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.
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 13:55:48 GMT -5
1) C.H.U.D. is a classic. That screen name cracks me up every time. 2) I think the spectrum is much more complex that "win-now" vs. "prospect hoard." So it's not always easy to frame. From my own standpoint, I've disliked essentially every (major) trade Dombrowski has made so far involving prospects, with the exception (marginally pro-) of the Thornburg deal. And the reason, for me, is much less about prospects as future stars, and much more about prospects as future low-cost production (and current depth). Margot could've helped a lot early last year. Moncada and Kopech later this year. The Pomeranz deal because I thought there were less costly options (though my dislike of that trade is mild). On purely individual, value levels, each trade had its merits, and I think none was particularly good or bad. But they were not made in a vacuum, which leads me to: 3) It's tough to call Kimbrel or Carson Smith a "win" at this point. I think Smith will be. Pomeranz to this point is probably a loss, but it's still very early. Sale, who knows. But when one looks at the overriding direction of the team (and here's my counterpoint), DD has drastically reduced their future flexibility and locked them into a high-salary structure that may very well adversely effect their ability to retain their current players, and almost certainly, pursue new ones. He's taken a huge gamble in obliterating the farm for a three-year window. I don't see that as a wise approach at all for a franchise's long-term health. To me, its impetuous and impatient, and while speeding up the timeline to maximal success, I think it's almost assuredly severely shortened the timeframe of that success, while not at all improving the peak. It's just poor (specifically, selfish) business management in my view: it's the come-in-guts-things-make-yourself-rich-then-run approach. It might be "smart" when viewed from Dombrowski's standpoint, since he'll look good by standing on Cherington's shoulders. But it only helps him, in the long term, it will hurt the franchise significantly, I'm certain. How can one call Pomeranz trade a loss? Loss of what? AE has never played a game. If the point is he could have been part of a different trade, that is just theory (and assumes trading prospects CAN be ok). Pomeranz was up and down for Sox, so that makes it wait-and-see, but if he has .01 WAR this year and AE never makes the bigs, it's a practical win (and people can play alternative reality trades forever). AE, Kopech, Margot: not a game between them. In return, all star, all star, all star. At least 2 of those all stars have high likelihood of repeat all star seasons, and Pom has high potential to be really solid at #4. I won't call that a loss for years, if ever (those prospects will have to reach ceilings to make these losses). The trades for Smith and T'burg are always risky, w/ relievers' health, but combined, they basically gave up Dubon. Not losing sleep. If a GM doesn't try for those power arms, it's gross negligence. Are you holding against Margot, Kopech, and AE because they haven't played in games yet? Imo AE should still be here or should of went in the Chris Sale deal. If Dave would of held off on the AE for Pomeranz deal, the Sox could still possibly have one of Kopech or AE here. I hated that trade on principle. The Sox weren't ready to go for it at that point. Now with Sale a half year later, they are. Edit- Margot has played in some games and could be the starting CF for the Padres next year.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 11, 2016 14:17:01 GMT -5
Actually Margot played 10 games for the Padres (and Asuaje 7) last year (not that you're susceptible to data) Ok, stand corrected. Still can't call Kimbrel losing trade yet. But you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 14:41:19 GMT -5
Actually Margot played 10 games for the Padres (and Asuaje 7) last year (not that you're susceptible to data) Ok, stand corrected. Still can't call Kimbrel losing trade yet. But you are correct. The trade will be a loss within the next half year. That wasn't the point of the trade. The point of the trade was finding a cost controlled closer in a reliever market that's getting inflated by the minute.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2016 14:43:22 GMT -5
I went over the economics in another thread. It's impossible to keep the players that they have now. Yes, if they start trading some, it's theoretically possible, just as if they have ludicrous draft luck, it's possible. But the likelihood is probably an order of magnitude or two lower. It will be fascinating to watch, though. Particularly the media response in 2-3 years. I think we're like minded in many of our views. Honestly the only guy I "lock up" is Mookie Betts. His skill set should translate well. Bogaerts? I probably don't. Unless his bat is otherworldly, which it could still be, but honestly I'd be pleasantly surprised if he's able to stay at SS over the next three years. I certainly wouldn't want to gamble on that much beyond. I think it's a matter of time until he's a 3b. With Devers at 3b (hoping DD doesn't have to fill a "need" that requires losing Devers), the need for Bogaerts at 3b isn't too strong. I have no desire for the Red Sox to extend JBJ. By time he's a free agent after 2020 he's pushing CF, and his bat isn't consistent enough to be a corner OF. I'd rather see the Red Sox have a young CF on the way. The only other guy I'd like to see get extended is probably Benintendi who is supposed to have an amazing hit tool. So what happens is that as these guys need replacing, there will be very little reinforcements coming from the minor leagues (like Dubon for 2b or SS or Basabe for CF). You can't give big free agent deals for everybody or even replacement free agents and there's not much left to trade, although that can change over the next several years. But I think it's going to be a lot harder. If you're drafting 20 something the next few years, you can't