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.
Satisfied with offseason so far?
|
Post by jmei on Dec 18, 2012 21:45:07 GMT -5
Well, if there's one thing the Red Sox have plenty of, it's the ability to offer decent money for a one-year deal. I agree that if the Napoli deal really does fall through, Berkman is probably the next best option.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 18, 2012 22:32:21 GMT -5
From what I understand, Berkman is trying to decide between retiring to spend time with his children in Texas, and signing a one year deal with the Houston, TX Astros as a DH/PT1B.
Don't see a deal attractive enough from Boston taking this guy out of the Lone Star state.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 18, 2012 22:35:17 GMT -5
From what I understand, Berkman is trying to decide between retiring to spend time with his children in Texas, and signing a one year deal with the Houston, TX Astros as a DH/PT1B. Don't see a deal attractive enough from Boston taking this guy out of the Lone Star state. With Brett Wallace at 1b and now Carlos Pena at DH, the Astros aren't really in the market for Berkman, so maybe the Sox can give Berkman the going rate - $13 million - to lure him out of retirement.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Morrison on Dec 19, 2012 0:06:55 GMT -5
To steal from Alex Speier's offseason summary and add in Drew's deal:
Mike Napoli: 3 years, $39 million Shane Victorino, 3 years, $39 million Ryan Dempster: 2 years, $26.5 million David Ortiz: 2 years, $26 million Jonny Gomes: 2 years, $10 million David Ross: 2 years, $6.2 million Koji Uehara: 1 year, $4.25 million Stephen Drew: 1 year, $9.5 million
Total: $160.45 million
So the Sox have signed 7 free agents from other teams and avoided losing a draft pick in any of the signings.
Re-signing Ortiz makes a ton of sense as long as the Doctors are confident in his recovery, but as with all players signed their are warts to this offseason's acquisitions.
Once the Napoli situation is resolved there really isn't much left to do this offseason, the biggest remaining moves are potential trades to clear up catching and bullpen situations.
The biggest worry going into this offseason was that the money would be burning a hole in Ben's pocket and we would repeat past mistakes and reallocate the freed up payroll on more long term contracts to veterans on the wrong side of the aging curve.
I think we can make arguments about the money thrown at Gomes and Victorino, but even if Ben misses on multiple signings this offseason he hasn't committed any fatal errors to the long term health of the franchise.
It's a team of professional seat fillers, holding down the fort until the crop of prospects is theoretically ready. Shows confidence in the kids but a realistic assessment of the market and the necessity to not bottom out or field a repeat stinker of a team. A very balanced apporach to the offseason and while it is certainly not exciting, it has the potential to be a very interesting team to follow and should test Farrell's ability to maximize the productivity of the roster.
|
|
|
Post by alapierre on Dec 19, 2012 10:30:28 GMT -5
It's hard to be overly upset with the direction that the front office took this offseason. With a strong emphasis on returning to promoting internal talent that is cost effective, I like that they didn't trade some of our more talented minor leaguers for expensive superstars who'd only give us at max 1-2 years of premium talent, I'm looking at you Joe Mauer. With that being said with the minor improvements made through free agency and holding out hope that some of our returning regulars with return to their mean production, I think this team essentially took out a lottery ticket approach towards this season. The Yankees aren't getting any younger and their fate is a CC Sabathia elbow ligament away from being dashed. Can Baltimore's rotation improve? Tampa Bay will be in the hunt. As for Toronto, adding expensive talent doesn't always provide results as the 2011 Red Sox can show. The baseball season is long and tricky. I like our depth, upcoming youth and overall direction of this team. Let Toronto's window run out in 2 seasons and the Yanks be saddled with silly contracts.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 19, 2012 11:06:30 GMT -5
T Mike Napoli: 3 years, $39 million Shane Victorino, 3 years, $39 million Ryan Dempster: 2 years, $26.5 million David Ortiz: 2 years, $26 million Jonny Gomes: 2 years, $10 million David Ross: 2 years, $6.2 million Koji Uehara: 1 year, $4.25 million Stephen Drew: 1 year, $9.5 million Total: $160.45 million $26 million committed in 2015. For everyone complaining about the Red Sox failing to add a superstar, their powder is still very much dry in that regard.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,827
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 19, 2012 11:10:51 GMT -5
It's hard to be overly upset with the direction that the front office took this offseason. With a strong emphasis on returning to promoting internal talent that is cost effective, I like that they didn't trade some of our more talented minor leaguers for expensive superstars who'd only give us at max 1-2 years of premium talent, I'm looking at you Joe Mauer. With that being said with the minor improvements made through free agency and holding out hope that some of our returning regulars with return to their mean production, I think this team essentially took out a lottery ticket approach towards this season. The Yankees aren't getting any younger and their fate is a CC Sabathia elbow ligament away from being dashed. Can Baltimore's rotation improve? Tampa Bay will be in the hunt. As for Toronto, adding expensive talent doesn't always provide results as the 2011 Red Sox can show. The baseball season is long and tricky. I like our depth, upcoming youth and overall direction of this team. Let Toronto's window run out in 2 seasons and the Yanks be saddled with silly contracts. This is actually how I see things with respect to the rest of AL East. NONE of those teams are world beaters.....and this includes the Jays and Rays. A point can actually be made that the Rays will be less successful this year than last. Losing Wade Davis, and especially, James Shields is nothing to dismiss. Shields for years has saved many a bullpen arm. They will not be able to totally replace his 230 innings. And Davis gave them a guy who was like our Aceves in 2011. This division is NOT as strong as a few years ago and it may end in a team winning we will be pleasantly surprised with (us).
