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.
7/1-7/3 Red Sox vs. Angels Series Thread
|
Post by thursty on Jul 2, 2016 22:03:42 GMT -5
Something to keep in mind: The division leading Orioles have a bad (maybe even worst) starting pitching. Wilson just gave up 5 runs in 2 innings. But they have a great bullpen (Britton and Brach in particular have been superior to anything the Red Sox have). But yeah - their starting pitching is pretty much a disaster
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 2, 2016 22:04:56 GMT -5
It can't go on like this much longer....people are gonna want their pound of flesh...and I can't blame em.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,583
|
Post by radiohix on Jul 2, 2016 22:05:20 GMT -5
Something to keep in mind: The division leading Orioles have a bad (maybe even worst) starting pitching. Wilson just gave up 5 runs in 2 innings. And yet they had another winning month. Odd. Setting an MLB record for HRs in June helps.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 2, 2016 22:06:23 GMT -5
Trade for lucroy asap please and keep Swihart at catcher Why, what's the point? Last I looked the Sox had bigger pitching issues than catching issues. Why waste chips on catching? Especially if Swihart should be the catcher down the road (something that I actually agree with you on). I am at the belief Swihart should be in AAA at catcher for another year and I'd put Lucroy in for that time frame ..now if that's crazy to you ? Who cares .Lucroy could be traded if Swihart produces or be extended if he does not ...Lucroy is a superior catcher .
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,446
|
Post by ianrs on Jul 2, 2016 22:14:42 GMT -5
I saw what Shelby Miller, considered a #2/#3 before the season began, cost. Are you really telling me that if Dombrowski thought Margot/Asuaje/Guerra/Allen would get them a starter that was considered a #2/#3 type he would have passed up that deal to get Kimbrel? Sorry, but I don't buy that. If that offer had been on the table, I have little doubt Darren O'Day would be closing for the Sox right now (or maybe he would have crapped the bed closing for the first time in a big pressure market like Boston - we'll never really know.) I reiterate - if Henry Owens were a viable starting pitching prospect (his lack of velocity and command issues lower his value) and if Johnson wasn't coming off an injury, they would have had more value in a deal to get a starter. Again, a team giving up a top notch starter, is going to want a strong pitching prospect in return. That is where the Red Sox fall flat and why they can't get a top notch starter without having to give up a top talent. I'll tell you right now - they don't get a top starter (if one's available) without surrendering Kopech or more likely Espinoza. And this is because Johnson and Owens aren't viable key trade piece candidates. And while Margot could have been a piece in a starting pitcher trade, his presence wouldn't have changed that fact that the Sox lacked a viable starter to send back. Well said, and I appreciate the respectful disagreement. I probably should have explained more. I did not mean to sound like those pieces could have gotten some miracle starting pitcher, or that we would not have had to give up even more, or that the market was (or is) anything close to reasonable. But just because a market is unreasonable does not mean you have to participate in that market. Holding onto cost-controlled resources is an option. Yet the Red Sox still made a conscious decision to participate in the pitching overpay craze of the offseason, in some short-sighted win-now mindset that has now become a pattern with DDo, and in a manner that essentially gave up tons of surplus value to marginally improve the team over the next few seasons. I'm not even saying we need a top starter, just a warm body who's not performing at literally below replacement value. You say we would have to maybe give up Kopech? That would have been fine with me, because then you package him with Margot and others to get the starter that your team needs. Both a failure in expenditure of resources and MLB talent evaluation in my opinion. What I'm saying is that trading that many cost-controlled resources for a closer exiting his peak was a reckless waste of resources. We would have more depth in the farm and be what, maybe one or two wins worse off this season? My original point was also about how Manuel Margot would have been a nice piece to have as OF depth this season for a number of reasons. Anyway, appreciate the discussion, and don't want to have yet another strange rehash of the Kimbrel thread.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 2, 2016 22:16:56 GMT -5
To Ownership's great horror: After a promising start, this team has taken on the look and feel of all[\i]John Farrell-managed teams, save 2013, including Toronto.
To Ownership's greater horror: After a promising start, this team has taken on the look and feel of all Red Sox teams since 2011, save 2013.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 2, 2016 22:23:03 GMT -5
The Organization is not going to trade the top prospects. Not going to happen. Dombrowski is no idiot although you could ? a few moves.
It's evident going forward your not going to trade 25 players. Two and a half years of last place and declining play this year has brought all fans to a 19 run loss this evening.