do what Theo did in 2011, and you can't do what the Sox have done on the international market as those rules are changing. I think it's going to be very tough for the Red Sox to replenish their system by the time the Red Sox need those guys ready. So if they can't do that adequately enough and there's not much to deal, the Red Sox are going to have to find free agents that won't cost them a fortune. I think you splurge for what you need that is truly worth splurging for. The 2018-2019 offseason is huge and I remember wanting the Red Sox to go all about for Jose Fernandez, but that unfortunately has changed forever. Kershaw is a free agent, although it will be scary to think what he could fetch. Machado and Donaldson are big ticket items, but both are 3b and if Devers is what we think he is, they thankfully won't be in the market for a 3b. I doubt the Red Sox want to give Bryce Harper $400 million - I think the Yankees are at the head of the line for that "honor". I'd say the guy to save the big $ is Otani, who should be coming over after the 2019 season, when Chris Sale and Rick Porcello see their contracts expire. Maybe by then Groome is knocking on the door? We know Espinoza won't be. I have to say - I wish Dombrowski hadn't done what he has done, but I do understand it, and most of the deals on a 1-1 basis can easily be justified. Dombrowski shops at the top end, no doubt about it, so it's different than what the Yankees of the 80s used to do, where they'd trade a good prospect for a name that was good once upon a time, but the totality of his moves makes me think that beyond the three to four year window the Red Sox can have a big mess for somebody else to clean up toward the beginning of the next decade. I understood the desperation of the Tigers to win now with their octogenarian owner, and never had an issue with what Dombrowski did for the Tigers. I just don't really understand the desperation now with the Red Sox. The Red Sox had themselves a replenishing core that could win 90 something games consistently for maybe as long as a decade giving the Red Sox a lot of opportunity to get themselves at least one trophy. Now Dombrowski is trying to build a 100 win team, but the cost of that is a much shorter window to win, at least I think so as I don't really see the "next wave" of Red Sox talent on the horizon. It's all so contradictory and confusing in a way. Because it's more of a post-season tournament crap shoot where the chance variance that a juggernaut or a 90 win team wins it all is minimal. Yet, when the Red Sox have won their 3 World Championships, it can be argued (at least by their pythagorean record), that they had the best team each year in 2004, 2007, and 2013. They didn't get lucky and pull a 1987 Minnesota Twins, so maybe what Dombrowski did makes sense? Also I have always of the thought that dominating top notch starting pitching is the key giving yourself the best chance of winning the World Series once you get there (kind of remembering the way Johnson and Schilling dominated the Yankees in 2001 or Bumgarner won the Series by himself seemingly in 2014), but I've had many people here tell me I'm misinformed and point out the 2013 Tigers and the Braves teams that only won once, but yet here we are celebrating the Red Sox getting an excellent starter at the cost of a guy who really, really think will be a superstar and a guy who at worse is a dominating closer or at best an ace if his control improves. Meanwhile lost in the joy of obtaining Sale to improve the team (which he does - how can that be argued?), the Red Sox offense has taken a huge downgrade from Ortiz to Moreland) that a potentially significant upgrade in LF and a potential improvement at 3b probably won't make up for (and that doesn't factor in if Pedroia and Ramirez can stay as healthy in 2017 as they were in 2016 given their injury histories). So all in all I don't know that Red Sox are a lot better in 2017 than 2016 but maybe they play closer to their projected pythag record? And that's where the improvement comes from? I still can't figure out why I was more excited to see the Red Sox come away with Moncada in the first place (instead of the Yankees) than I am to see him converted into one of the best pitchers in baseball. I'm trying to be more excited, but I think I feel like I'd be faking it. I'm not unhappy about it, just more like confused. So now my head is spinning, I've confused the crap out of myself, and I'm going to stop posting. I think JBJ is worth a team-friendly extension (if he'd do it) to increase his trade value. I think Betts might be ticketed for 2b when Pedroia can't cut it. I agree that a Benintendi extension seems like a good idea. As to the rest, I pretty much agree. If Sale were replacing a AAAA pitcher or a true 5 like Dempster 2013, I'd be a lot more excited. But I don't see his addition being all that significant an upgrade, overall. He and Thornburg will help, maybe a lot, but it's tough for me to get excited about spending $63M to get Moncada and then flipping him for Sale. Everyone talks about how great Sale's contract is, but it's not at all for the Sox, because it's on top of that $63M. I'm also wary of all of the red flags. We'll see how Dombrowski deals with the excess and the salary issues the next couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2016 14:45:24 GMT -5
