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 texs31 on Nov 11, 2015 12:27:06 GMT -5
As I mentioned in the "Ace" thread, Pete Abraham addressed 2 "rumors" (in quotes as I haven't been able to find any other source offering the ideas/reports). Given the discussion by a member of the Boston media, I figured it'd be okay to put here (and not in the trade subforum). Feel free to remove if you disagree.
The first was the one proposed in the Ace thread. Fred Toucher asked the question saying there were discussions and Pete Abe didn't turn it down. The trade would be Verlander for Ramirez. He indicated it would be complicated (money, no-trades, position fit for Detroit) but, again, answered it as though it was a legit rumor.
The other was Aroldis Chapman and Jay Bruce for a package including Jackie Bradley Jr and Henry Owens.
Not sure how I feel about either of them but the talk with Abraham suggests they are at least worthy of posting here (instead of the Trade Forum).
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 11, 2015 12:27:45 GMT -5
“@peteabe: Dombrowski described the pace at the GM Meetings being more like the Winter Meetings. Very busy with talks yesterday.”
|
|
|
Post by xanderdu on Nov 11, 2015 12:48:37 GMT -5
Good points on Layne, and especially Kelly. He is a guy who could swing between long and high leverage innings.
What seems like a ridiculous number of options gets simplified when you focus on the need, as opposed the potential. Regardless of which TOR guy they ink, that would be a far better, and more balanced team than the 2015 version.
They'd have 9 potential starters, with Kelly, Wright, Owens, and Johnson behind the 5 in Boston. They'd have Ross, Barnes, Hembree, Varvaro, Machi, Ramirez, and possibly Escobar in AAA to bolster the pen in Boston.
It would require two of the top talent to obtain those young arms, but in the end may be worth it?
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 11, 2015 13:04:11 GMT -5
Good points on Layne, and especially Kelly. He is a guy who could swing between long and high leverage innings. What seems like a ridiculous number of options gets simplified when you focus on the need, as opposed the potential. Regardless of which TOR guy they ink, that would be a far better, and more balanced team than the 2015 version. They'd have 9 potential starters, with Kelly, Wright, Owens, and Johnson behind the 5 in Boston. They'd have Ross, Barnes, Hembree, Varvaro, Machi, Ramirez, and possibly Escobar in AAA to bolster the pen in Boston. It would require two of the top talent to obtain those young arms, but in the end may be worth it? A lot of people are quick to offer Owens/Kelly/Miley as trade bait & probably justified. Every year most teams go thru 8 or 9 starters during the year with injuries & "phantom" injuries (Porcello). Unless we replace any one of our starters, we should be replacing them with another starter. I'm just saying this because there are really no one else on the horizon this year to replace our 8 or 9 starters. If we replace Owens, Miley, Kelly, with position players or closers, that may cause a void in our starting depth.
|
|
|
Post by xanderdu on Nov 11, 2015 14:27:36 GMT -5
Good points on Layne, and especially Kelly. He is a guy who could swing between long and high leverage innings. What seems like a ridiculous number of options gets simplified when you focus on the need, as opposed the potential. Regardless of which TOR guy they ink, that would be a far better, and more balanced team than the 2015 version. They'd have 9 potential starters, with Kelly, Wright, Owens, and Johnson behind the 5 in Boston. They'd have Ross, Barnes, Hembree, Varvaro, Machi, Ramirez, and possibly Escobar in AAA to bolster the pen in Boston. It would require two of the top talent to obtain those young arms, but in the end may be worth it? A lot of people are quick to offer Owens/Kelly/Miley as trade bait & probably justified. Every year most teams go thru 8 or 9 starters during the year with injuries & "phantom" injuries (Porcello). Unless we replace any one of our starters, we should be replacing them with another starter. I'm just saying this because there are really no one else on the horizon this year to replace our 8 or 9 starters. If we replace Owens, Miley, Kelly, with position players or closers, that may cause a void in our starting depth. Been a concern, but had been somewhat mitigated by the potential to sign Rich Hill as a backfil. Now that I'm reading there is a pretty decent market for Hill, I'm less comfortable trading the depth. I like the idea of having ML capable arms for the 162 games started, as opposed to throwing out waiver wire drek every so often.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 11, 2015 14:40:06 GMT -5
As of now, we do have Buccholz, Porcello, Miley, E-Rod, Kelly, Owens, Wright, Johnson (8) & that's it for like 3 levels. Maybe Escobar/Ross. I'm sure the Sox know this & this is not breaking news. A couple of TJ's & we're in trouble. They need to ADD one (even a #2 would be ok) & not take from this group.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 11, 2015 15:49:50 GMT -5
“@pgammo: Dombrowski seeing increased early hot-stove activity https: @projo From the day he arrived and moved into his hotel David has worked nonstop”
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 11, 2015 15:55:14 GMT -5
