|
Post by jmei on Feb 6, 2013 16:01:50 GMT -5
On-topic: if Cherington had the discipline to avoid major free agent commitments and didn't trade major prospects for any of the half-dozen potentially appealing players on the block this offseason (Marlins dump, Upton, Dickey, Choo, etc.), I find it hard to believe he'll suddenly empty the coffers if the Red Sox lead the division at mid-season. This whole offseason has demonstrated that the front office has a grand strategy and its cornerstone is the almost-MLB-ready elite prospects in the system. I find it very unlikely that a half season of success is going to be enough to tempt Cherington to deviate from the careful path he's charted to date.
The one possible exception is if a true MVP-calibre talent like Stanton is available, but I think that's pretty unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 6, 2013 16:06:34 GMT -5
If they want to make a trade mid-season they probably trade from the Swihart, Cecchini and the depth in the 5-15 range group instead of the top guys and even then it would need to be something more than just rental depending on who is the prospect. The writer probably doesn't know jack about who is there below the house hold names.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Feb 6, 2013 17:08:40 GMT -5
Again, hindsight is 20/20, but you'll be hard-pressed to find one analyst who criticized the trade at the time. Are you still going on about this? Go read the old thread before bleating about hindsight. It was a minor move and they'd given up on Bowden long before, but they acquired one of the worst players in the league. Some people thought he was bad, some thought there was a chance he wouldn't be bad. He was bad. So what? Yeah, like how Ortiz was done in 2009? I'm pretty sure I've always been on the Papi bandwagon, when some haven't, and if you're drawing an equivalence between Papi, Berkman, & Marlon Byrd.... wow.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Feb 6, 2013 17:49:21 GMT -5
I don't think the sox would trade the top prospects to help with a playoff run. I think it's more likely they might bring one or two of them up if they are in the hunt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 20:43:26 GMT -5
I also don't deal any of our top prospects for position players, even a talent like Stanton. i agree. the price for stanton would be outrageously high, and the red sox really dont have much trouble drafting and developing good position players. everyone has seemed to stop talking about Brentz, but he still has some good potential in him. He could be playing everyday in 2014. I can picture him hitting in the .270 range with around 25 hrs and 80-90 RBIs. the problem is, if the red sox are in contention and they need a player (it wont be a closer, the bullpen is loaded) and they trade top prospects for him, what then? if the sox end up not winning, the team will be aging with no truly great talent in the minors. ellsbury, salty, hanrahan, napoli and drew likely will be gone via fa, lackey will likely remain noneffective, lester will be in a contract year if his option is not picked up, and ortiz, pedroia, dempster, victorino, and gomes are not getting any younger. this leaves a team in a very bad spot. i dont want this to happen. i WANT to rebuild with young talent. these old guys are carry-overs until the young guys are ready. the best way to compensate for losing players via free agency, noneffective players, and aging players, is to replace them via the farm system. what I am saying is that no matter what their situation is July 31, DON'T TRADE ANY TOP PROSPECTS!
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 7, 2013 13:38:24 GMT -5
Even though I don't think this Sox team is very good, I also am not all that excited about any of the other AL East teams. So, it is entirely possible the Sox will contend, but only with a slightly better than average record. I agree. Come July there is a real possibility we could be a fringe wild card contending team and have both Bradley and Bogaerts at Pawtucket. You have to figure the pitching will be a headache again this year, so if Cherrington has a chance to get a quality SP, does he sell off one of both of the youngsters to get it?
