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 redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2015 21:56:04 GMT -5
Yawn. No-hitters aren't even impressive these days. There's practically one a week. Yeah, just not by Red Sox pitchers. That was only when Tek was here catching. He caught 4 of them and had Schilling not foolishly and stubbornly shook him off (to his everlasting regret) Tek would have caught 5 no-hitters.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 26, 2015 7:59:12 GMT -5
Yawn. No-hitters aren't even impressive these days. There's practically one a week. Yeah, just not by Red Sox pitchers. That was only when Tek was here catching. He caught 4 of them and had Schilling not foolishly and stubbornly shook him off (to his everlasting regret) Tek would have caught 5 no-hitters. Still should've had it anyway. Lugo muffed a room service ground-ball that would''ve been the final out that inning.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 26, 2015 9:05:29 GMT -5
Yeah, just not by Red Sox pitchers. That was only when Tek was here catching. He caught 4 of them and had Schilling not foolishly and stubbornly shook him off (to his everlasting regret) Tek would have caught 5 no-hitters. Still should've had it anyway. Lugo muffed a room service ground-ball that would''ve been the final out that inning. No. My memory is that it was a flare out of the reach of 2b Alex Cora that wrecked the no-no. Lugo had nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 26, 2015 10:24:38 GMT -5
Still should've had it anyway. Lugo muffed a room service ground-ball that would''ve been the final out that inning. No. My memory is that it was a flare out of the reach of 2b Alex Cora that wrecked the no-no. Lugo had nothing to do with it. Yup. Not the greatest video, but you can see it's to the left of the second baseman.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 26, 2015 10:46:59 GMT -5
Per Rosenthal,
Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal 2m2 minutes ago Source: #Royals getting Cueto.
Cueto is about set to become a KC Royal making it 100% that he will have a new address come 2016 and will not cost a draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 26, 2015 11:06:39 GMT -5
Yeah, just not by Red Sox pitchers. That was only when Tek was here catching. He caught 4 of them and had Schilling not foolishly and stubbornly shook him off (to his everlasting regret) Tek would have caught 5 no-hitters. Still should've had it anyway. Lugo muffed a room service ground-ball that would''ve been the final out that inning. Right but didn't Lugo wreck the perfect game with the error, which would've been 3rd out, and allowed next batter up, who got the hit?
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,830
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jul 26, 2015 11:20:35 GMT -5
Per Rosenthal, Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal 2m2 minutes ago Source: #Royals getting Cueto. Cueto is about set to become a KC Royal making it 100% that he will have a new address come 2016 and will not cost a draft pick. GREAT NEWS!! Could be a super sign for us this offseason.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,119
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2015 11:22:49 GMT -5
Per Rosenthal, Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal 2m2 minutes ago Source: #Royals getting Cueto. Cueto is about set to become a KC Royal making it 100% that he will have a new address come 2016 and will not cost a draft pick. GREAT NEWS!! Could be a super sign for us this offseason. I like it because that makes him more attractive to NYY, and we have a protected pick most likely, which makes going for Price a good option for us. And Price is a way better investment than Cueto.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 26, 2015 11:23:37 GMT -5
Couldn't be happier. I was kind of hoping the Red Sox would trade for Cueto just to make sure we didn't lose a pick in order to sign him.
But it worked out amazingly. He gets traded to a small market team who won't spend the $200M it will take to sign him and he no longer has a pick attached to him AND we don't have to give up the prospects that we would have had to give up to get him.
Awesome.
|
|
|
Post by 07redsox on Jul 26, 2015 11:29:54 GMT -5
Couldn't be happier. I was kind of hoping the Red Sox would trade for Cueto just to make sure we didn't lose a pick in order to sign him. But it worked out amazingly. He gets traded to a small market team who won't spend the $200M it will take to sign him and he no longer has a pick attached to him AND we don't have to give up the prospects that we would have had to give up to get him. Awesome. So you wanted them to trade players so that they didn't have to give up players (picks)? Seem kinda pointless either way. This is pretty much the best case scenario. He goes to a team that is certainly not going to re-sign him and now won't cost a draft pick. I would still rather sign Price in the off season, but Cueto would be great to have as well!