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 19, 2012 11:16:41 GMT -5
I am not going to complain about the specific makeup of the "treading water" signing of players. Do I care that the Sox spend $160 vs. $100? Not really (unless it prevented them from accruing a nice posting/signing fee for an Asian or Cuban free agent). I assume the extra $60 mill will translate to better ratings/ticket sales, so will come close to netting out.
The problem with treading water is the false illusion that they could barely make the playoffs, which inhibits the more radical remake they need. The illusion of contending (done, I submit, for short term fan interest) has prevented them from selling guys who are not the "2015" guys: like Lester and Ellsbury the most obvious candidates.
The end result of "treading water" is that by 2015 you still have no core guy other than our system. The more radical surgery of Lester/Ellsbury trades would give them 2 or 3 more prospects of the Xander, JBJ, Barnes type and essentially doubling our odds of having a core 2015-2200. By that time we still will have the money to sign the next big young free agent (Stanton?) who will not re-up with his present team because he knows we have gobs of money waiting for him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 19, 2012 11:33:52 GMT -5
By the way, one thing that we haven't really discussed on the board that isn't necessarily from THIS offseason, but has an effect on it and any payroll issues going forward: thanks to the Punto trade, the Red Sox got under the luxury tax in 2012. (By less than $50,000. If you don't think they were calculating this in the days leading up to that deal and knew they had to pull the trigger to get under, you're kidding yourself.)
This resets the club's luxury tax penalty if/when they exceed it again: it'll be 17.5% as opposed to 40%. So in addition to having a ton of extra space in future years because of their short-contract strategy, exceeding the tax threshold is now nowhere near as big of a deal as it was last season, when Cherington's hands were essentially completely tied.
|
|
|
Post by pedroiayouk1520 on Dec 19, 2012 12:04:26 GMT -5
Getting under the luxury tax threshold is great news. I remember in each of the last two offseasons, I was pushing for the Sox to stay under, while others seemed to be indifferent to the threshold.
It's interesting to note that they made it under by about $50k. That pretty much shows that the Punto trade was calculated very closely.
|
|
|
Post by MLBDreams on Dec 19, 2012 12:25:08 GMT -5
What happened between the FO & Cody Ross in term of negotiations before they opt to signed Jonny Gomes in much less yr & less money? Did they viewed Cody as 2 yr/ 10 mil player same way as Jonny instead of his asking price (3 yr/25 mil)? The problem is we don't know how much the FO offer to him.
Cody is well liked by everyone from coaching staffs to teammates to FO to fans. They wanted him back & he wants to return but it doesn't work out in their negotiations. How can they're comfortable with handing 3/39 to Shane Victorino whom he never hit more than 19 HR/69 RBI?
