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.
7/4-7/6 Red Sox vs. Rangers Series Thread
|
Post by patford on Jul 5, 2016 22:52:46 GMT -5
Anything which contributes to Dombrowski not trading away top prospects is a plus. This is MLB. There is no salary cap. You keep your prospects and sign free agents. If the free agents don't work out so what. It's not my money. To the team owner it's less a blow than hitting a curb and having to buy a new tire.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 5, 2016 23:01:00 GMT -5
It is absolutely cathartic to blame the manager. It is also, sometimes, correct. If we accept that John Farrell is not a brilliant strategist and that managerial strategy doesn't make a whole ton of difference anyway, then what is Farrell's job? To get the most out of his players, to prepare them as best as possible, and to make sure losing streaks don't turn into tailspins. They just had to bring in basically a third pitching coach to the dugout because the pitcher's didn't feel prepared enough. They've underperformed their pythagorean record every year he's been manager, and they've fallen wildly short of their preseason projections. The only pitcher who has improved throws a damn knuckleball.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 5, 2016 23:37:05 GMT -5
It is absolutely cathartic to blame the manager. It is also, sometimes, correct. If we accept that John Farrell is not a brilliant strategist and that managerial strategy doesn't make a whole ton of difference anyway, then what is Farrell's job? To get the most out of his players, to prepare them as best as possible, and to make sure losing streaks don't turn into tailspins. They just had to bring in basically a third pitching coach to the dugout because the pitcher's didn't feel prepared enough. They've underperformed their pythagorean record every year he's been manager, and they've fallen wildly short of their preseason projections. The only pitcher who has improved throws a damn knuckleball. Agreed. The fundamentally ludicrous argument at the basis of that article is that the manager's influence is essentially irrelevant. If that were the case, teams would hire any schmoe willing to take minimum wage to deal with the media and stroke players' egos. The reality is that there is a spectrum of management skills, and there is a spectrum of managers who have each of those skills in varying degrees. Some managers are better than others...or we're back to argument 1. So when a manager (very) consistently manages his teams to records worse than predicted by player performance (run differential) or sheer luck (1-run games), it's time to accept the evidence that John Farrell is a sub-par manager. Even the brief "experiment" of altering a single variable (a switch to Torey Lovullo) re-affirmed it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 5, 2016 23:45:35 GMT -5
I actually agree with the article 100%. I just don't think the fact that crushing the manager is psychologically pleasing also means he doesn't deserve it. Terry Francona used to get bashed a lot. So did Bobby Valentine. The former was the best manager in Red Sox history and the latter... was not.
And just so we're clear, when I say crush the manager I don't think we should literally crush the manager Giles Corey-style.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 6, 2016 5:59:18 GMT -5
Yeah there is also the simple fact the team flat out played better and better decisions were made under Lovullo.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2016 6:12:56 GMT -5
oh no. leadoff walks are not good. Followed by smash by the first baseman - definitely not good - followed by a single to right - terrible. Hopefully DD is looking for a closer because they will need one if they hope to contend. You want them to trade for another closer? lol
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 6, 2016 6:17:13 GMT -5
I actually agree with the article 100%. I just don't think the fact that crushing the manager is psychologically pleasing also means he doesn't deserve it. Terry Francona used to get bashed a lot. So did Bobby Valentine. The former was the best manager in Red Sox history and the latter... was not. And just so we're clear, when I say crush the manager I don't think we should literally crush the manager Giles Corey-style. So you're saying you have a crush on the manager ?
