2013 SS

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    Maybe the Sox can use the DH for Iggy and let their pitchers hit.  Probably get more production that way...

     

     

     

     

     

    not really serious.

     

     

     

    But maybe they can have a new rule...the DF (designated fielder).  Everyone else hits for him.  Some here seem to think Iggy could play the field all by himself (at least Bill's Dad does).

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to Hingham Hammer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Alibiike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seannybboi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    His name is Jose, not Julio.  No Sox Fans caught that???

    [/QUOTE]

    I know. wanted to see how long it would take for someone to notice.

    [/QUOTE]

          Nice try.

    [/QUOTE]

    I did it on purpose, but I'll never convince you of that. People who know me on this board, also Know I like to be comical or cynical at times. Since you are a newcomer here, I'll give you a pass.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to MadMc44's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ali who are the other teams that would take Iggy? 

    Is Asdrubal Cabrera better than Pedroia? If yes trade Pedroia and a PTBNL for him and we'll play Ciriaco at 2 B. Chances are that won't happen. Ciriaco and Pedroia as a DP combo with Iggy as an infield backup.

    If the Sox had Cruz in RF, Ross in LF and BJ in CF and Gomez, Lind or VMart at 1 B, Middlebrooks at 3 B, Ortiz DH and Salty C--- I would say fine---have Iggy at SS--there are plenty of bats in that lineup to carry him.

    so what's that lineup look like:

    Upton, Pedroia, Ortiz, Cruz, Middlebrooks,  VMart, Ross, Salty, Iggy or Ciriaco.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I hate to keep picking on MadMc lately, but honestly, that is a horrible lineup.

    First off, Cabrera might be better than Pedroia, but not sure at what. Certainly not baseball. (I get this was not his thesis here, but logic this flawed should not be allowed to proliferate.

    Cody Ross is coming off a career year and probably will be re-signed for way too much, but he is unlikely to hamstring the team despite this. He is a good platoon player, but not much else. He struggles against RHP and is the exact same player as the cheaper Scott Hairston. No need to go too overboard, and certainly no need to pen him in as the starter LF. If he wants too much, go get Hairston instead. No one will notice the difference.

    BJ Upton is really not a good hitter, period, let alone one who should be allowed to bring his anemic OBP (.316 over the last 4 seasons) to the leadoff spot. He has some power and is an excellent defensive CF who will want way more money than he is worth. It is ironic, fans do not want his more talented, more accomplished and soon-to-be-cheaper younger brother, but somehow rationalize Melvin Emanuel Bossman Junior should be a worthwhile target. If the reason for not wanting Justin Upton is you don’t want to give up Jackie Bradley, why sign a player who is going to block Bradley for the next 5 years? Ellsbury is the perfect stopgap to Bradley. He will be in CF next year for a lot of other reasons beyond that one.

    And we won’t even get into how bad Lind and Gomez are. Gomez is EXTREMELY unlikely to even be on a major league roster next April, and Lind wouldn’t be on one either except for mild attempts to recoup anything on his contract. (In fact, Toronto did demote him last year for reasons related solely to performance.) Victor Martinez is a worthwhile target, but I doubt he will be available, although he should be. Still, Detroit moved Cabrera to 3B to accommodate Martinez at DH with next year in mind. They certainly did not do it to accommodate the extremely replaceable bats of Andy Dirks and Delmon Young at DH this year. I think it’s dumb, too, but the writing is on the wall.

    And Ciriaco had a good run, but he has spent a lot of time being very unimpressive, and even finished up that way last year. He probably has the edge over Ivan DeJesus for the utility infielder role, but I would not assume he even has that, let alone a starting position

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    If Ben gets frisky, we may see this...

    1) Bourn

    2) Pedey

    3) Ortiz

    4) J Upton

    5) K Morales

    6) Middlebrooks

    7) Ross/Nava

    8) Salty/Lava

    9) Iggy/Ciriaco

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    Napoli and Morse would be good targets.  They might be C, 1B, or LF, leaving the other spot for Saltalamacchia, Sands, or another low risk/high reward acquisition (Carp? Smoak? Hairston?).