Estimates/salaries for 2020: Price: $31M Porcello: (FA, market value est.): $25M, 5-7 years Sale: (FA, market value est.) $33-35M, 6-10 years ERod: (last arb year, an inflation-adjusted Quintana-like deal would buy out that year and add 2-3 at $10-$15M): $5-$10M (depending on performance) Pomeranz: (FA, possible extension candidate, possible trade candidate): $12-18M (low end, presuming an extension) Wright: (arb 2): $3-5M, depending on role Buchholz: almost guaranteed trade, so I won't include him. Even if Pomeranz gets traded, that's roughly $95-$110M, just on five starting pitchers. Just addressing the young guys, JBJ will be a FA. Betts and Bogaerts will be in their walk years. Assume JBJ signs an extension this winter...a (very) team/friendly deal would be roughly 5 years, 2-5-8-16-20. So Bradley will cost $16M. Betts's best comparo at this point is Trout. So look at Trout's last arb-year buy-out. It's $15.2M. Mookie's a bit older and not quite (maybe) as good, so we'll skip inflation adjustment and call it $15M. But the next year it'll be close to $20M, and after that, by 2022, approaching $35M plus. Bogaerts could probably be extended now at a deal roughly similar to Bradley's. He'd be selling out his walk year at probably $10-$12M and getting 2-4 additional years around 2/3 of what Mookie would. So, 15-20-22-24. For those three, on team-friendly deals, it's about $40M in 2020 but balloons to about $75M in 2022. They still need a 1b, maybe 2b (they've got Pedroia's salary potentially, still), a 3b, a 4th OF, a utility INF, and an entire bullpen including a closer (at which point the salary for a closer will be close to $20M a year). So in 2020, at the low end, you're talking $140M for eight players, and in order to KEEP those players, you have to agree to deals that project a combined salary of roughly $180M two years later. They can't keep the guys they have. It's not possible. Even if Devers is good (I think he will be) and Groome can replace, say, Porcello, by that time, you've still got a $80M rotation and three Bs costing another $40M. That's $120M, again on 8 players. Look at Mitch Moreland: FA scrubs will cost $6-8M a year by then. Who's the closer? Barnes, on an extension? He's still going to cost $4-8M as a walk-year guy. Benintendi will be in his second arb year. What's he going to cost? Even if they plug scrubs in across the board to fill in all of those empty slots (and some young guys like Devers/Groome/Benintendi), at $4M average salary, that's $68M, for 17 players. So, in that unlikely scenario, you're looking at a minimum of $120M for the rotation and three Bs, plus $68M for the other guys. Works, right? Except the next year, you're well over $200M, as the three B's salaries increase, and guys like Devers/Groome get raises, and Benintendi gets arb, etc. They're going to have to (partially) blow up the team, with the young core that they have now becoming the high-$ guys. And, maybe, getting big value (elite prospects) back for Pomeranz, Porcello, JBJ, etc. That's going to reduce their chances of winning and create some "bridge" years. If Price continues to produce at/near current levels this year and next year I fully expect him to opt-out and go into Free Agency. I'm basing this on other pitchers/position players with opt-outs and their history of exercising them in years where they have been successful. There is always a dumb/desperate owner somewhere who wants a "name" or "proven veteran." I also fully expect the Sox to let him walk. I thought about that, but I think he'd need to be much better than this last year. He'd need to beat 5/165, and that not happening at 33 unless he's putting up top-3 Cy finishes both of the next two years.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 14:48:34 GMT -5
If Price continues to produce at/near current levels this year and next year I fully expect him to opt-out and go into Free Agency. I'm basing this on other pitchers/position players with opt-outs and their history of exercising them in years where they have been successful. There is always a dumb/desperate owner somewhere who wants a "name" or "proven veteran." I also fully expect the Sox to let him walk. I thought about that, but I think he'd need to be much better than this last year. He'd need to beat 5/165, and that not happening at 33 unless he's putting up top-3 Cy finishes both of the next two years. Price will have 4/127 left at the time of his opt out clause. It's almost a guarantee that he'll opt out. He can beat that easily with the price of pitching going up everyday.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2016 14:53:29 GMT -5
1) C.H.U.D. is a classic. That screen name cracks me up every time. 2) I think the spectrum is much more complex that "win-now" vs. "prospect hoard." So it's not always easy to frame. From my own standpoint, I've disliked essentially every (major) trade Dombrowski has made so far involving prospects, with the exception (marginally pro-) of the Thornburg deal. And the reason, for me, is much less about prospects as future stars, and much more about prospects as future low-cost production (and current depth). Margot could've helped a lot early last year. Moncada and Kopech later this year. The Pomeranz deal because I thought there were less costly options (though my dislike of that trade is mild). On purely individual, value levels, each trade had its merits, and I think none was particularly good or bad. But they were not made in a vacuum, which leads me to: 3) It's tough to call Kimbrel or Carson Smith a "win" at this point. I think Smith will be. Pomeranz to this point is probably a loss, but it's still very early. Sale, who knows. But when one looks at the overriding direction of the team (and here's my counterpoint), DD has drastically reduced their future flexibility and locked them into a high-salary structure that may very well adversely effect their ability to retain their current players, and almost certainly, pursue new ones. He's taken a huge gamble in obliterating the farm for a three-year window. I don't see that as a wise approach at all for a franchise's long-term health. To me, its impetuous and impatient, and while speeding up the timeline to maximal success, I think it's almost assuredly severely shortened the timeframe of that success, while not at all improving the peak. It's just poor (specifically, selfish) business management in my view: it's the come-in-guts-things-make-yourself-rich-then-run approach. It might be "smart" when viewed from Dombrowski's standpoint, since he'll look good by standing on Cherington's shoulders. But it only helps him, in the long term, it will hurt the franchise significantly, I'm certain. How can one call Pomeranz trade a loss? Loss of what? AE has never played a game. If the point is he could have been part of a different trade, that