It's too bad to push him out of the RS organization after 1 yr due to circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 19, 2012 12:36:56 GMT -5
The problem with treading water is the false illusion that they could barely make the playoffs, which inhibits the more radical remake they need. The illusion of contending (done, I submit, for short term fan interest) has prevented them from selling guys who are not the "2015" guys: like Lester and Ellsbury the most obvious candidates. The end result of "treading water" is that by 2015 you still have no core guy other than our system. The more radical surgery of Lester/Ellsbury trades would give them 2 or 3 more prospects of the Xander, JBJ, Barnes type and essentially doubling our odds of having a core 2015-2200. By that time we still will have the money to sign the next big young free agent (Stanton?) who will not re-up with his present team because he knows we have gobs of money waiting for him. What makes you think that Lester and Ellsbury have significant value right now? Lester has been trending downwards and Ellsbury is a bunch of talent that has flashed once. I'd be willing to bet the team looked into trading both players, and once they looked at the offers, decided that a compensation pick or potential for rebound was better. There's also no guarantee that they'll not have both players for the next 5 or 6 seasons. Both would still be youngish and worth re-signing if the terms were right. I realize that this is a prospect site, and we all love to watch them develop. But, prospects are not guarantees. Nor are they somehow inherently better than existing major leaguers.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 19, 2012 12:47:27 GMT -5
What happened between the FO & Cody Ross in term of negotiations before they opt to signed Jonny Gomes in much less yr & less money? Did they viewed Cody as 2 yr/ 10 mil player same way as Jonny instead of his asking price (3 yr/25 mil)? The problem is we don't know how much the FO offer to him. Cody is well liked by everyone from coaching staffs to teammates to FO to fans. They wanted him back & he wants to return but it doesn't work out in their negotiations. How can they're comfortable with handing 3/39 to Shane Victorino whom he never hit more than 19 HR/69 RBI? It's too bad to push him out of the RS organization after 1 yr due to circumstances. What happened was that the Sox were interested in retaining him for a two year period with a substantial raise. And Ross and his agent felt that there were better options out there in free agency. So far no one has rushed to meet his demands of 3/$25. I believe he'll settle for two years at 6-8m per somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 19, 2012 13:02:38 GMT -5
The problem with treading water is the false illusion that they could barely make the playoffs, which inhibits the more radical remake they need. The illusion of contending (done, I submit, for short term fan interest) has prevented them from selling guys who are not the "2015" guys: like Lester and Ellsbury the most obvious candidates. The end result of "treading water" is that by 2015 you still have no core guy other than our system. The more radical surgery of Lester/Ellsbury trades would give them 2 or 3 more prospects of the Xander, JBJ, Barnes type and essentially doubling our odds of having a core 2015-2200. By that time we still will have the money to sign the next big young free agent (Stanton?) who will not re-up with his present team because he knows we have gobs of money waiting for him. What makes you think that Lester and Ellsbury have significant value right now? Lester has been trending downwards and Ellsbury is a bunch of talent that has flashed once. I'd be willing to bet the team looked into trading both players, and once they looked at the offers, decided that a compensation pick or potential for rebound was better. There's also no guarantee that they'll not have both players for the next 5 or 6 seasons. Both would still be youngish and worth re-signing if the terms were right. I realize that this is a prospect site, and we all love to watch them develop. But, prospects are not guarantees. Nor are they somehow inherently better than existing major leaguers. I'm with Steve Dillard on this. The Sox could have cashed in Lester to get an impact corner OF in Wil Myers - a 1-on-1 swap. Yes, Myers Ks alot. So does Hamilton. So does Thome. So did Reggie Jackson. It doesn't mean that Myers cannot improve his contact rate as he matures and/or do a ton of damage when he makes contact. What we do know is that the Sox aren't loaded with corner OF/power prospects in the minors. We also know with Myers, he'd be under team control for six years leaving the Sox with money to get a pitcher when needed. We talk about the uncertainty of prospects. Well how about the uncertainty of Lester's future performance. It's a possibility we've already seen the best of Lester and it plays out in 3 scenarios. He is a rejuvenated ace and he commands $20 - $25 million/year. He's so-so and he commands between $15 - $20 million per year or he's lousy and you wouldn't want him back. Meanwhile all this is happening in a setting where the Sox have an average to mediocre team that's no real threat to win the Series. When Lester's deal is up, the Sox should be turning the page to the Bogaerts era. Wouldn't Myers have made more sense in that context? But they wouldn't do a deal like that or with an Ellsbury because it would damage their limited chance to win this year. My feeling, like Steve's, is that I'd rather build up that young core for the future and be ready to unleash the on the league by 2015, present be damned, and take the freed up money to get the high quality players available (as opposed to the middling players the Sox grabbed this year).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 19, 2012 13:03:35 GMT -5