     

    Pitcher is the real problem.  The big FA names all have issues.  Greinke will be the top target.  Peavy is too risky healthwise.  Haren may not see free agency.  Liriano showed signs, but has been all over the place the last few years.  The rest are worthless.

     

    The trade market might be better.  Philly should deal Lee, given their roster and payroll.   And two teams worth watching are Tampa and Atlanta.  Both have an excess of starting pitchers, most without options.  (Atlanta - Hudson, Hanson, Beachy, Jurrjens, Medlen, Minor and Maholm if they exercise his option.  Tampa has Price,  Hellisckson, Cobb, Archer, Niemann,  Moore, DAvis, Archer and Shields when they exercise his option.

     

    Both also need a catcher.   Lavarnway plus what and for who?   The Braves will hand over Jurrjens, and probably make Hanson available for some sort of deal.

     

    Matt Garza will also probably be on the table as well, but that depends on his elbow... 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    ...Pitcher is the real problem.  The big FA names all have issues.  Greinke will be the top target.  Peavy is too risky healthwise.  Haren may not see free agency.  Liriano showed signs, but has been all over the place the last few years.  The rest are worthless.

    Are Edwin Jackson & A Sanchez really that much more useless than Liriano?

     

    The trade market might be better.  Philly should deal Lee, given their roster and payroll.   And two teams worth watching are Tampa and Atlanta.  Both have an excess of starting pitchers, most without options.  (Atlanta - Hudson, Hanson, Beachy, Jurrjens, Medlen, Minor and Maholm if they exercise his option.  Tampa has Price,  Hellisckson, Cobb, Archer, Niemann,  Moore, DAvis, Archer and Shields when they exercise his option.

    I think TB would deal inside the division if we give them the best return. I think they look to deal Shields to cut salary, restock the farm, and give the kids a chance to shine.

    ATL is probably the most likely trade partner. 

    Ells for Lee & Cash makes some sense.

     

    Both also need a catcher.   Lavarnway plus what and for who?   The Braves will hand over Jurrjens, and probably make Hanson available for some sort of deal....

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ...Pitcher is the real problem.  The big FA names all have issues.  Greinke will be the top target.  Peavy is too risky healthwise.  Haren may not see free agency.  Liriano showed signs, but has been all over the place the last few years.  The rest are worthless.

    Are Edwin Jackson & A Sanchez really that much more useless than Liriano?

     

    The trade market might be better.  Philly should deal Lee, given their roster and payroll.   And two teams worth watching are Tampa and Atlanta.  Both have an excess of starting pitchers, most without options.  (Atlanta - Hudson, Hanson, Beachy, Jurrjens, Medlen, Minor and Maholm if they exercise his option.  Tampa has Price,  Hellisckson, Cobb, Archer, Niemann,  Moore, DAvis, Archer and Shields when they exercise his option.

    I think TB would deal inside the division if we give them the best return. I think they look to deal Shields to cut salary, restock the farm, and give the kids a chance to shine.

    ATL is probably the most likely trade partner. 

    Ells for Lee & Cash makes some sense.

     

    Both also need a catcher.   Lavarnway plus what and for who?   The Braves will hand over Jurrjens, and probably make Hanson available for some sort of deal....

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The chances of Tampa Bay trading James Shields to Boston are about the same as the Mariners trading Felix Hernandez to the Sox for a fungo bat....Seriously

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    I believe the Sox see JBJ as their FT starting CF in 2014, so a trade for a long term CF probably wont happen if this is true. So no BJ Upton, Bourn etc...

    More likely Ells, or if traded, a Torii Hunter type player. Bryce Brentz could also see time in 2013 as well. His performance in AFL was extremely good.

    I think Iggy will be the starting SS in 2013 and they will give him a good amount of rope to see if he can adjust to the pitching like he has done throughout the minors. He was starting to hit in AAA in August before being called up. His mechanics at the plate are good. He hit the ball hard a bunch of times but unfortunately right at someone. I have no issue with him at SS.