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 26, 2015 11:35:08 GMT -5
Couldn't be happier. I was kind of hoping the Red Sox would trade for Cueto just to make sure we didn't lose a pick in order to sign him. But it worked out amazingly. He gets traded to a small market team who won't spend the $200M it will take to sign him and he no longer has a pick attached to him AND we don't have to give up the prospects that we would have had to give up to get him. Awesome. So you wanted them to trade players so that they didn't have to give up players (picks)? Seem kinda pointless either way. This is pretty much the best case scenario. He goes to a team that is certainly not going to re-sign him and now won't cost a draft pick. I would still rather sign Price in the off season, but Cueto would be great to have as well! Yes. I guess it depends on what the final price for Cueto ends up being, but I don't think it's gonna be outrageous, but I'd rather keep our 2nd round pick and give ourselves a really large bonus pool to go with our top 5 (hopefully) pick. And yes, I never said I didn't want Price. Sure I'll take either him or Cueto. Either one is fine with me. We just need better pitching.
|
|
|
Post by 07redsox on Jul 26, 2015 11:44:51 GMT -5
So you wanted them to trade players so that they didn't have to give up players (picks)? Seem kinda pointless either way. This is pretty much the best case scenario. He goes to a team that is certainly not going to re-sign him and now won't cost a draft pick. I would still rather sign Price in the off season, but Cueto would be great to have as well! Yes. I guess it depends on what the final price for Cueto ends up being, but I don't think it's gonna be outrageous, but I'd rather keep our 2nd round pick and give ourselves a really large bonus pool to go with our top 5 (hopefully) pick. And yes, I never said I didn't want Price. Sure I'll take either him or Cueto. Either one is fine with me. We just need better pitching. I guess we have to wait and see. Yes, I don't think it is going to be outrageous either. However, you also have to remember that what they get back needs to be (at least in the eyes of the Reds) at least as valuable as the compensation pick they would be getting if he stayed with them for the rest of the season. I would assume that what the Royals are giving up would be better than a 2nd round pick then. Either way though now we don't have to worry about the Sox giving up a pick (at least for Cueto) if they decide to go this route. And that second part wasn't really directed at you, just the board in general. Figured its better to put both ideas in one post instead of taking up more space lol. Should have made that more clear.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jul 26, 2015 12:57:53 GMT -5
So you wanted them to trade players so that they didn't have to give up players (picks)? Seem kinda pointless either way. This is pretty much the best case scenario. He goes to a team that is certainly not going to re-sign him and now won't cost a draft pick. I would still rather sign Price in the off season, but Cueto would be great to have as well! Yes. I guess it depends on what the final price for Cueto ends up being, but I don't think it's gonna be outrageous, but I'd rather keep our 2nd round pick and give ourselves a really large bonus pool to go with our top 5 (hopefully) pick. And yes, I never said I didn't want Price. Sure I'll take either him or Cueto. Either one is fine with me. We just need better pitching. This seems completely crazy to me. So the Reds make a trade for players they deem to be better than an early second round or late first round pick (otherwise - why would they make it?) but you would rather trade a similar value of prospects as to not risk having to give up a 2nd round draft pick, all so the Red Sox have the first chance to Sign Cueto.....my brain hurts.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 26, 2015 13:04:54 GMT -5
So you wanted them to trade players so that they didn't have to give up players (picks)? Seem kinda pointless either way. This is pretty much the best case scenario. He goes to a team that is certainly not going to re-sign him and now won't cost a draft pick. I would still rather sign Price in the off season, but Cueto would be great to have as well! Yes. I guess it depends on what the final price for Cueto ends up being, but I don't think it's gonna be outrageous, but I'd rather keep our 2nd round pick and give ourselves a really large bonus pool to go with our top 5 (hopefully) pick. And yes, I never said I didn't want Price. Sure I'll take either him or Cueto. Either one is fine with me. We just need better pitching. Building on what wcsoxfan said... valuing a second round pick more than prospects who were taken in the first round and are performing like it (i.e., Johnson, Owens) is basically the same as valuing a wrapped Christmas present over an opened one, even when the opened one is what you wanted.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 26, 2015 14:13:57 GMT -5
