|
Post by tjb21 on Jun 14, 2013 12:27:51 GMT -5
Come on. Iggy was too rushed. He increased his power and speed last off season. Don't judge him by his minor stat. Yeah guys, judge him off his 84 PA's and killer .523 BABIP!Iglesias is the perfect trade candidate to me. No reason not to form the infield around Xander for the short and long term (starting whenever he's ready), as a SS.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jun 13, 2013 13:53:07 GMT -5
Middlebrooks is clearly struggling, although is appears to be all mental. I'm not sure it is all mental. Someone with better baseball smarts than me would have to comment, but I don't think it is mental as much as a minor lack of skill. Ray brought up a good point, it's a fantastic position to be in. I think Drew is still the best SS option this year. Will be interesting to see the ST battle with Xander and Iglesias next year though for the starting job at short.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jun 6, 2013 14:49:10 GMT -5
The X-man could be next year's JBJ. It's going to be very interesting to see how 3B and SS get divided among the contenders. And then there's this guy at Salem who seems to know how to hit. One of them needs to be converted to 1B. I would like to hear your reasoning on why one of them needs to be converted to first.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jun 6, 2013 10:02:57 GMT -5
I've gone back and forth with these two guys, but I'll stick with Meadows... until we take Frazier and then I'll say we picked correctly.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jun 5, 2013 10:16:26 GMT -5
Drew is gonna earn a qualifying offer this summer. I can see it. Slow start coming back from the injury, but he is a good hitter along with an extremely solid fielder. I agree on the QO. Will be really interesting if he accepts it.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jun 4, 2013 10:38:42 GMT -5
Edit: double post
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jun 4, 2013 10:36:28 GMT -5
1. Stewart 2. Meadows 3. Frazier 4. Stanek 5. Shipley 6. Ball
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jun 4, 2013 10:25:00 GMT -5
Yeah I think everyone would prefer McCann at that money. . . which is why he'll get a lot more. Salty seems to be the next best option for a team looking for a catcher for the next few years. All the other free agent catchers are either older, bad, or both. the question is whether or not you think a team will be willing to give up a first for Saltalamacchia. Judging by what happened to Bourne I'd say no, but last years free agent market was flush with center fielders, a situation Jarrod is not getting in to. But a team did sign Borne to a pretty good chunk of money. What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on May 23, 2013 13:51:29 GMT -5
I can't possibly see the Sox not offering the 1 year qualifying offer to him. Even if he doesn't improve much this year it's still worth a shot next year. I also think that some team will be willing to give him big $ even off a down year. It ALWAYS happens, and usually guys who have had nowhere near a peak year like Ellsbury had get multi year $10M+ AAV deals This past offseason was very different than last year. Look how hard it was for Michael Bourn to get a contract this past offseason, and Bourn has been far more consistent player than Ellsbury. I were the Red Sox, and Ellsbury does not turn things around, I would not offer him the qualifying offer. I don't understand this logic. Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on May 15, 2013 15:21:06 GMT -5
Mid-2000'sAll-StarJonathan Papelbon Jon Lester Anibal Sanchez Hanley Ramirez Dustin Pedroia Jacoby Ellsbury Key Major LeaguerManny Delcarmen Kelly Shoppach Daniel Murphy Jed Lowrie Clay Buchholz Buchholz was an All Star in 2010 by the way and will be this year. The Sox had a great farm system in the early '80s and in the mid 2000's. This led to winning years and a WS trophy. With this current core of good prospects now, assuming most of them will reach their potential, and assuming none of them great traded (I really hope NONE are traded. I like young and great teams), they Sox could be that young and great team in two or three years. You hear talk about great young teams (Current Nationals, 2008 Rays, '95 Indians, etc.) and think of how great it would be if the Sox could be that young great team consistently making the playoffs on a low payroll, because of all the guys on rookie contracts. This could be the future lineup: CF Bradley RF Victorino/ Kalish 2B Pedroia SS Bogaerts DH Lavarnway 3B Middlebrooks LF Brentz 1B Shaw C Vazquez Cecchini, Almanzar, Swihart, and Marrero are looming. Cecchini is one of the Sox's best prospect and he could be a starting position player too, I just don't know exactly where to put him because of WMB. and rotation: LHP Lester RHP Buchholz RHP Barnes RHP Ranaudo RHP Webster LHP Owens Closer RDLR Workman, Johnson, Britton, and Kukuk are looming Thats basically 6 Starters who could be number 1-3 starters. Maybe no back-end starters. The Sox could have a GREAT young team in a few years, and then can only be accomplished by letting them develop in their system instead of unloading half of them to rent a player for two months. I'm all for a young team, not sure about everyone else, but that could be a WS team. It will just take 2-3 years of patience. Plus, Ellsbury and Salty can be unloaded for more good prospects and the Sox have the #7 pick this year. Dodgers want him too?
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on May 14, 2013 15:27:05 GMT -5
Good for Lavarnway.
And my eyes get a day off from seeing Salty slandered constantly. But seriously.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on May 1, 2013 14:42:40 GMT -5
I can't remember the farm ever having this many solid starting pitching prospects, or even as many solid prospects in general. It would be interesting to see what orgs like BP and BA think at the end of the year. I would think top 5 at minimum if trends continue. We have often lacked that top tier Profars type guy but we have some players approaching that level it would seem.Players? Like plural? I guess I don't see the Red Sox having more than 1 guy (Xander) who's close to the level Profar is at. Who are the other guys in your opinion that are approaching his (top 5 prospect in baseball) level?