    A healthy Middlebrooks, Pedey, Ells (if not traded) with Papi and Ross (if both are signed) is a good amount of offense already. They will add another OF and a 1b as well, and that should add to the offensive numbers too.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    The chances of Tampa Bay trading James Shields to Boston are about the same as the Mariners trading Felix Hernandez to the Sox for a fungo bat....Seriously

    False. TB will gladly trade Shields to the Sox, if we give them what they think is more value than he has.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    I believe the Sox see JBJ as their FT starting CF in 2014, so a trade for a long term CF probably wont happen if this is true. So no BJ Upton, Bourn etc...

    More likely Ells, or if traded, a Torii Hunter type player. Bryce Brentz could also see time in 2013 as well. His performance in AFL was extremely good.

    They may sign a guy like Bourn, and then move him to RF when Bradley is ready...or trade him.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The chances of Tampa Bay trading James Shields to Boston are about the same as the Mariners trading Felix Hernandez to the Sox for a fungo bat....Seriously

    False. TB will gladly trade Shields to the Sox, if we give them what they think is more value than he has.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ummm...you're not getting it.  They would never trade Shields to Boston unless the deal was so ridiculously lopsided that they had no choice, which of course the Sox would NEVER do.  Therefore, there is ZERO chance, but keep coming up with "realistic" trade proposals that Tampa would accept if it makes you happy.  It's better than reading your ridiculous banter with that psycho softlaw. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The chances of Tampa Bay trading James Shields to Boston are about the same as the Mariners trading Felix Hernandez to the Sox for a fungo bat....Seriously

    False. TB will gladly trade Shields to the Sox, if we give them what they think is more value than he has.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ummm...you're not getting it.  They would never trade Shields to Boston unless the deal was so ridiculously lopsided that they had no choice, which of course the Sox would NEVER do.  Therefore, there is ZERO chance, but keep coming up with "realistic" trade proposals that Tampa would accept if it makes you happy.  It's better than reading your ridiculous banter with that psycho softlaw. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No, I get your point. I just don't agree. It's a bit condescending to assume that because someone doesn't agree with your "unquestionably righteous" position, they must not understand it, otherwise, if they had had half a brain, they'd have to agree with you.

    I undertsand the reluctance of any team to trade a good player to a division foe, but it is not unprecedented. I disagree that the deal would have to be "ridiculously lopsided" to get a deal done. I do think it will have to be a clearly better offer, but I look at the Shields case as a unique situation that makes a deal with Boston a little more reasonable than one might expect by looking at the surface. Here's why:

    1) I think it is extremely likely TB trades Shields this winter. He is owed $9M in 2013 (club option) and has a $12M club option in 2014. This is way out of their normal price range. Also, TB has several young starters ready to step in to take his place. Besides having Price, Hellickson, Niemann, Davis and Moore, they also have Cobb & Archer. TB has a rich history of dealing players away before their big payday.

    2) How many teams in MLB will take on $21M for 2 years? On top of that, how many will offer top prospects to get it? Yes, there are perhaps a dozen or so who would make an offer, but not 29 teams. This narrows the field of offers considerably.

    3) TB needs a catcher in a very bad way. We have  Lavarnway & Swihart, and can spare one without crippling our catching future. How many of the teams willing to take on Shields' contract have a top catching prospect let alone are willing to part with him? The state of MLB catching is so bad these days, that most teams hold onto a great catcher or catching prospect at all costs.

    4) TB often takes far away from the bigs prospects in a quantity over quality philosophy, and the Sox are loaded up younger prospects drafted in the early rounds over the past 3 years. I am not sure many teams that can afford Shields, want to strongly contend in the next 2 years are as deep as us. My guess is only 2-3 teams meet the criteria needed to get Shields from TB. Needing to out-offer only 2-3 teams makes the chances of it happening greater than one might expect.