It's time to cut bait with John Farrell. It might not be the right move, it's the only move you have to salvage this train wreck of the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 2, 2016 22:24:12 GMT -5
Something to keep in mind: The division leading Orioles have a bad (maybe even worst) starting pitching. Wilson just gave up 5 runs in 2 innings. And yet they had another winning month. Odd. They have a deeper bullpen and a manager who knows how to use that bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 2, 2016 22:27:29 GMT -5
I saw what Shelby Miller, considered a #2/#3 before the season began, cost. Are you really telling me that if Dombrowski thought Margot/Asuaje/Guerra/Allen would get them a starter that was considered a #2/#3 type he would have passed up that deal to get Kimbrel? Sorry, but I don't buy that. If that offer had been on the table, I have little doubt Darren O'Day would be closing for the Sox right now (or maybe he would have crapped the bed closing for the first time in a big pressure market like Boston - we'll never really know.) I reiterate - if Henry Owens were a viable starting pitching prospect (his lack of velocity and command issues lower his value) and if Johnson wasn't coming off an injury, they would have had more value in a deal to get a starter. Again, a team giving up a top notch starter, is going to want a strong pitching prospect in return. That is where the Red Sox fall flat and why they can't get a top notch starter without having to give up a top talent. I'll tell you right now - they don't get a top starter (if one's available) without surrendering Kopech or more likely Espinoza. And this is because Johnson and Owens aren't viable key trade piece candidates. And while Margot could have been a piece in a starting pitcher trade, his presence wouldn't have changed that fact that the Sox lacked a viable starter to send back. Well said, and I appreciate the respectful disagreement. I probably should have explained more. I did not mean to sound like those pieces could have gotten some miracle starting pitcher, or that we would not have had to give up even more, or that the market was (or is) anything close to reasonable. But just because a market is unreasonable does not mean you have to participate in that market. Holding onto cost-controlled resources is an option. Yet the Red Sox still made a conscious decision to participate in the pitching overpay craze of the offseason, in some short-sighted win-now mindset that has now become a pattern with DDo, and in a manner that essentially gave up tons of surplus value to marginally improve the team over the next few seasons. I'm not even saying we need a top starter, just a warm body who's not performing at literally below replacement value. You say we would have to maybe give up Kopech? That would have been fine with me, because then you package him with Margot and others to get the starter that your team needs. Both a failure in expenditure of resources and MLB talent evaluation in my opinion. What I'm saying is that trading that many cost-controlled resources for a closer exiting his peak was a reckless waste of resources. We would have more depth in the farm and be what, maybe one or two wins worse off this season? My original point was also about how Manuel Margot would have been a nice piece to have as OF depth this season for a number of reasons. Anyway, appreciate the discussion, and don't want to have yet another strange rehash of the Kimbrel thread. I appreciate the way you make your argument, too, and I, too, am tired of the Kimbrel/Margot debate. I just get tired of hearing the "elite" closer get thrown back as if that's why the Sox are getting killed recently. I think we can agree that the starting pitching crapped the bed the day E-Rod heard a pop in his knee and Buchholz became toast. We didn't know it then but the Red Sox starting pitching mantra (in the vain of Spahn, Sain and pray for rain) should have been Price, Wright, and Porcello, and the rest are jell-o.
|
|
|
Post by pedey on Jul 2, 2016 22:29:25 GMT -5
I just now tuned into the Red Sox score. All I did was utter the letters "LOL".
A July deadline acquisition is not going to fix this team. The pitching is so absurdly bad and the catcher, third base, and left field positions need to stop underperforming.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 2, 2016 22:30:00 GMT -5
Why, what's the point? Last I looked the Sox had bigger pitching issues than catching issues. Why waste chips on catching? Especially if Swihart should be the catcher down the road (something that I actually agree with you on). I am at the belief Swihart should be in AAA at catcher for another year and I'd put Lucroy in for that time frame ..now if that's crazy to you ? Who cares .Lucroy could be traded if Swihart produces or be extended if he does not ...Lucroy is a superior catcher . Not arguing with you about if Lucroy is a superior catcher. I'm questioning using their remaining trade resources to deal for a catcher when their pitching stinks. At least I think their pitching stinks or were the three touchdowns they gave up just a mirage?
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,583
|
Post by radiohix on Jul 2, 2016 22:30:03 GMT -5
Something to keep in mind: The division leading Orioles have a bad (maybe even worst) starting pitching. Wilson just gave up 5 runs in 2 innings. Make it 8 runs in 3 IPs. Really, the only threat in this division is Toronto.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 2, 2016 23:12:19 GMT -5
I turned the game off midway, and when I saw the final score online, I asked myself, OK, so which position player pitched, and how many runs did he give up?
It's got to be embarrassing for a bullpen when they give up 11 ER in 3.2 IP, plus 2 runs that should have been earned if the earned run rule made any sense*, plus allow two inherited runners to score .. . and a AAA CF pitches a scoreless frame.