What happened between the FO & Cody Ross in term of negotiations before they opt to signed Jonny Gomes in much less yr & less money? Did they viewed Cody as 2 yr/ 10 mil player same way as Jonny instead of his asking price (3 yr/25 mil)? The problem is we don't know how much the FO offer to him. Cody is well liked by everyone from coaching staffs to teammates to FO to fans. They wanted him back & he wants to return but it doesn't work out in their negotiations. How can they're comfortable with handing 3/39 to Shane Victorino whom he never hit more than 19 HR/69 RBI? It's too bad to push him out of the RS organization after 1 yr due to circumstances. What happened was that the Sox were interested in retaining him for a two year period with a substantial raise. And Ross and his agent felt that there were better options out there in free agency. So far no one has rushed to meet his demands of 3/$25. I believe he'll settle for two years at 6-8m per somewhere else. I think the Phils will give Ross what he's looking for.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 19, 2012 13:20:41 GMT -5
What makes you think that Lester and Ellsbury have significant value right now? Lester has been trending downwards and Ellsbury is a bunch of talent that has flashed once. I'd be willing to bet the team looked into trading both players, and once they looked at the offers, decided that a compensation pick or potential for rebound was better. There's also no guarantee that they'll not have both players for the next 5 or 6 seasons. Both would still be youngish and worth re-signing if the terms were right. I realize that this is a prospect site, and we all love to watch them develop. But, prospects are not guarantees. Nor are they somehow inherently better than existing major leaguers. Well, the issue is closer with Lester. With Ellsbury, it is a foregone conclusion that he is gone, the other option being that they have to pay beyond what I think is reasonable. So, his value beyond next year is a comp pick or a trade. Now, I suppose a mid-year team would fetch more from a desperate team, and if so, that would be good. However, the comp pick for him would hardly be enticing, a "Brian Johnson" return. I would have to think we could get more now (using the Choo trade as a comparable transaction). With Lester, I think 0407 laid out the options. I am more ambivalent about trading him, but the Myers trade (understanding that KC might have preferred Shields, so we would have had to throw some more into the deal) or even a lesser prospect more equal to JBJ/Barnes would be a better long-term fit.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Dec 19, 2012 13:43:30 GMT -5
..but the Myers trade (understanding that KC might have preferred Shields, so we would have had to throw some more into the deal) or even a lesser prospect more equal to JBJ/Barnes would be a better long-term fit. This can not be stressed enough. James Shields was simply a much more attractive option to KC than Jon Lester. Lester is under contract for only one season more at 11.5 million and his 13 million 2014 club option is voided in case of a trade. Shields is under contract for both 13 & 14 for 9 and 12 million each. And much more imporatnatly Shields is comming off two seasons where he has posted XFIPs of 3.25 while having his surface ERA more of less align with his peripherals. Lester has meanwhile seen his surface stats go to hell, though his XFIP has been remained under 4 and his FIP is only slightly above. So yeah, to assume that Boston could have gotten Myers for Lester straight may not be entirely accurate.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Dec 19, 2012 14:02:48 GMT -5
..but the Myers trade (understanding that KC might have preferred Shields, so we would have had to throw some more into the deal) or even a lesser prospect more equal to JBJ/Barnes would be a better long-term fit. This can not be stressed enough. James Shields was simply a much more attractive option to KC than Jon Lester. Lester is under contract for only one season more at 11.5 million and his 13 million 2014 club option is voided in case of a trade. Shields is under contract for both 13 & 14 for 9 and 12 million each. And much more imporatnatly Shields is comming off two seasons where he has posted XFIPs of 3.25 while having his surface ERA more of less align with his peripherals. Lester has meanwhile seen his surface stats go to hell, though his XFIP has been remained under 4 and his FIP is only slightly above. So yeah, to assume that Boston could have gotten Myers for Lester straight may not be entirely accurate. That's not really an assumption or at least one that was started on this board. It was reported that KC made that offer and we said no. The actual deal wasn't Shields for Myers either as eventually there were other parts to it so assuming we couldn't have gotten that deal done is contrary to prior reports. If you want to start arguing about Wade Davis and the total package sent to Tampa then you have a good argument but the main argument was about Lester for Myers.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 19, 2012 14:03:50 GMT -5