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 6, 2016 6:28:18 GMT -5
Followed by smash by the first baseman - definitely not good - followed by a single to right - terrible. Hopefully DD is looking for a closer because they will need one if they hope to contend. You want them to trade for another closer? lol Its weird how many Red Sox fans always want to buy and empty out the farm system.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 6, 2016 8:28:58 GMT -5
I actually agree with the article 100%. I just don't think the fact that crushing the manager is psychologically pleasing also means he doesn't deserve it. Terry Francona used to get bashed a lot. So did Bobby Valentine. The former was the best manager in Red Sox history and the latter... was not. And just so we're clear, when I say crush the manager I don't think we should literally crush the manager Giles Corey-style. So you're saying you have a crush on the manager ? Only if you tell me they hired Gabe Kapler.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,149
|
Post by nomar on Jul 6, 2016 8:45:15 GMT -5
Followed by smash by the first baseman - definitely not good - followed by a single to right - terrible. Hopefully DD is looking for a closer because they will need one if they hope to contend. You want them to trade for another closer? lol At the next winter meetings, I'm going to hold an intervention with all the GMs. I'll tell them they're addicted to overpaying for closers, and it's hurting their families and those who care about their teams.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 6, 2016 9:25:31 GMT -5
You want them to trade for another closer? lol At the next winter meetings, I'm going to hold an intervention with all the GMs. I'll tell them they're addicted to overpaying for closers, and it's hurting their families and those who care about their teams. Nah. Just to the Red Sox GM. All you need is to run through the history of failed trades for closers: Gagne, Bailey, Melancon, Hanrahan, Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 6, 2016 10:13:52 GMT -5
It's frustrating to see Kimbrel pitch like he did last night and on certain other games this year...and the trade has been argued ad nauseam....but it is foolish to think we should not feel lucky he is on the team. He's been very good at times and his addition was a direct response to last years bullpen inefficiency. A lot of posts really have an irrational hatred towards the player. He didn't have a say in the matter of whether to come here.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 6, 2016 10:14:33 GMT -5
Kimbrel has looked bad at times. We all agree on that. But, if we didn't trade for him & Uehara had been giving up upper tank jobs all year (as a closer), we'd be sitting here saying "we should have traded for an establishe4d closer".
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 6, 2016 10:27:19 GMT -5
Followed by smash by the first baseman - definitely not good - followed by a single to right - terrible. Hopefully DD is looking for a closer because they will need one if they hope to contend. You want them to trade for another closer? lol Trade talks intensifyThe non-waiver trade deadline is Aug. 1. Dombrowski said conversations between teams were picking up. “We’re aggressive. We talk every day now,” he said. “This is a time period where a lot of things happen. Calls have increased. Doesn’t mean you’re going to do something. But I can say we’re aggressive in talking." The aggressive part makes me a tad nervous, unless it's a smokeshow, in which case it's fine. Second item down in the story, right after the Banister piece. www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/07/05/red-sox-add-pitching-guru-brian-bannister-major-league-staff/3Qv2lcwLEM3iJoFF5qiFxO/story.html
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 6, 2016 11:10:13 GMT -5
I actually agree with the article 100%. I just don't think the fact that crushing the manager is psychologically pleasing also means he doesn't deserve it. Terry Francona used to get bashed a lot. So did Bobby Valentine. The former was the best manager in Red Sox history and the latter... was not. And just so we're clear, when I say crush the manager I don't think we should literally crush the manager Giles Corey-style. I agree with you more than my post seemed, I think. I guess I'd say that I agree with the rationale regarding the psychology, but that I take issue with the premise underlying the broad-stroke painting of it. Fans blame players, too. But I think it's disingenuous to allude that fans' perception of poor managerial performance is all in their heads. There is always going to be a (fairly large, if you're a Sox fan) proportion of the population that complains about the manager regardless of how the team does. And there will be conflaters who equate an untalented team's weak performance with managerial failing, because I do think fans tend to be optimistic about what to expect individually from players. But like you said, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. Just because fans can identify more easily with making decisions about the game versus playing the game doesn't mean that they're unable to perceive genuine deficiency. It's like presidential approval ratings...a president with a 60% approval (Terry Francona in your comparo) is doing a pretty good job, because most of that 40% probably either just doesn't like the guy, likes to complain, or flat doesn't get it. A president with a 20% approval (or 5%, for Bobby Valentine) is clearly doing an awful job. But if you watch the news, most of what you're going to hear is complaints about the President, in both cases. It doesn't mean that real differences don't exist, or that fans (as a whole) can't see it. And yes, let's not revisit 1600s Salem.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 6, 2016 11:13:33 GMT -5