*An runner who reaches base after what should have been the 3rd out, and subsequently scores has to be an earned tun. The virtual last out should just clear the bases, not absolve the pitcher from responsibility from everyone else who follows.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 2, 2016 23:42:01 GMT -5
Why, what's the point? Last I looked the Sox had bigger pitching issues than catching issues. Why waste chips on catching? Especially if Swihart should be the catcher down the road (something that I actually agree with you on). I am at the belief Swihart should be in AAA at catcher for another year and I'd put Lucroy in for that time frame ..now if that's crazy to you ? Who cares .Lucroy could be traded if Swihart produces or be extended if he does not ...Lucroy is a superior catcher . catching the flow of a game the framing of a pitch ....subtlle frame not a Vazquez butcher job time and time again yanking the mit down ...no I'm not trading Benny or Moncada for a catcher or anyone unless it's a Greinke or Fernandez ....The two Aquiaitions I would make are Lucroy and Gray and Although Gray may cost a Owens and hope maybe bean may look at clay as a reclimation project ? And maybe a cost controllable catcher like Vazquez may fit bean who knows ...but I'm in the camp Catching is killing this teams pitchers it's a butcher shop behind the plate ...Gray is a shot in the dark and I believe He will come back to his norm .I would argue catching has cost this team 5 or more in the loss column and managing around the same amount ....10 game swing would put this team in cub win territory and they would be well on there way to winning the division .
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 2, 2016 23:57:13 GMT -5
LOL. It's a good thing we have a manager with a pitching background.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jul 2, 2016 23:57:54 GMT -5
My impression is that Farrell is not a problem because of the decisions he makes, but because he's a tightly wound individual who radiates negativity and a lack of confidence. Boston is already a hard enough place to play because negativity abounds at every level from the fan to the press and when the team's manager comes across as morose, clueless and beaten it is not a good fit.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Jul 3, 2016 1:48:55 GMT -5
You might see Buchholz and Farrell released the same day. I really do think they are going to wait until after the buchholz bowl then let him go.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 3, 2016 6:55:55 GMT -5
clay has to be DFA after this Clay was our best pitcher tonight Don't be silly, Hembree did a good job, not his fault 3 outs were bungled by the fielders behind him.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 3, 2016 7:15:35 GMT -5
Today would be a great day to fire Farrell not just for baseball reasons but its a great news dump day.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 3, 2016 7:42:34 GMT -5
I am at the belief Swihart should be in AAA at catcher for another year and I'd put Lucroy in for that time frame ..now if that's crazy to you ? Who cares .Lucroy could be traded if Swihart produces or be extended if he does not ...Lucroy is a superior catcher . I may be in the minoroty here but in regards to pitching and catching the flow of a game the framing of a pitch ....subtlle frame not a Vazquez butcher job time and time again yanking the mit down ..I feel like a catcher can hurt certain pitchers more than other pitchers ...no I'm not trading Benny or Moncada for a catcher or anyone unless it's a Greinke or Fernandez ....The two Aquiaitions I would make are Lucroy and Gray and Although Gray may cost a Owens and maybe bean may look at clay as a reclimation project ? And maybe a controllable catcher like Vazquez . If you're Billy Beane and you have Gray under contract for a few more years are you honestky telling me that he couldn't do better in the trade market tan an enigma like Clay who is 1 year away from free agency and costs $13 million to re-up for a year and a guy who can't throw strikes at all in Owens? Call me crazy but if I were Beane and that's the best offer for Gray I could get, I'd hang onto Gray and it would be a no-brainer. Beane doesn't have to deal Gray now unless he's overwhelmed. He's under no obligation to trade him. If it were Owens, Buchholz, and lesser prospects for Gray I'd drive them all to the airport. That package would have no shot at getting Gray. I'm no statistician but Vazquez's strength is his framing, and that's the least of his defensive issues. I don't believe his defensive assets outweigh his offensive liabilities, at least now it doesn't. I think he has a relatively low ceiling. I think Swihart could become one of the best hitting catchers in baseball (it is a low bar to clear) while with more work can be adequate behind the plate. I certainly prefer Swihart but understand that I might be in the minority on that one.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 10:21:11 GMT -5
Today would be a great day to fire Farrell not just for baseball reasons but its a great news dump day. You are so right about that ...Never thought about it that way but wow the Celtics ,Clinton FBI interrogation ,The bombings last night ....Dave should cut bait today .
|
|
|
Post by station13 on Jul 3, 2016 10:30:35 GMT -5
Clay is so delusional with his post game comments. What a tool.