..but the Myers trade (understanding that KC might have preferred Shields, so we would have had to throw some more into the deal) or even a lesser prospect more equal to JBJ/Barnes would be a better long-term fit. This can not be stressed enough. James Shields was simply a much more attractive option to KC than Jon Lester. Lester is under contract for only one season more at 11.5 million and his 13 million 2014 club option is voided in case of a trade. Shields is under contract for both 13 & 14 for 9 and 12 million each. And much more imporatnatly Shields is comming off two seasons where he has posted XFIPs of 3.25 while having his surface ERA more of less align with his peripherals. Lester has meanwhile seen his surface stats go to hell, though his XFIP has been remained under 4 and his FIP is only slightly above. So yeah, to assume that Boston could have gotten Myers for Lester straight may not be entirely accurate. Depends upon what you've read. My understanding is that the Royals offered Myers for Shields straight up and were turned down. I read that Billy Beane turned down Myers for Brett Anderson straight up and I remember reading that the Sox turned down Myers straight up for Lester. So once that happened, then yeah the deal would be expanded and the Royals obviously liked Wade Davis - and yes Shields is a more attractive option than Lester, but I do believe the Sox had their chance to get Myers for Lester straight up and declined the offer.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 19, 2012 14:22:29 GMT -5
This can not be stressed enough. James Shields was simply a much more attractive option to KC than Jon Lester. Lester is under contract for only one season more at 11.5 million and his 13 million 2014 club option is voided in case of a trade. Shields is under contract for both 13 & 14 for 9 and 12 million each. And much more imporatnatly Shields is comming off two seasons where he has posted XFIPs of 3.25 while having his surface ERA more of less align with his peripherals. Lester has meanwhile seen his surface stats go to hell, though his XFIP has been remained under 4 and his FIP is only slightly above. So yeah, to assume that Boston could have gotten Myers for Lester straight may not be entirely accurate. Depends upon what you've read. My understanding is that the Royals offered Myers for Shields straight up and were turned down. I read that Billy Beane turned down Myers for Brett Anderson straight up and I remember reading that the Sox turned down Myers straight up for Lester. So once that happened, then yeah the deal would be expanded and the Royals obviously liked Wade Davis - and yes Shields is a more attractive option than Lester, but I do believe the Sox had their chance to get Myers for Lester straight up and declined the offer. As someone who also made that mistake, I believe all that was actually reported is that the teams discussed the Lester-Myers deal. Never heard who said no.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 19, 2012 14:55:10 GMT -5
Depends upon what you've read. My understanding is that the Royals offered Myers for Shields straight up and were turned down. I read that Billy Beane turned down Myers for Brett Anderson straight up and I remember reading that the Sox turned down Myers straight up for Lester. So once that happened, then yeah the deal would be expanded and the Royals obviously liked Wade Davis - and yes Shields is a more attractive option than Lester, but I do believe the Sox had their chance to get Myers for Lester straight up and declined the offer. As someone who also made that mistake, I believe all that was actually reported is that the teams discussed the Lester-Myers deal. Never heard who said no. Could be wrong, but I thought I remember hearing Gammons say something to the effect that the Sox didn't want to go down that road in re: to parting with Lester for a prospect.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 19, 2012 15:07:36 GMT -5
Well, the issue is closer with Lester. With Ellsbury, it is a foregone conclusion that he is gone, the other option being that they have to pay beyond what I think is reasonable. So, his value beyond next year is a comp pick or a trade. Now, I suppose a mid-year team would fetch more from a desperate team, and if so, that would be good. However, the comp pick for him would hardly be enticing, a "Brian Johnson" return. I would have to think we could get more now (using the Choo trade as a comparable transaction). With Lester, I think 0407 laid out the options. I am more ambivalent about trading him, but the Myers trade (understanding that KC might have preferred Shields, so we would have had to throw some more into the deal) or even a lesser prospect more equal to JBJ/Barnes would be a better long-term fit. The problem here if that you're relying too much on speculative counterfactuals. We have no idea whether the Choo trade could have been made with Ellsbury as the centerpiece. We have no idea whether the Shields/Davis trade could have been made with Lester as the centerpiece. Yes, subbing in Lester/Ellsbury in those scenarios make some sense, but only if you're extremely optimistic about two players coming off pretty terrible years. Considering Cherington has shown himself capable of getting involved in trade/free agent signing talks without real leaks to the media (consider last year's Scutaro and Lowrie trades or this year's signing of Drew), it's very possible he was deeply involved in talks with both teams but they just preferred other players. I also think the narrative of "they won't trade Lester/Ellsbury because they want to sell tickets!" is a little too simplistic. I'm confident that the front office knows that the Red Sox brand is strong enough to withstand a lean year or two and aren't willing to sacrifice the long-term future of the team for some short-term boost in ticket sales. This isn't the Marlins or Jacksonville Jaguars or whatever that needs to make a splash with Joe Fan to sell enough seats to break even next season. Yeah, the sellout streak is bogus, but there is more than enough demand for tickets even with a mediocre product on the field. I highly doubt that the front office would turn down a trade that makes this team better for a little more short-term revenue.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 19, 2012 15:13:45 GMT -5