is just theory (and assumes trading prospects CAN be ok). Pomeranz was up and down for Sox, so that makes it wait-and-see, but if he has .01 WAR this year and AE never makes the bigs, it's a practical win (and people can play alternative reality trades forever). AE, Kopech, Margot: not a game between them. In return, all star, all star, all star. At least 2 of those all stars have high likelihood of repeat all star seasons, and Pom has high potential to be really solid at #4. I won't call that a loss for years, if ever (those prospects will have to reach ceilings to make these losses). The trades for Smith and T'burg are always risky, w/ relievers' health, but combined, they basically gave up Dubon. Not losing sleep. If a GM doesn't try for those power arms, it's gross negligence. This sort of argument is so backwards and short-sighted, I don't even know what to do with it. If you can't grasp the value of minor league payers, you're probably better off commenting on BDC. 99.99% of players are minor leaguers at some point. So the idea that they have "no practical value" until they play MLB is just...whatever. The incredible thing is that you allude to Travis Shaw, an average MLBer, as completely worthless. Same for Wade Miley. Good grief.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2016 14:57:31 GMT -5
I thought about that, but I think he'd need to be much better than this last year. He'd need to beat 5/165, and that not happening at 33 unless he's putting up top-3 Cy finishes both of the next two years. Price will have 4/127 left at the time of his opt out clause. It's almost a guarantee that he'll opt out. He can beat that easily with the price of pitching going up everyday. You're right, I forgot it was 7/217. Don't know why I tacked on that extra year and thought 8. 4/127 makes it a little more likely. But a $31M AAV is still going to be #1 country. If he's pitching like a 2, he's probably not opting out to get 5-6/125-140 (Jordan Zimmerman $). Or, he may just like being in Boston, especially if the team's winning.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 14:57:37 GMT -5
I think JBJ is worth a team-friendly extension (if he'd do it) to increase his trade value. Not happening. Scott Boras is JBJ's agent.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 15:02:41 GMT -5
Price will have 4/127 left at the time of his opt out clause. It's almost a guarantee that he'll opt out. He can beat that easily with the price of pitching going up everyday. You're right, I forgot it was 7/217. Don't know why I tacked on that extra year and thought 8. 4/127 makes it a little more likely. But a $31M AAV is still going to be #1 country. If he's pitching like a 2, he's probably not opting out to get 5-6/125-140 (Jordan Zimmerman $). Or, he may just like being in Boston, especially if the team's winning. Zach Greinke got a 5 year deal at age 33 for a lot more than that. I mean if Price continues his performance like last year, then there's a small chance he doesn't opt out, but he's almost a lock especially considering he's probably going to be a little if not a lot better the next two years. Greinke already makes more AAV wise and Kershaw will get even more than that if he stays healthy.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 11, 2016 15:04:19 GMT -5
I agree with you. Your Yankee points are excellent - I agree with them all. I am still stunned that some speak that we had this super 8-10 year window if we stayed the Big-Ben course but we don't have with DD. IMO it is so wrong to be knocking DDD at this point vs Big Ben's performance. We had garbage for pitching. We had a window "this year" because of DD. OFC the ones that think the farm was this 8-10 year window and now it isn't is that they think their Red Sox pitching prospects would hit and close their yes to the possibility that we'll make future trades and signings just as you say. Yet we have been pathetic for so long with pitching prospects. It's just wishful thinking - nothing more.
The fact is, before DD came, our pitching was awful. Clay and ERod were pathetic to start the year. Instead of getting Price the sox could have gotten jeff samardzija, so it's not like Price is a disaster. But Price was an overpay and had one of his worst years and Kimbrel was an overpay had one of his worst years. Without these moves we were stuck with Big Ben's Joe Kelley as a starter and Koji and Taz in the bullpen. So in other words to imply we had a 8-10 year window - it means you had to believe Big Ben would have made the right moves to get pitching. One of the more obviously moves was that he could have gotten Miller instead Koji.
With his track record of 3 last places in his 4 years with a very high payroll, why would anyone think that? OFC this is all on DD now. And just as you say I can't wait. I would have been a bit more patient not rushed the team to be a playoff team this past year but DD did and he got it done. Thus past year was sooooo enjoyable. I get the feeling some red sox fans couldn't enjoy the season we had because they seem to be in love with the idea of prospects rather than watching the team win a lot of games.
I knew it was only a matter of time for people to start crediting the 2016 success to DDo, when the team was largely Theo's and Ben's. And I recognize there are some posters blinded by "love of prospects" that they don't give credit to moves made that helped get us in the playoffs. It's unreal sometimes the love Ben gets for a team that finished last 3 of 4 years.
Kimbrel and Price and Pomz helped get us into the playoffs. I don't understand why some of you don't understand that. DD had said to start the year "contracts don't ensure starting roles." A change of attitude. I don't understand why some of you don't understand that. Red Sox said goodbye to Joe Kelley as a starter. I don't see why Ben should get credit for this. This DD team didn't put Hanley in left field, that was Ben that did that. Zeigler helped us. How did Ben have anything to do with that? That's right you want to give credit only to Ben for having that "15th rated prospect."
