hype for Kemp and the disdain for Grandal were a bit misplaced. Also, Kemp is a lot nearer to the end of his career and Grandal a lot nearer to the beginning. Petco, like it's mirror AL image up the Pacific Coast at Safeco, really distorts offensive performance, to the point that it can be hard to tell what you're looking at. Beltre fell into a black hole in Seattle, only to supernova again when he emerged from under that maritime layer. He had me fooled. Makes me wonder who else on those teams might be hiding in plain sight. At least Beltre had a track record though. I always thought perhaps Smoak was one of those, but he hasn't emerged really in Toronto. Tough call to find which ones are untapped.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 24, 2015 19:19:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought all the hype for Kemp and the disdain for Grandal were a bit misplaced. Also, Kemp is a lot nearer to the end of his career and Grandal a lot nearer to the beginning. The media reaction on that one was fun. A lot of people who should have known better jumped on the AJ Preller bandwagon despite his failure to start the year with a single good infielder or anyone who could handle center field.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Jul 24, 2015 21:05:42 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought all the hype for Kemp and the disdain for Grandal were a bit misplaced. Also, Kemp is a lot nearer to the end of his career and Grandal a lot nearer to the beginning. Petco, like it's mirror AL image up the Pacific Coast at Safeco, really distorts offensive performance, to the point that it can be hard to tell what you're looking at. Beltre fell into a black hole in Seattle, only to supernova again when he emerged from under that maritime layer. He had me fooled. Makes me wonder who else on those teams might be hiding in plain sight. And on the flip side, you wonder which of the successful pitchers out there is really a mirage. Every time someone mentions Tyson Ross as a trade target (which happens often) I shudder.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 24, 2015 21:08:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought all the hype for Kemp and the disdain for Grandal were a bit misplaced. Also, Kemp is a lot nearer to the end of his career and Grandal a lot nearer to the beginning. Petco, like it's mirror AL image up the Pacific Coast at Safeco, really distorts offensive performance, to the point that it can be hard to tell what you're looking at. Beltre fell into a black hole in Seattle, only to supernova again when he emerged from under that maritime layer. He had me fooled. Makes me wonder who else on those teams might be hiding in plain sight. And on the flip side, you wonder which of the successful pitchers out there is really a mirage. Every time someone mentions Tyson Ross as a trade target (which happens often) I shudder. Ross seems to me to be a right handed version of Johnson but three years in the future. When he is on, he can dominate, but his command is not consistent enough to make the nervousness go away.
|
|
|
Post by brockholtsuperstar on Jul 24, 2015 22:50:53 GMT -5
This might come off as a little ignorant, but I'm genuinely curious, why do you think guys like Aro and Ramirez are getting chances before Hembree? I know he was hurt and both of those guys have fairly decent upside, but isn't Hembree supposed to be a future set up man? And he's killing AAA? So just wondering if I was missing something and what do you guys think the reason is? Thanks in advance
|
|
|