As I mentioned in the "Ace" thread, Pete Abraham addressed 2 "rumors" (in quotes as I haven't been able to find any other source offering the ideas/reports). Given the discussion by a member of the Boston media, I figured it'd be okay to put here (and not in the trade subforum). Feel free to remove if you disagree. The first was the one proposed in the Ace thread. Fred Toucher asked the question saying there were discussions and Pete Abe didn't turn it down. The trade would be Verlander for Ramirez. He indicated it would be complicated (money, no-trades, position fit for Detroit) but, again, answered it as though it was a legit rumor. The other was Aroldis Chapman and Jay Bruce for a package including Jackie Bradley Jr and Henry Owens. Not sure how I feel about either of them but the talk with Abraham suggests they are at least worthy of posting here (instead of the Trade Forum). Just to take the opportunity to clarify, the only talk that must be confined to the Trade Proposal Subforum is when posters are proposing trades that have no basis in reality or anything reported. "Hey, they should trade for this guy and this is how they should do it." The threads in which there's been activity over there recently are all good examples of what I mean by that. No issues at all discussing something that's been reported or discussed in the media (at least, beyond the media members doing "here's what I'd do") on the main forum. So you're good.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 11, 2015 16:24:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 11, 2015 16:41:30 GMT -5
As I mentioned in the "Ace" thread, Pete Abraham addressed 2 "rumors" (in quotes as I haven't been able to find any other source offering the ideas/reports). Given the discussion by a member of the Boston media, I figured it'd be okay to put here (and not in the trade subforum). Feel free to remove if you disagree. The first was the one proposed in the Ace thread. Fred Toucher asked the question saying there were discussions and Pete Abe didn't turn it down. The trade would be Verlander for Ramirez. He indicated it would be complicated (money, no-trades, position fit for Detroit) but, again, answered it as though it was a legit rumor. The other was Aroldis Chapman and Jay Bruce for a package including Jackie Bradley Jr and Henry Owens. Not sure how I feel about either of them but the talk with Abraham suggests they are at least worthy of posting here (instead of the Trade Forum). Verlander for Ramirez makes sense for us but not Detroit and I still wouldn't do it.
Chapman and Bruce for Bradley and Owens and the Reds said no??? thank you Reds. I would love to get Chapman but not for Owens. Bruce at this point has to have negative trade value. So Bradley and Owens for one year of Chapman while taking on Bruce and his salary. Nope I will pass on that.
That chapman rumor scares me guys is Dave really just going to trade away a ton of good young layers for a rental player?
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Nov 11, 2015 16:51:45 GMT -5
I guess that means that the Cubs won't sign David Price as is rumored.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 11, 2015 17:20:00 GMT -5
I guess that means that the Cubs won't sign David Price as is rumored. Well, they are apparently planning, and able, to increase payroll. See, for example, www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/9/10/9300637/cubs-payroll-increase-rumorsThey could also save some money by trading Starlin Castro, due $7.8M this year and $9.8M next and going up from there. They wouldn't be considered the favorites to sign Price if it were out of their financial means. They're apparently chasing pitching aggressively both high and low end.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 11, 2015 21:52:54 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,017
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 12, 2015 0:23:02 GMT -5
No idea how a post just got created ...
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 12, 2015 2:33:30 GMT -5
As of now, we do have Buccholz, Porcello, Miley, E-Rod, Kelly, Owens, Wright, Johnson (8) & that's it for like 3 levels. Maybe Escobar/Ross. I'm sure the Sox know this & this is not breaking news. A couple of TJ's & we're in trouble. They need to ADD one (even a #2 would be ok) & not take from this group. I think your math is right, but that's not an argument for keeping everyone we have. I think that both Kelly and Wight are, right now, at least as good as Miley if not a bit better; and Owens has a solid chance to pass him, too. Between the three of them the odds that Miley is your 6th best starter are quite good. And he has real trade value. I am more than comfortable going into the season with the choice of Wright or Kelly as the 5th starter. What this means is that when they are putting together deals, one of the things they should be looking for is a AAA starter who projects to be a bit above replacement level and has options left. (If he's a failed prospect, so much the better, because those guys always have a small bit of upside.) Your AAA SP depth plays much better if it's not just Owens and Johnson, but also New Guy X . (If they can sign Hill and put both Owens and Kelly in the pen, perhaps with Ross going to AAA, then such a guy becomes gravy.) Yikes, no to most of that lol.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Nov 12, 2015 2:39:41 GMT -5
If you're going to be called a crumb collector, I suppose it's best to hear it from a billionaire.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 12, 2015 2:43:26 GMT -5
If you're going to be called a crumb collector, I suppose it's best to hear it from a billionaire. I don't like Boras much, but the Marlins certainly don't know how to run a team. Certainly not a good look for them to be comparing players to horses, then again it's not like they attract worthwhile free agents anyway. Sucks that Stanton will waste his career in that garbage franchise.