Again- Ben finished last 3 of 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 11, 2016 15:10:17 GMT -5
1) C.H.U.D. is a classic. That screen name cracks me up every time. 2) I think the spectrum is much more complex that "win-now" vs. "prospect hoard." So it's not always easy to frame. From my own standpoint, I've disliked essentially every (major) trade Dombrowski has made so far involving prospects, with the exception (marginally pro-) of the Thornburg deal. And the reason, for me, is much less about prospects as future stars, and much more about prospects as future low-cost production (and current depth). Margot could've helped a lot early last year. Moncada and Kopech later this year. The Pomeranz deal because I thought there were less costly options (though my dislike of that trade is mild). On purely individual, value levels, each trade had its merits, and I think none was particularly good or bad. But they were not made in a vacuum, which leads me to: 3) It's tough to call Kimbrel or Carson Smith a "win" at this point. I think Smith will be. Pomeranz to this point is probably a loss, but it's still very early. Sale, who knows. But when one looks at the overriding direction of the team (and here's my counterpoint), DD has drastically reduced their future flexibility and locked them into a high-salary structure that may very well adversely effect their ability to retain their current players, and almost certainly, pursue new ones. He's taken a huge gamble in obliterating the farm for a three-year window. I don't see that as a wise approach at all for a franchise's long-term health. To me, its impetuous and impatient, and while speeding up the timeline to maximal success, I think it's almost assuredly severely shortened the timeframe of that success, while not at all improving the peak. It's just poor (specifically, selfish) business management in my view: it's the come-in-guts-things-make-yourself-rich-then-run approach. It might be "smart" when viewed from Dombrowski's standpoint, since he'll look good by standing on Cherington's shoulders. But it only helps him, in the long term, it will hurt the franchise significantly, I'm certain. How can one call Pomeranz trade a loss? Loss of what? AE has never played a game. If the point is he could have been part of a different trade, that is just theory (and assumes trading prospects CAN be ok). Pomeranz was up and down for Sox, so that makes it wait-and-see, but if he has .01 WAR this year and AE never makes the bigs, it's a practical win (and people can play alternative reality trades forever). AE, Kopech, Margot: not a game between them. In return, all star, all star, all star. At least 2 of those all stars have high likelihood of repeat all star seasons, and Pom has high potential to be really solid at #4. I won't call that a loss for years, if ever (those prospects will have to reach ceilings to make these losses). The trades for Smith and T'burg are always risky, w/ relievers' health, but combined, they basically gave up Dubon. Not losing sleep. If a GM doesn't try for those power arms, it's gross negligence. I agree. The trade AE for Pomz can't be called a loss. A stretch during the season Pomz was vital. Despite all the fanfare of prospect love we have here - getting to the playoffs/ winning the division supersedes prospect love. You aren't going to get equal potential war value when you trade top rated prospects. People have to get over that along with realizing that not all red sox prospects are hits.
I just think you're spot on with everything you've been posting on these subjects.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2016 15:12:02 GMT -5
The Charington model will never result in a Championship. He loves his prospects to much. You knew exactly what I meant. 2013 was Theo's team that Ben tweaked and caught lightning in a bottle. He did a great job that year, but his long term model would not have won Championships. We own Charington a big thanks for building a great farm system, he's great at that.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 15:18:15 GMT -5
You knew exactly what I meant. 2013 was Theo's team that Ben tweaked and caught lightning in a bottle. He did a great job that year, but his long term model would not have won Championships. We own Charington a big thanks for building a great farm system, he's great at that. What? Cherington constructed one of the best deals in Sox history in the August of 2012 (Adrian Gonzalez, Beckett, Crawford deal) that opened up payroll. This lead to key free agents being signed in Victorino, Koji, and Napoli which were all Ben's guys. Koji was arguably the best player on that team from the beginning to finish too.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 11, 2016 15:38:44 GMT -5
You knew exactly what I meant. 2013 was Theo's team that Ben tweaked and caught lightning in a bottle. He did a great job that year, but his long term model would not have won Championships. We own Charington a big thanks for building a great farm system, he's great at that. What? Cherington constructed one of the best deals in Sox history in the August of 2012 (Adrian Gonzalez, Beckett, Crawford deal) that opened up payroll. This lead to key free agents being signed in Victorino, Koji, and Napoli which were all Ben's guys. Koji was arguably the best player on that team from the beginning to finish too. What about that great deal he got for Lackey? What about that great move he made after letting Miller go and going with Koji instead of Miller afterwards ? If we had Miller would we have had to pay for Kimbrel? What did we get for Peavey? How well was our Sandoval move? How smart was it to put Hanely in left field? How many good pitchers have come from the farm the past several years?
Isn't DD supposed to try to overcome some of these issues? SO if he makes a move and it works it's all "att-a-boy Ben?" And if it doesn't work it's DD fault?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 15:46:43 GMT -5
What? Cherington constructed one of the best deals in Sox history in the August of 2012 (Adrian Gonzalez, Beckett, Crawford deal) that opened up payroll. This lead to key free agents being signed in Victorino, Koji, and Napoli which were all Ben's guys. Koji was arguably the best player on that team from the beginning to finish too. What about that great deal he got for Lackey? What about that great move he made after letting Miller go and going with Koji instead of Miller afterwards ? If we had Miller would we have had to pay for Kimbrel? What did we get for Peavey? How well was our Sandoval move? How smart was it to put Hanely in left field? How many good pitchers have come from the farm the past several years?
Isn't DD supposed to try to overcome some of these issues? SO if he makes a move and it works it's all "att-a-boy Ben?" And if it doesn't work it's DD fault?