     

    All this being said, I do not think we will trade for Shields. I think we will look for young starters under team control beyond 2014. Maybe something like Ellsbury, Aceves, Cecchini, Nava, and Britton for Tommy Hanson & Martin Prado.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The chances of Tampa Bay trading James Shields to Boston are about the same as the Mariners trading Felix Hernandez to the Sox for a fungo bat....Seriously

    False. TB will gladly trade Shields to the Sox, if we give them what they think is more value than he has.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ummm...you're not getting it.  They would never trade Shields to Boston unless the deal was so ridiculously lopsided that they had no choice, which of course the Sox would NEVER do.  Therefore, there is ZERO chance, but keep coming up with "realistic" trade proposals that Tampa would accept if it makes you happy.  It's better than reading your ridiculous banter with that psycho softlaw. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No, I get your point. I just don't agree. It's a bit condescending to assume that because someone doesn't agree with your "unquestionably righteous" position, they must not understand it, otherwise, if they had had half a brain, they'd have to agree with you.

    I undertsand the reluctance of any team to trade a good player to a division foe, but it is not unprecedented. I disagree that the deal would have to be "ridiculously lopsided" to get a deal done. I do think it will have to be a clearly better offer, but I look at the Shields case as a unique situation that makes a deal with Boston a little more reasonable than one might expect by looking at the surface. Here's why:

    1) I think it is extremely likely TB trades Shields this winter. He is owed $9M in 2013 (club option) and has a $12M club option in 2014. This is way out of their normal price range. Also, TB has several young starters ready to step in to take his place. Besides having Price, Hellickson, Niemann, Davis and Moore, they also have Cobb & Archer. TB has a rich history of dealing players away before their big payday.

    2) How many teams in MLB will take on $21M for 2 years? On top of that, how many will offer top prospects to get it? Yes, there are perhaps a dozen or so who would make an offer, but not 29 teams. This narrows the field of offers considerably.

    3) TB needs a catcher in a very bad way. We have  Lavarnway & Swihart, and can spare one without crippling our catching future. How many of the teams willing to take on Shields' contract have a top catching prospect let alone are willing to part with him? The state of MLB catching is so bad these days, that most teams hold onto a great catcher or catching prospect at all costs.

    4) TB often takes far away from the bigs prospects in a quantity over quality philosophy, and the Sox are loaded up younger prospects drafted in the early rounds over the past 3 years. I am not sure many teams that can afford Shields, want to strongly contend in the next 2 years are as deep as us. My guess is only 2-3 teams meet the criteria needed to get Shields from TB. Needing to out-offer only 2-3 teams makes the chances of it happening greater than one might expect.

     

    All this being said, I do not think we will trade for Shields. I think we will look for young starters under team control beyond 2014. Maybe something like Ellsbury, Aceves, Cecchini, Nava, and Britton for Tommy Hanson & Martin Prado.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I have a "self-righteous attitude," yet you continually post that "2013 is a bridge year," despite the fact that most of the intelligent posters on this board think that notion is ridiculous.  You can come up with as many "scenarios" as you want, but the fact remains that there is no way that Shields will end up in Boston.  Even Nick Cafardo, who gets paid to come up with "hypotheticals that make little sense," said in his column last week that there is obviously no way Tampa talks to Boston about Shields.  By the way, the Braves trade you propose is a joke if you are a Sox fan.  Stick to stats, you are great at breaking them down, ignore Law and get back to being a Sox fan....

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    I have a "self-righteous attitude," yet you continually post that "2013 is a bridge year," despite the fact that most of the intelligent posters on this board think that notion is ridiculous. 

    Have you done IQ tests on the posters who agree with you?

    I certainly am not the only poster, Sox fan, or objective baseball fan that thinks this team needs way too much of an overhaul this winter to become a serious contender. 

    Yes, we could compete with a few savvy moves and a confluence of great years from marginal or inconsistent players, but I'll put my money on better chances in 2014. 

    I will root just as hard for a Sox ring in 2013 as any other year, but I don't see us turning around a 5.19 starter ERA with a coaching hire and a couple of overpaid FA pitcher signings.

    You can come up with as many "scenarios" as you want, but the fact remains that there is no way that Shields will end up in Boston.  Even Nick Cafardo, who gets paid to come up with "hypotheticals that make little sense," said in his column last week that there is obviously no way Tampa talks to Boston about Shields. 