Yes. I guess it depends on what the final price for Cueto ends up being, but I don't think it's gonna be outrageous, but I'd rather keep our 2nd round pick and give ourselves a really large bonus pool to go with our top 5 (hopefully) pick. And yes, I never said I didn't want Price. Sure I'll take either him or Cueto. Either one is fine with me. We just need better pitching. Building on what wcsoxfan said... valuing a second round pick more than prospects who were taken in the first round and are performing like it (i.e., Johnson, Owens) is basically the same as valuing a wrapped Christmas present over an opened one, even when the opened one is what you wanted. Yeah, well obviously I wouldn't have done a trade that gave up as much as Kansas City did. A more realistic trade I clearly would have considered. Either way, I'm happy with the outcome. Cueto is traded, has no pick attached to him anymore and is with a team that can't afford to extend him longterm.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 15:09:28 GMT -5
A more realistic trade I clearly would have considered. Sorry, not to pick on you too much, but clearly the trade that you would have considered was not "realistic," since you admit it was not close to the one that was ultimately consummated. Cueto was always going to return much, much more value than an early second-round draft pick.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 26, 2015 16:08:50 GMT -5
If Cueto helps KS win the WS, the price they paid will be peanuts. This is the classic case of a team very close to reaching the top and every win now - and especially every win in the post-season is worth increasing amounts of money. It gets obscene if they get to the WS. There have been discussions of this in the past.
The scale of what value a team can reasonably give up in a situation like this is very relative to what impact the acquisition might have on the team's final results.
Thus KC very easily could justify paying a much higher price than could the Red Sox, or any other team way down in the standings.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Jul 26, 2015 18:29:24 GMT -5
Hey where did my reply go?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 18:49:24 GMT -5
Hey where did my reply go? The "Culture of Winning" thread.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Jul 26, 2015 19:22:59 GMT -5
Oh ok ...thanks
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 28, 2015 4:42:19 GMT -5
Man, as optimistic as I try and be about the Sox FO/Cherington (as i'm a big fan of stability in jobs), I can't help thinking of two things: 1) The farm system is so robust, yet we've let good assets go stale (on the MLB roster too) and get past their primes in certain cases it terms of value (salary, versatility, trade value) w/out turning much of those assets into anything usable...leading to 2) The MLB roster planning is such a mess almost as if the thought was nothing can go wrong if we stockpile players at all positions and store them away in AAA...But in reality this isn't fantasy baseball and their needs to be a plan for constant turnover, which hopefully involves keeping your best prospects and players and turning lesser prospects/players into something useful to replenish the roster when more turnover is needed...I almost feel like Ben can't pull the trigger on trading any of the lesser prospects as he may over value them to the point where it's hurting the organization or is just fearful he may miscalculate a lesser prospect and doesn't want to trade the next Bagwell...Really what you need to do is be the braves, identify and hold on to your best prospects while being ok w/ trading away that second layer of prospects to clear a way for turnover/transition...which goes to another point, 3) Is Cherington too deliberate (albeit, this coming from a guy, me, who preaches patience) in the sense that he's not a good or decisive decision maker...I think you can be patient and bold at the same time, but it requires guts and decision making ability at the highest level to not fear being wrong...and again, what the hell do i know, but from the looks of it Cherington has no problem being bold or wrong at the MLB level, but seems to fear being wrong trading away any prospect...sorry for the ramble, but can't shake this feeling
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jul 28, 2015 6:43:51 GMT -5
I can't believe Ben still stays.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 28, 2015 9:38:59 GMT -5