When Price sucks, he owns up. You will never get that from Buchholz.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 3, 2016 10:35:46 GMT -5
I saw what Shelby Miller, considered a #2/#3 before the season began, cost. Are you really telling me that if Dombrowski thought Margot/Asuaje/Guerra/Allen would get them a starter that was considered a #2/#3 type he would have passed up that deal to get Kimbrel? Sorry, but I don't buy that. If that offer had been on the table, I have little doubt Darren O'Day would be closing for the Sox right now (or maybe he would have crapped the bed closing for the first time in a big pressure market like Boston - we'll never really know.) First of all, just because Arizona got fleeced doesn't mean that the Shelby Miller trade now defines the market for starting pitching. It was and will likely remain an outlier. It also doesn't matter that Margot/etc wouldn't have landed a #2 starter (theoretically a MASTER TALENT EVALUATOR like Dombrowski might have identified a pre-breakout guy who could be had for that package, but whatever). The point is that Dombrowski expended a ton of resources on 60 innings of a 2.60 ERA reliever when this team has more important needs, and when 2.60 ERA relievers don't typically cost that much. So much of the justification for the Kimbrel trade was "well, this team doesn't need Margot when they have Benintendi". Ok, well another way to look at that is that Margot would be a nice fallback position if they want to go trade Benni for Teheran. Or maybe you can get away with not trading one of the big four for a starter if Margot is in the package. This team has finite resources and because of the irresponsible way those resources were spent over the winter, we're now living in fear of the much more painful trade that now seems imminent. Someone who is good at the economy, please help the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 10:40:54 GMT -5
I may be in the minoroty here but in regards to pitching and catching the flow of a game the framing of a pitch ....subtlle frame not a Vazquez butcher job time and time again yanking the mit down ..I feel like a catcher can hurt certain pitchers more than other pitchers ...no I'm not trading Benny or Moncada for a catcher or anyone unless it's a Greinke or Fernandez ....The two Aquiaitions I would make are Lucroy and Gray and Although Gray may cost a Owens and maybe bean may look at clay as a reclimation project ? And maybe a controllable catcher like Vazquez . If you're Billy Beane and you have Gray under contract for a few more years are you honestky telling me that he couldn't do better in the trade market tan an enigma like Clay who is 1 year away from free agency and costs $13 million to re-up for a year and a guy who can't throw strikes at all in Owens? Call me crazy but if I were Beane and that's the best offer for Gray I could get, I'd hang onto Gray and it would be a no-brainer. Beane doesn't have to deal Gray now unless he's overwhelmed. He's under no obligation to trade him. If it were Owens, Buchholz, and lesser prospects for Gray I'd drive them all to the airport. That package would have no shot at getting Gray. I'm no statistician but Vazquez's strength is his framing, and that's the least of his defensive issues. I don't believe his defensive assets outweigh his offensive liabilities, at least now it doesn't. I think he has a relatively low ceiling. I think Swihart could become one of the best hitting catchers in baseball (it is a low bar to clear) while with more work can be adequate behind the plate. I certainly prefer Swihart but understand that I might be in the minority on that one. Great point and it' is wishful thinking on my part of a Reclimation thought on Clay ...Vaz is a butcher at framing it's a yank frame time and time again he ends up turning strikes into balls a lot more than many point out by playing the ump for a chump .Swihart I'm extremely high on he is an amazing athlete and in my opinion just behind Mookie in that regard ...the kid tosses 100 mph heat in Highschool and can run like a second baseman ...I know he's our future at Catcher but let this kid grow at calling a game let him grow under a Lucroy .I don't think a platoon is horrible with him and Lucroy either and playing LF ...it's also not ideal the kid is a Catcher ....and hell of one to boot .Vaz has a reputation to frame well again I must be blind he looks terrible at it .
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Jul 3, 2016 10:43:43 GMT -5
Blake Swihart is -29 below average in defensive runs saved (according to Baseball Reference) over 94 big league games. If he were anywhere close to passable defensively at catcher, he never would have been moved off the position and put in Left freakin' Field. Swihart is so incompetent as a catcher that the front office didn't even bother pretending to keep Swihart at catcher. They took catcher off the table at a time when CV was a great big question mark coming back from TJS and not looking great behind the plate.
Think about it. Swihart was, once upon a time, a huge trade asset as an offensive catcher, and the front office took no care to preserve that trade value in 2016. Was that because they are psychotically incompetent? Maybe! But more likely is that everyone in baseball understands that Swihart sucks at catching, and nobody was going to give value in trade for him.
As a catcher, the Sox missed the boat on selling high. It happens. But they do believe in his bat, at least believe in it enough to keep him around, and he's looked decent in LF.
|
|
|