What does any of this have to do with the 2013 championship run?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 11, 2016 15:47:54 GMT -5
What about that great deal he got for Lackey? What about that great move he made after letting Miller go and going with Koji instead of Miller afterwards ? If we had Miller would we have had to pay for Kimbrel? What did we get for Peavey? How well was our Sandoval move? How smart was it to put Hanely in left field? How many good pitchers have come from the farm the past several years?
Isn't DD supposed to try to overcome some of these issues? SO if he makes a move and it works it's all "att-a-boy Ben?" And if it doesn't work it's DD fault?
What does any of this have to do with the 2013 championship run? What's thread about? Only 2013?
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 11, 2016 15:48:03 GMT -5
Lets look at this from a different angle that could shed some light on the subject of how to manage the Sox roster vs maintaining a great farm system. Which is really the crux of the matter that you experts keep arguing. I have one question for everyone. If every player on the Sox right now was paid based on there true value what would the total salary cap look like for the 25 man roster? Not just this year but maybe the next. This is how you win in fantasy leagues, you have players out perform their cost in terms of salary. One of the reasons Sale is so valuable, low cost vs high value. Bottom line is that if you added up the actual value of all the Sox on the current roster that number would be in excess of 300 million. Some of you might try to argue that the strong farm system allows you to keep that going perpetually. Is that truly realistic? To a degree maybe but at some point in time dont you have to go all in? Its not as if the Sox dont have an abundance of young affordable talent at the ML level already. I know I might get a ton of heat for this post but I just feel like the Sox are in the perfect position to go all in. The combination of very good affordable young talent along with the best rotation in the AL along with a strong bullpen now is the perfect storm. The Sox will have a 300+ million dollar lineup for the next 3 years in which to win a WS. They are not going to just suck after that but they will have some tough decisions. They would have had tough decisions one way or another. I understand that they gave up future value but they also put themselves in position to win it all for a while. Is that not the goal?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 15:51:02 GMT -5
What does any of this have to do with the 2013 championship run? What's thread about? Only 2013? No the topic he was arguing about at the time was that Cherington could never win a championship. This thread is about DD and the way he runs the Red Sox. I was directly replying to his comment that the 2013 team was all because of Theo, which wasn't the case, a large part of it was Theo. A large part was also Ben.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 11, 2016 17:10:23 GMT -5
I think we're like minded in many of our views. Honestly the only guy I "lock up" is Mookie Betts. His skill set should translate well. Bogaerts? I probably don't. Unless his bat is otherworldly, which it could still be, but honestly I'd be pleasantly surprised if he's able to stay at SS over the next three years. I certainly wouldn't want to gamble on that much beyond. I think it's a matter of time until he's a 3b. With Devers at 3b (hoping DD doesn't have to fill a "need" that requires losing Devers), the need for Bogaerts at 3b isn't too strong. I have no desire for the Red Sox to extend JBJ. By time he's a free agent after 2020 he's pushing CF, and his bat isn't consistent enough to be a corner OF. I'd rather see the Red Sox have a young CF on the way. The only other guy I'd like to see get extended is probably Benintendi who is supposed to have an amazing hit tool. So what happens is that as these guys need replacing, there will be very little reinforcements coming from the minor leagues (like Dubon for 2b or SS or Basabe for CF). You can't give big free agent deals for everybody or even replacement free agents and there's not much left to trade, although that can change over the next several years. But I think it's going to be a lot harder. If you're drafting 20 something the next few years, you can't do what Theo did in 2011, and you can't do what the Sox have done on the international market as those rules are changing. I think it's going to be very tough for the Red Sox to replenish their system by the time the Red Sox need those guys ready. So if they can't do that adequately enough and there's not much to deal, the Red Sox are going to have to find free agents that won't cost them a fortune. I think you splurge for what you need that is truly worth splurging for. The 2018-2019 offseason is huge and I remember wanting the Red Sox to go all about for Jose Fernandez, but that unfortunately has changed forever. Kershaw is a free agent, although it will be scary to think what he could fetch. Machado and Donaldson are big ticket items, but both are 3b and if Devers is what we think he is, they thankfully won't be in the market for a 3b. I doubt the Red Sox want to give Bryce Harper $400 million - I think the Yankees are at the head of the line for that "honor". I'd say the guy to save the big $ is Otani, who should be coming over after the 2019 season, when Chris Sale and Rick Porcello see their contracts expire. Maybe by then Groome is knocking on the door? We know Espinoza won't be. I have to say - I wish Dombrowski hadn't done what he has done, but I do understand it, and most of the deals on a 1-1 basis can easily be justified. Dombrowski shops at the top end, no doubt about it, so it's different than what the Yankees of the 80s used to do, where they'd trade a good prospect for a name that was good once upon a time, but the totality of his moves makes me think that beyond the three to four year window the Red Sox can have a big mess for somebody else to clean up toward the beginning of the next decade. I understood the desperation of the Tigers to win now with their octogenarian owner, and never had an issue with what Dombrowski did for the Tigers. I just don't really