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on May 1, 2013 9:51:54 GMT -5
I'll go 35.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Apr 8, 2013 9:39:06 GMT -5
I was never a fan of giving 9 million to a broken down Stephen Drew and would have sunk or swim to see what I had with Iglesias with little expectations for this club. This team could have spent 9 million more efficiently than on Drew even if it was for one year. That would leave you one injury away from Pedro Ciriaco being a full time player with no viable backup. Jmei already mentioned Iglesias's issues staying healthy so far and shortstop is a position which sees a lot of injuries. I wanted Drew from the beginning of the offseason, I thought it would be for around $7m but the team was in the position to overspend... it's not like they can reallocate their extra money on the draft and international free agents. Acquiring depth at a position that's extremely scarce isn't the worst thing. The Ortiz contract was more inefficient, even if it was a lifetime achievement deal. I think these 2 points are exactly right. Iglesias really hadn't earned the right to be the starting SS before this season, and getting Drew on a 1 year deal for that money was a good move all around (even if he struggles to fully regain his pre-injury form). Where else would the Red Sox spend the $9 more effectively?
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Apr 5, 2013 14:12:21 GMT -5
Cant wait to see how Doubront and Lackey start the season. My thoughts exactly.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Apr 1, 2013 14:09:07 GMT -5
Am I wrong or is Saltalamacchia awful at receiving the ball? His left arm looks like a wet noodle. He makes every pitch look like a ball. I really hope they use Ross more than your typical backup. The Sox will be facing lots of lefties in the AL East and Ross should get the call for the majority of them I hope. Think you'll get your wish.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Mar 11, 2013 13:13:45 GMT -5
I had to laugh at the headline. Depth at dh? Isn't every bench player depth at dh? They should be treated that way. Once Papi hangs em up. I hope we don't even sign a full-time dh. Build a good bench and just move guys there as needed; matchups, nagging injury/rest, day game after night game for veterans, etc. It'd be nice if we could get Ortiz-esque production out of every guy on the bench. I think an organization's approach to managing the DH position is highly dependent on who you have. I would think you'd like any of the guys who have won the Edgar Martinez Award in your DH spot, but as an organization you may not have that guy on your roster. If post-Ortiz, whenever that might be, I'm fine with your approach until we get another masher that will give you production over 600+ at bats. This.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Mar 4, 2013 15:29:58 GMT -5
Hey, I can actually hit the "page 1 2 3 etc" links now because they're more than three pixels across. That alone justifies the upgrade. Thanks Mike/guys. I don't know if I'm missing something, but I don't see a place to go forward to the next page, or skip to a page at the bottom of the screen. I have to scroll up to the top to go forward.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Feb 25, 2013 10:17:22 GMT -5
87. Zach Lee, RHP, Dodgers
Seems like we got the right guy in the trade.
Webster's stock going up, Lee's stock coming down a bit.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Feb 19, 2013 15:42:07 GMT -5
4 top 50 prospects is legit, very excited about that.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Feb 19, 2013 15:22:44 GMT -5
In terms of talent, yes. I would do that trade all day long. I hate Jordan's contract though, he's a good player, but his contract isn't good at all. If the Celtics were to get a 1st round pick back (very unlikely), I would do it. It's not a horrible trade by any means for Boston, I think it's probably close to a "fair" trade, but I wouldn't call it 100% from my POV.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jan 24, 2013 9:50:25 GMT -5
I'd figure KC should be able to win the central (or a wildcard) with Lester and Shields in the rotation Wait, you're serious?
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jan 23, 2013 16:45:56 GMT -5
Short Answer: I don't think the #5 starter has the power to tell the manager that the first baseman is going to be the catcher. Longer Answer: If Napoli is going to be a once-a-week catcher, having him catch Lackey makes some sense, as they already have a relationship. That's especially true when facing a lefty, because a lineup with both Napoli and Gomez in it is probably optimal. But if Napoli isn't going to catch, then Lackey's feelings on the subject really won't mean very much. I'm assuming you're talking about this happening ONLY during interleague and on the road games, because if it's not that situation, Napoli could just play 1st and Gomes could play RF.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jan 22, 2013 10:32:27 GMT -5
The references to Duke and Theo were in the original, that opened the door to the comparison. Honest opinion he's basically treading water; hasn't been bad, hasn't been great. May have just been a poor choice of words in the original, but no, BC hasn't done anything praise worthy, and that includes the talent purge to the Dodgers. Come on, this is just a silly comment.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jan 21, 2013 14:15:59 GMT -5
It is my hope that both Napoli and Drew have MONSTER years and we decide to roll the dice on giving them a QO, and if they turn it down we win........and if they were so damn good and they accept, we have them around for another year if necessary. Now for Napoli, he would have to put up some pretty fancy numbers to get a QO........like 30+ homers, 90+ RBI's, an OPS of well over 800, and be adequate at 1st. For Drew, he would have to get close to the range he had defensively, play at least 145 games, collect 50+ extra base hits, and be a consistent force offensively. Either player could do something like this. Will they? Probably not, but if they do, our offense will be well above average.If they do, we may pick up a couple of nice early picks! Even if neither of them have monster years, the Red Sox' offense should still be well above average.
|
|