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,067
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 7, 2013 13:45:26 GMT -5
no, if the starters are a headache again then the Red Sox won't be in the Wild Card picture so it's an unlikely scenario. And if they somehow happen to be with lousy starting pitching then they surely arne't going anywhere by adding one starter.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 7, 2013 13:53:55 GMT -5
no, if the starters are a headache again then the Red Sox won't be in the Wild Card picture so it's an unlikely scenario. And if they somehow happen to be with lousy starting pitching then they surely arne't going anywhere by adding one starter. Having that one stopper you can throw out there every 5th day is a huge benefit for a team. If Doubront or Lester is struggling and that spot in the rotation can be significantly upgraded. at the cost of top prospects, then it might be sometrhing to think about. come July.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 7, 2013 14:09:49 GMT -5
no, if the starters are a headache again then the Red Sox won't be in the Wild Card picture so it's an unlikely scenario. And if they somehow happen to be with lousy starting pitching then they surely arne't going anywhere by adding one starter. Having that one stopper you can throw out there every 5th day is a huge benefit for a team. If Doubront or Lester is struggling and that spot in the rotation can be significantly upgraded. at the cost of top prospects, then it might be sometrhing to think about. come July. Are those the two you are most worried about? I am personally still more concerned with John Lackey.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,067
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 7, 2013 14:35:44 GMT -5
I'm having trouble with where you are coming from. Are you putting Lester and Doubront in the same category? Is this because you have Lester as a 4th starter type or Doubront as a near the top of the rotation guy? I have to think the former since you are talking dealing top prospects. Unless you can get David Price (won't be traded to the Sox) a Felix Hernandez (dont' see why they'd deal him vs signing him - Sea has tons of money); they won't trade top prospects for anything short of a stud starter. Those guys won't be available.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 7, 2013 14:39:10 GMT -5
no, if the starters are a headache again then the Red Sox won't be in the Wild Card picture so it's an unlikely scenario. And if they somehow happen to be with lousy starting pitching then they surely arne't going anywhere by adding one starter. In 2011 they were in the picture all year with terrible starting pitching. It wasn't just down the stretch that the pitching folded - it was bad all year long.The 2013 team doesn't look like it has the 2011 offense, but they should still hit. It's quite conceivable that the Red Sox are a top starter away from being a real major league contender.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 19:52:43 GMT -5
lester and beckett were each lights-out until early September. other than them though, everyone else was bad
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 9, 2013 9:23:54 GMT -5
I'm having trouble with where you are coming from. Are you putting Lester and Doubront in the same category? Is this because you have Lester as a 4th starter type or Doubront as a near the top of the rotation guy? I have to think the former since you are talking dealing top prospects. Unless you can get David Price (won't be traded to the Sox) a Felix Hernandez (dont' see why they'd deal him vs signing him - Sea has tons of money); they won't trade top prospects for anything short of a stud starter. Those guys won't be available. Until Lester stops throwing his weak cutter with two strikes,even though the whole world knows it is coming, I ca't see Lester ever being a .500 pitcher again. I think Doubront takes a step back the first half of this year due to the innings jump he took from 11 to 12. I personally don't see the Mariners moving Hernandez unless they get into a massive cash crunch,and even then other teams probably have more to offer then we do as far as players/prospects.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 10, 2013 22:46:37 GMT -5
You don't want to just hold onto all of your prospects because you don't want to run the risk of having some high-end talent, some mediocre, and other prospects that bust and be in that state of constantly waiting for the next guy to come up. On the other hand, you can't just deplete your farm every chance you get to acquire an established "stud". In this case, Xander should be off limits unless a ridiculous trade like Xander for king Felix is presented to the Red Sox. If, and it is a big if, the Red Sox decide to hang onto Jacoby then Jackie Bradly Jr. should be on the market. Perhaps they could flip him for a stud prospect at SP/1B/SS/C?
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,067
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 10, 2013 23:28:41 GMT -5
[quote In 2011 they were in the picture all year with terrible starting pitching. It wasn't just down the stretch that the pitching folded - it was bad all year long.The 2013 team doesn't look like it has the 2011 offense, but they should still hit. It's quite conceivable that the Red Sox are a top starter away from being a real major league contender. James I respect your opinion of stuff, but you are very off base here. The Red Sox didn't have terrible starting pitching all year in 2011. Beckett was very good until Late August/Early September. Lester was great until his last 4 starts with the exception of a few starts in May. Buchholz was very strong in the first half of the year until his season ended after his 6/28 start. They still got 3 strong months out of him. Granted if you add everything up their starting pitching wasn't good for the season, but they had 3 guys pitching like top of the rotation starters the first 3 months then 2 until September when if fell apart. That's not close to the same thing as if the doomsday scenario described played out this year with regards to the rotation.
|
|