Kimbrel has looked bad at times. We all agree on that. But, if we didn't trade for him & Uehara had been giving up upper tank jobs all year (as a closer), we'd be sitting here saying "we should have traded for an establishe4d closer". Or signed O'Day (who hasn't been good either, actually). But we'd still have three prospects and a future utility guy to trade.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2016 11:16:01 GMT -5
Kimbrel has looked bad at times. We all agree on that. But, if we didn't trade for him & Uehara had been giving up upper tank jobs all year (as a closer), we'd be sitting here saying "we should have traded for an establishe4d closer".I will never say that again.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 6, 2016 13:03:44 GMT -5
Kimbrel has looked bad at times. We all agree on that. But, if we didn't trade for him & Uehara had been giving up upper tank jobs all year (as a closer), we'd be sitting here saying "we should have traded for an establishe4d closer".I will never say that again. It did help them in 1995. Ken Ryan was struggling mightily in the closer's role and Stan Belinda was not good at closing out the game (ask anybody who's a Pirates fan). They dealt a highly touted prospect in Frankie Rodriguez for closer Rick Aguilera and it did work out. Aguilera was effective and the Sox won the division. Rodriguez never did amount to much while Aguilera was back in Minnesota a year later.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2016 13:14:47 GMT -5
I will never say that again. It did help them in 1995. Ken Ryan was struggling mightily in the closer's role and Stan Belinda was not good at closing out the game (ask anybody who's a Pirates fan). They dealt a highly touted prospect in Frankie Rodriguez for closer Rick Aguilera and it did work out. Aguilera was effective and the Sox won the division. Rodriguez never did amount to much while Aguilera was back in Minnesota a year later. Times have changed. IF we could trade Owens by himself for someone like Kimbrel, that's fine. But look at these stupid trades.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 6, 2016 13:50:37 GMT -5
They just about had to get Kimbrel, & had to pay the piper to get him. After last year, Uehara was not to be counted on to close games this year. They were not going to take a chance on a tier lower as they tried with Bailey/Hanrahan. I still don't know why they didn't obtain Chapman for peanuts. Yeah, he did some bad things, but he paid the price for it. The MFY will flip him for prospects, or keep him & obtain a sandwich pick.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 6, 2016 15:09:52 GMT -5
Espinoza,Devers ,Kopech,Owens Vazquez,Rusney ,Johnson ,Panda,shaw,Erod and maybe Moncada are all in play .Dave is a if there is smoke there is fire type of GM ...so The Braves scenario is very real ...Tehran should be in a Boston Uniform shortly. My bet Devers ,Moncada ,Espinoza and Erod are getting delt in some scenario
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Jul 6, 2016 15:41:06 GMT -5
My bet Devers ,Moncada ,Espinoza and Erod are getting delt in some scenario Jesus Murphy... is the return Jose Fernandez? Clayton Kershaw? Chris Sale? No thanks to parting with all of those guys. I'd be willing to package Devers with next tier prospects, but nothing beyond that. Let the consequences, or lack thereof, be what they may.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 6, 2016 15:42:30 GMT -5
Anything which contributes to Dombrowski not trading away top prospects is a plus. This is MLB. There is no salary cap. You keep your prospects and sign free agents. If the free agents don't work out so what. It's not my money. To the team owner it's less a blow than hitting a curb and having to buy a new tire. Way too simple, pat. The cap may be soft, but it hardens up considerably after a few years. Here's the percentage in tax teams pay for going over the limit. The tax is on the amount you exceeded and based on your previous history. It will reset if you can get under, but it isn't cheap: First Time | 17.5% | Second Time | 30.0% | Third Time | 40.0% | Fourth Time+ | 50.0% |
There's a reason why the taxes paid by teams since 2003 looks like this. This is from Maury Brown's Biz of Baseball column via USA Today and the AP (click to enlarge): As others have pointed out, the team still has to be run like a business, and different markets have different break-even points. That's reflected in this distribution. It's not free money and these days fewer owners are inclined to act like it is.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2016 15:46:12 GMT -5
I have to imagine that the luxury tax threshold goes up significantly and penalties reduced next year. The $189 million figure hasn't changed since 2002 and the players' share of overall revenue has fallen from 56% to 38% ( as of 2015). Teams aren't spending anywhere close to as much as what the players are going to want in the next CBA.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 6, 2016 15:51:18 GMT -5
They just about had to get Kimbrel, & had to pay the piper to get him. After last year, Uehara was not to be counted on to close games this year. They were not going to take a chance on a tier lower as they tried with Bailey/Hanrahan. I still don't know why they didn't obtain Chapman for peanuts. Yeah, he did some bad things, but he paid the price for it. The MFY will flip him for prospects, or keep him & obtain a sandwich pick. You just answered your own question. I doubt the Red Sox wanted to have a guy on their team for just one year who would face a suspension for a length of time that was undetermined at the time. With Kimbrel they had a guy with 3 years of control and no baggage like Chapman has. Remember, the Dodgers had a deal in place with the Reds to acquire Chapman and when they got wind of it, they backed out. You might recall what happened to Wil Cordero when he was with the Red Sox - his stuff was out there and they got rid of him rather quickly.
|
|
|