understand the desperation now with the Red Sox. The Red Sox had themselves a replenishing core that could win 90 something games consistently for maybe as long as a decade giving the Red Sox a lot of opportunity to get themselves at least one trophy. Now Dombrowski is trying to build a 100 win team, but the cost of that is a much shorter window to win, at least I think so as I don't really see the "next wave" of Red Sox talent on the horizon. It's all so contradictory and confusing in a way. Because it's more of a post-season tournament crap shoot where the chance variance that a juggernaut or a 90 win team wins it all is minimal. Yet, when the Red Sox have won their 3 World Championships, it can be argued (at least by their pythagorean record), that they had the best team each year in 2004, 2007, and 2013. They didn't get lucky and pull a 1987 Minnesota Twins, so maybe what Dombrowski did makes sense? Also I have always of the thought that dominating top notch starting pitching is the key giving yourself the best chance of winning the World Series once you get there (kind of remembering the way Johnson and Schilling dominated the Yankees in 2001 or Bumgarner won the Series by himself seemingly in 2014), but I've had many people here tell me I'm misinformed and point out the 2013 Tigers and the Braves teams that only won once, but yet here we are celebrating the Red Sox getting an excellent starter at the cost of a guy who really, really think will be a superstar and a guy who at worse is a dominating closer or at best an ace if his control improves. Meanwhile lost in the joy of obtaining Sale to improve the team (which he does - how can that be argued?), the Red Sox offense has taken a huge downgrade from Ortiz to Moreland) that a potentially significant upgrade in LF and a potential improvement at 3b probably won't make up for (and that doesn't factor in if Pedroia and Ramirez can stay as healthy in 2017 as they were in 2016 given their injury histories). So all in all I don't know that Red Sox are a lot better in 2017 than 2016 but maybe they play closer to their projected pythag record? And that's where the improvement comes from? I still can't figure out why I was more excited to see the Red Sox come away with Moncada in the first place (instead of the Yankees) than I am to see him converted into one of the best pitchers in baseball. I'm trying to be more excited, but I think I feel like I'd be faking it. I'm not unhappy about it, just more like confused. So now my head is spinning, I've confused the crap out of myself, and I'm going to stop posting. I think JBJ is worth a team-friendly extension (if he'd do it) to increase his trade value. I think Betts might be ticketed for 2b when Pedroia can't cut it. I agree that a Benintendi extension seems like a good idea. As to the rest, I pretty much agree. If Sale were replacing a AAAA pitcher or a true 5 like Dempster 2013, I'd be a lot more excited. But I don't see his addition being all that significant an upgrade, overall. He and Thornburg will help, maybe a lot, but it's tough for me to get excited about spending $63M to get Moncada and then flipping him for Sale. Everyone talks about how great Sale's contract is, but it's not at all for the Sox, because it's on top of that $63M. I'm also wary of all of the red flags. We'll see how Dombrowski deals with the excess and the salary issues the next couple of years. That's where part of my confusion stems from. If somebody offers you one of the best starting pitchers at a good contract rate in the prime of his career for 3 seasons at a cost of a great prospect, although one with defensive questions and a pitcher who might only be a closer as opposed to an ace and two question marks, you jump on it, right? Makes all the sense in the world, but this move, in conjunction with the rest of his moves, just feels so inherently wrong. I guess if he can replenish the system in time for 2020 or so, then great - it makes all the sense in the world. I just can't see how he can do it. I see why you want JBJ signed, but with Boras as his agent it's going to be a large contract, and I don't think he'll improve as he hits his 30s. Let the Yankees sign him. They seem to like our centerfielders. I saw Otani might come over to the States after next season anyways. If that's the case, then stay under the salary cap, and go crazy trying to sign him next year, although I admit I have no idea what "go crazy" means. I don't know how they get around the rules in place. I'm sure somebody here can enlighten me. But at any rate, he's the guy to get, moreso than anybody from that huge 2018-2019 class. Maybe Pomeranz has a good season and they can deal him for a good prospect if the Sox can sign Otani to go with E-Rod, Wright, Sale, Price, and Porcello. Afterall, the Red Sox could use a good right handed starter.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2016 17:11:23 GMT -5
What's thread about? Only 2013? No the topic he was arguing about at the time was that Cherington could never win a championship. This thread is about DD and the way he runs the Red Sox. I was directly replying to his comment that the 2013 team was all because of Theo, which wasn't the case, a large part of it was Theo. A large part was also Ben. The post you responded to I said his long term team building model, wouldn't win us Championships. Obviously we won in 2013. The more Charington made the team his own, the worst we got. For every good move he made, he made 1 or 2 stupid or bad moves. Charington could have been a god in Boston. If he had resigned Lester and Miller after trading them. Look at Cashman, gets a haul for Chapman and only lost a 1/3 season. If he didn't trade Lackey or traded him for a player like ERod plus. Still blows my mind he got ERod for 1/3 of a season of Miller and got a negative return for Lackey when he had 1 and 1\3 seasons on contract, with the full season at Vet minimum. Still don't understand why he didn't want to keep Lackey if he couldn't get fair value. We could have went into 2015 with Lester, Lackey, Porcello, Miller and ERod. If he did Charington would still be our GM.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 11, 2016 17:12:03 GMT -5