Man, as optimistic as I try and be about the Sox FO/Cherington (as i'm a big fan of stability in jobs), I can't help thinking of two things: 1) The farm system is so robust, yet we've let good assets go stale (on the MLB roster too) and get past their primes in certain cases it terms of value (salary, versatility, trade value) w/out turning much of those assets into anything usable...leading to 2) The MLB roster planning is such a mess almost as if the thought was nothing can go wrong if we stockpile players at all positions and store them away in AAA...But in reality this isn't fantasy baseball and their needs to be a plan for constant turnover, which hopefully involves keeping your best prospects and players and turning lesser prospects/players into something useful to replenish the roster when more turnover is needed... I almost feel like Ben can't pull the trigger on trading any of the lesser prospects as he may over value them to the point where it's hurting the organization or is just fearful he may miscalculate a lesser prospect and doesn't want to trade the next Bagwell...Really what you need to do is be the braves, identify and hold on to your best prospects while being ok w/ trading away that second layer of prospects to clear a way for turnover/transition...which goes to another point, 3) Is Cherington too deliberate (albeit, this coming from a guy, me, who preaches patience) in the sense that he's not a good or decisive decision maker...I think you can be patient and bold at the same time, but it requires guts and decision making ability at the highest level to not fear being wrong...and again, what the hell do i know, but from the looks of it Cherington has no problem being bold or wrong at the MLB level, but seems to fear being wrong trading away any prospect...sorry for the ramble, but can't shake this feeling You mean like how he traded Lowrie and Reddick and Pimentel and Iglesias and Montas and De La Rosa and Webster and Ranaudo? What exactly are you talking about? And what exactly do you expect to get back for "lesser prospects" anyway?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 28, 2015 11:30:14 GMT -5
Man, as optimistic as I try and be about the Sox FO/Cherington (as i'm a big fan of stability in jobs), I can't help thinking of two things: 1) The farm system is so robust, yet we've let good assets go stale (on the MLB roster too) and get past their primes in certain cases it terms of value (salary, versatility, trade value) w/out turning much of those assets into anything usable...leading to 2) The MLB roster planning is such a mess almost as if the thought was nothing can go wrong if we stockpile players at all positions and store them away in AAA...But in reality this isn't fantasy baseball and their needs to be a plan for constant turnover, which hopefully involves keeping your best prospects and players and turning lesser prospects/players into something useful to replenish the roster when more turnover is needed...I almost feel like Ben can't pull the trigger on trading any of the lesser prospects as he may over value them to the point where it's hurting the organization or is just fearful he may miscalculate a lesser prospect and doesn't want to trade the next Bagwell...Really what you need to do is be the braves, identify and hold on to your best prospects while being ok w/ trading away that second layer of prospects to clear a way for turnover/transition...which goes to another point, 3) Is Cherington too deliberate (albeit, this coming from a guy, me, who preaches patience) in the sense that he's not a good or decisive decision maker...I think you can be patient and bold at the same time, but it requires guts and decision making ability at the highest level to not fear being wrong...and again, what the hell do i know, but from the looks of it Cherington has no problem being bold or wrong at the MLB level, but seems to fear being wrong trading away any prospect...sorry for the ramble, but can't shake this feeling The argument to horde prospects is not to hope that every one of them pans out. It's that you don't trade away prospects that turn into All-Stars, like Iglesias and Reddick. Imagine if they traded Betts as a throw-in on the Peavy trade because Pedroia was blocking him. You don't need to get full value out of every prospect. When you try to, you'll end up missing out on the rest of the value when he develops further because you thought you were selling high when you traded him for a relief pitcher who was good for one year and then the prospect turned into a Hall of Fame player. It's worth it to let 10 prospects bust if you keep that one guy. And since prospect for prospect trades pretty much never happen, I'm leery of any 4 for 1 trades when the 1 is 28-30 years old. They just seem to never work out well.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jul 28, 2015 11:36:23 GMT -5
No. My memory is that it was a flare out of the reach of 2b Alex Cora that wrecked the no-no. Lugo had nothing to do with it. Yup. Not the greatest video, but you can see it's to the left of the second baseman. Guidas is half correct. Lugo muffed an easy groundball in an earlier inning leading to an error which let Shannon Stewart come to bat a 4th time with 2 outs in the 8th. So, in a way, Lugo effed up Schilling's perfect game bid. I'm inclined to believe that he would have had it.
|
|
|