|
|
|
Post by kmcphill on Nov 12, 2015 5:25:48 GMT -5
Does it seem to anyone like we may be better waiting a year before trading our prospects? My thoughts are that Toronto probably has one really strong year left in them, and then should be in trouble because of aging/lack of prospects. As well, our pitchers still have question marks (with Porcello and Kelly showing signs late in the season and Owens being very hit-or-miss) about how productive they can be and you never know, we may be surprised. As well, in a year we will know a lot more about Castillo, JBJ, and whether or not Hanley can play first base. Finally, our prospects are basically all in low-A and I'm worried that if we trade half of the top group (Devers, Moncada, Benintendi, Espinoza, Margot who is admittedly in AA) and then half of the rest don't pan out (which is probably a fair assessment considering the number of prospects who struggle as they move up the ladder) we're suddenly staring at one top prospect rather than the plethora we have now. I just get the feeling like in one year we will have a lot more information about our franchise as a whole. That is not to say I'm against going out and getting a David Price-type starter (or David Price himself!), just that I'm hesitant to trade the farm this offseason and think if we can endure one more season of mediocrity (with what I believe to be underrated upside) then we will be in a better position to deal.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 12, 2015 8:27:09 GMT -5
j In another year we'll know better whether Moncada and Benintendi are all they have reported to be. We'll have a better handle on whether Devers and Espinoza, 18 yr. olds, progress through upper A as expected and if Margot can handle upper level pitching. We should get a better idea as to whether Guerra is an elite prospect. If most of those questions turn out positive, Dombrowski will have a good idea as to what he can look forward to in the coming seasons. And, thus, their trade value is enhanced.
I suspect, though, that DD was brought here to immediately upgrade the parent club and that the fans are tired of last place finishes and want instant gratification. Among the many qualities Dombrowski brings to his position, patience and forbearance don't rank that high.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 12, 2015 8:59:03 GMT -5
Does it seem to anyone like we may be better waiting a year before trading our prospects? My thoughts are that Toronto probably has one really strong year left in them, and then should be in trouble because of aging/lack of prospects. As well, our pitchers still have question marks (with Porcello and Kelly showing signs late in the season and Owens being very hit-or-miss) about how productive they can be and you never know, we may be surprised. As well, in a year we will know a lot more about Castillo, JBJ, and whether or not Hanley can play first base. Finally, our prospects are basically all in low-A and I'm worried that if we trade half of the top group (Devers, Moncada, Benintendi, Espinoza, Margot who is admittedly in AA) and then half of the rest don't pan out (which is probably a fair assessment considering the number of prospects who struggle as they move up the ladder) we're suddenly staring at one top prospect rather than the plethora we have now. I just get the feeling like in one year we will have a lot more information about our franchise as a whole. That is not to say I'm against going out and getting a David Price-type starter (or David Price himself!), just that I'm hesitant to trade the farm this offseason and think if we can endure one more season of mediocrity (with what I believe to be underrated upside) then we will be in a better position to deal. Thoughts? Welcome....I agree with you on the prospects. It is the overall consensus though that the trade route is the best way to build a rotation. That said, I don't think we should strip our farm for a Gray or Carrasco...if we can "skim" our prospects to get a Salazar may be OK. Though even he will take 2 or 3 top guys. In another year, with another level or 2 under their belts, our prospects will be significantly more valuable for a trade. It will help with the new technology at their disposal which ones will continue to succeed. Other teams will know it as well. Overall I don't think we should punt this year, but just tweak it. All of our starting pitchers are automatically better with our current defense in place (I know 1B is still in ? though).
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 12, 2015 9:09:11 GMT -5
Hard to say how much is really true, though. He could just be talking. I'm pretty sure he's not being THAT frank. I mean, other teams probably have a general idea of what the Sox need and likely are looking for. He has been consistent about Hanley being the 1B next year. Many here don't believe that for a second. So who knows. You never know what presents itself. I'd guess that most who don't believe that, believe that he's plan B and that includes me, simply because they/I don't believe Hanley is capable of converting to 1B effectively enough. Yes he once was a lousy SS so he should be able to handle first, but last year he really didn't give one even a small hook to hang your hat on for this conversion. Being able to scoop balls out of the dirt and holding on to the bag with you foot while pulling in throws that are slightly off line, is for me the key to playing first well. It's not as easy as most believe it to be and you are involved in alot more plays meaning you concentration levels have to be consistently on more so than the typical positional player and he appears to lack that to.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Nov 12, 2015 9:11:15 GMT -5
I also doubt the red sox brought in DD to run the club like Cherington. Prospects don't sell tickets and put people in the seats. They do if you are looking towards the future, but the owners are all about money now as opposed to sustaining multiple winning seasons. DD will most likely strip the farm to get mlb ready talent and then in a couple of years, the red sox will shell out tons more money to make up for it because nothing is coming through the pipeline. I personally think the red sox should stay patient and keep the prospects, but i doubt that's what's going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 12, 2015 9:32:18 GMT -5
Where is the play GM thread? Does it not exist his year? That was always a fun one.
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Nov 12, 2015 9:46:28 GMT -5
The Indians would be an ideal trade partner. Maybe we can flip them Hanley + prospects for Santana (1B) and one of their SP's.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Nov 12, 2015 10:02:13 GMT -5
Chris Cotillo @chriscotillo 1 min. Source: OF Chris Young drawing interest from multiple teams, but Red Sox still heavily involved.
|
|
|