Also, there's evidence that the Red Sox are willing to trade Lester and Ellsbury. Don't think their search for a right fielder who can also play center wasn't also because they want the option of trading Ellsbury. blogs.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/2012/12/trade-lester-we-have-to-be-open-minded.html Buster OlneyVerified @buster_ESPN Rival official on Red Sox: "Boston is listening on... Ellsbury and Lester, but not motivated to move them unless teams overpay." Jon Heyman Jon HeymanVerified @jonheymancbs #redsox seem willing to talk about just about anyone, even lester and ellsbury. very active here #obvs
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 19, 2012 15:14:27 GMT -5
I'm with Steve Dillard on this. The Sox could have cashed in Lester to get an impact corner OF in Wil Myers - a 1-on-1 swap. What we do know is that the Sox aren't loaded with corner OF/power prospects in the minors. We also know with Myers, he'd be under team control for six years leaving the Sox with money to get a pitcher when needed. We talk about the uncertainty of prospects. Well how about the uncertainty of Lester's future performance. It's a possibility we've already seen the best of Lester and it plays out in 3 scenarios. When Lester's deal is up, the Sox should be turning the page to the Bogaerts era. Wouldn't Myers have made more sense in that context? But they wouldn't do a deal like that or with an Ellsbury because it would damage their limited chance to win this year. My feeling, like Steve's, is that I'd rather build up that young core for the future and be ready to unleash the on the league by 2015, present be damned, and take the freed up money to get the high quality players available (as opposed to the middling players the Sox grabbed this year). I guess we disagree on what a "core" is. I feel that in 2015 when Lester is a whopping 31 and Ellsbury is 32 they can still constitutes key members of a core. The Bogaerts era can easily and successfully coincide with the Lester/Pedroia/Ellsbury/Napoli/etc. era. What if Lester returns to the standards we expect of him and Myers doesn't develop like you assume he will? Then we'd have an average RF and a big hole at the front of the rotation. Oh wait: RDL, Barnes and Webster will all be front o' the rotation starters. Or Barnes may never develop even an above average offspeed pitch. RDL might be a Farnsworth redux. Webster may be no better than Doubront. And let's not forget Owens, who might never get out of A+. I get what you're all saying; I'm being intentionally antagonistic here because some of this stuff comes across as asinine to me. You DO NOT need to jettison younish, previously successful players simply because the "next wave" is 2-3 years away.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 19, 2012 15:52:56 GMT -5
The problem here if that you're relying too much on speculative counterfactuals. We have no idea whether the Choo trade could have been made with Ellsbury as the centerpiece. We have no idea whether the Shields/Davis trade could have been made with Lester as the centerpiece. Yes, subbing in Lester/Ellsbury in those scenarios make some sense, but only if you're extremely optimistic about two players coming off pretty terrible years. Considering Cherington has shown himself capable of getting involved in trade/free agent signing talks without real leaks to the media (consider last year's Scutaro and Lowrie trades or this year's signing of Drew), it's very possible he was deeply involved in talks with both teams but they just preferred other players. I'll agree they are speculative, but, isn't all of our discussion? As to it being "counterfactual" I'm not sure where you come up with that. Given the amount of info leaked, it seems it seems arguing that a deal could not be done is more of the leap. (Perhaps the discussion would have involved more to make it more palatable to KC.) The potential that were were involved in the discussions is speculative -- but I would certainly welcome if that is the case. It's not that direct, but I think they would have a harder time telling the fans they are rebuilding and razing the older core, and the spending spree this year is somewhat for the purpose of assuring the fans "we're not going cheap." Lucchino and Ben were always quick to point out that they would be a big budget team when asked about the Punto trade. The problem being that unless they what I call overpay for Jacoby, there is little chance of him being with the Sox. I generally agree with Lester, but his contract makes him an issue as well. By 2015 he is 31, but his contract is up, and do you extend him for the four year contract he is likely to command? If you think so, then he's part of the core, but if you see it as a likely parting date, then the value of his next two years is less (when I don't think he'll be the difference in making the playoffs).
|
|
|