No the topic he was arguing about at the time was that Cherington could never win a championship. This thread is about DD and the way he runs the Red Sox. I was directly replying to his comment that the 2013 team was all because of Theo, which wasn't the case, a large part of it was Theo. A large part was also Ben. The post you responded to I said his long term team building model, wouldn't win us Championships. Obviously we won in 2013. The more Charington made the team his own, the worst we got. For every good move he made, he made 1 or 2 stupid or bad moves. Charington could have been a god in Boston. If he had resigned Lester and Miller after trading them. Look at Cashman, gets a haul for Chapman and only lost a 1/3 season. If he didn't trade Lackey or traded him for a player like ERod plus. Still blows my mind he got ERod for 1/3 of a season of Miller and got a negative return for Lackey when he had 1 and 1\3 seasons on contract, with the full season at Vet minimum. Still don't understand why he didn't want to keep Lackey if he couldn't get fair value. We could have went into 2015 with Lester, Lackey, Porcello, Miller and ERod. If he did Charington would still be our GM. Dude, it's Cherington, not Charington.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2016 17:32:47 GMT -5
No the topic he was arguing about at the time was that Cherington could never win a championship. This thread is about DD and the way he runs the Red Sox. I was directly replying to his comment that the 2013 team was all because of Theo, which wasn't the case, a large part of it was Theo. A large part was also Ben. The post you responded to I said his long term team building model, wouldn't win us Championships. Obviously we won in 2013. The more Charington made the team his own, the worst we got. For every good move he made, he made 1 or 2 stupid or bad moves. Charington could have been a god in Boston. If he had resigned Lester and Miller after trading them. Look at Cashman, gets a haul for Chapman and only lost a 1/3 season. If he didn't trade Lackey or traded him for a player like ERod plus. Still blows my mind he got ERod for 1/3 of a season of Miller and got a negative return for Lackey when he had 1 and 1\3 seasons on contract, with the full season at Vet minimum. Still don't understand why he didn't want to keep Lackey if he couldn't get fair value. We could have went into 2015 with Lester, Lackey, Porcello, Miller and ERod. If he did Charington would still be our GM. Consensus at the time of Miller-ERod was that the Sox got a terrific deal. Since then the reliever market has gone completely insane. At the time, it was a coup. Lackey was a calculated risk to try to get a potential #1 in Kelly. It didn't work out that way, although if he's as good in relief as he was last fall, he might command a huge haul in a trade. Or, allow them to do that with Kimbrel. Lester became Porcello, who performed similarly last year at five years younger and with a much, much better contract. Porcello's 2015 was Lester's 2012. It just came at a bad time for Cherington. Those terrible teams were, in significant part, due to poor choices by Theo at the end of his term (under intense ownership pressure). Just as last year's team was largely the product of good decisions to hold onto and develop players by Cherington.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2016 18:28:47 GMT -5
What does any of this have to do with the 2013 championship run? What's thread about? Only 2013? Hmm, looks like it's about Dave Dombrowski, not Ben Cherington.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2016 19:38:45 GMT -5
The post you responded to I said his long term team building model, wouldn't win us Championships. Obviously we won in 2013. The more Charington made the team his own, the worst we got. For every good move he made, he made 1 or 2 stupid or bad moves. Charington could have been a god in Boston. If he had resigned Lester and Miller after trading them. Look at Cashman, gets a haul for Chapman and only lost a 1/3 season. If he didn't trade Lackey or traded him for a player like ERod plus. Still blows my mind he got ERod for 1/3 of a season of Miller and got a negative return for Lackey when he had 1 and 1\3 seasons on contract, with the full season at Vet minimum. Still don't understand why he didn't want to keep Lackey if he couldn't get fair value. We could have went into 2015 with Lester, Lackey, Porcello, Miller and ERod. If he did Charington would still be our GM. Consensus at the time of Miller-ERod was that the Sox got a terrific deal. Since then the reliever market has gone completely insane. At the time, it was a coup. Lackey was a calculated risk to try to get a potential #1 in Kelly. It didn't work out that way, although if he's as good in relief as he was last fall, he might command a huge haul in a trade. Or, allow them to do that with Kimbrel. Lester became Porcello, who performed similarly last year at five years younger and with a much, much better contract. Porcello's 2015 was Lester's 2012. It just came at a bad time for Cherington. Those terrible teams were, in significant part, due to poor choices by Theo at the end of his term (under intense ownership pressure). Just as last year's team was largely the product of good decisions to hold onto and develop players by Cherington. The Lackey trade was just horrible from the minute it was made. At the time I said you had to get Miller, not Kelly. I for one never thought Kelly was ever going to be close to a #1. You could hope he put it all together, but very few guys like him turn into #1 starters. It was a risk they should never have taken. Never mind all the money we have had to pay Craig for nothing. If Lackey was a to be free agent I could have seen making that trade, but you had Lackey for one more year at Vet minimum. Sure Lester turned into Porcello, but you could have had both. Just like the Yankees have Chapman and Torres. They did try to resign him, but thought it was too much money, which looks foolish now. You can't Blame Theo for the 2 straight last place finishes. The Dodger trade basically undid all the bad that Theo had done. That is all on Cherington! Things like no weight clause in Pablo's deal is Ben's fault, thinking Ramirez could just play OF is on Ben. Not having enough pitching is on Cherington.
|
|
|