    Is Nick one of the intelligent people you are talking about? The fact that he has been wrong about almost everything he ever writes is actually evidence in my favor.

    Look, I said I do not think we will trade for Shields, but it is not as far-fetched as you make it out to be. By the way, have you seen how awful most TB players do after being traded? Perhaps dealing him to Boston would set us back a notch.

    By the way, the Braves trade you propose is a joke if you are a Sox fan.  Stick to stats, you are great at breaking them down, ignore Law and get back to being a Sox fan....

    Tommy Hanson is a very good gamble. I bet there are many Braves fans that think my offer is too weak.

    I'm a Sox fan that realizes we have a better shot at winning in 2014 than 2013I think we can build enough to "compete" in 2013, but realistically 2014 and beyond is a more attainable goal. 

    I see some merit in thinking that having Ellsbury for 2013 vs not in 2014 shows a better chance to win next year more than 2014, but I think the infusion of youth in 2014 and beyond will far outweigh jacoby's value in 2013. Elssbury, in my opinion, has way more value to a team that will seriously contend for a 2013 ring, and who also values the attached comp draft pick. They will overpay in good prospects to get Jacoby, and we will gain in longerterm value, or we can trade some longerterm valu eprospects  for a quality ML ready player under team control for 2014 and maybe 2015 as well.

    And yes, "you're not getting it" is condescending. I get your point. I'm not an idiot. It won't be easy to get Shields from TB, but I do think an offer such as this might be enough:

    Lava and Britton

    or

    Swihart and Owens

     

    plus

    Vinicio and Jacobs

    or 

    TW Lin and de la Cruz

     

    plus

    Gomez, Sands, or T Shaw

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I believe the Sox see JBJ as their FT starting CF in 2014, so a trade for a long term CF probably wont happen if this is true. So no BJ Upton, Bourn etc...

    More likely Ells, or if traded, a Torii Hunter type player. Bryce Brentz could also see time in 2013 as well. His performance in AFL was extremely good.

    They may sign a guy like Bourn, and then move him to RF when Bradley is ready...or trade him.

    [/QUOTE]


    Why sign Bourn to a long term deal just to trade him next year? What if Brentz is already in RF and is doing well? Dont say LF :) ....My whole point,Moon, was if they view JBJ as the CF, and Brentz has done very good as well, there is no point signing someone, especially a Boras client, to a long term deal. It would be more logical to sign a 1yr guy like Hunter than a commitment that Bourn would be seeking...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    They may sign a guy like Bourn, and then move him to RF when Bradley is ready...or trade him.

    [/QUOTE]


    Why sign Bourn to a long term deal just to trade him next year? What if Brentz is already in RF and is doing well? Dont say LF :) ....My whole point,Moon, was if they view JBJ as the CF, and Brentz has done very good as well, there is no point signing someone, especially a Boras client, to a long term deal. It would be more logical to sign a 1yr guy like Hunter than a commitment that Bourn would be seeking...

    1) Bourn could bring back value via trade.

    2) Bourn is insurance against Brentz not being all that good.

    3) I never said a longterm deal. I was thinking 2 years.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They may sign a guy like Bourn, and then move him to RF when Bradley is ready...or trade him.

    [/QUOTE]


    Why sign Bourn to a long term deal just to trade him next year? What if Brentz is already in RF and is doing well? Dont say LF :) ....My whole point,Moon, was if they view JBJ as the CF, and Brentz has done very good as well, there is no point signing someone, especially a Boras client, to a long term deal. It would be more logical to sign a 1yr guy like Hunter than a commitment that Bourn would be seeking...

    1) Bourn could bring back value via trade.

    2) Bourn is insurance against Brentz not being all that good.

    3) I never said a longterm deal. I was thinking 2 years.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ahhh...That brings me to the next question. Do you honestly think Bourn, at 30, would only sign for 2yrs when this is likely his "big contract"?  Dont get me wrong, If we could get Bourn for 2 yrs Id be all over it, I just dont think he would sign for only 2.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]False. TB will gladly trade Shields to the Sox, if we give them what they think is more value than he has.[/QUOTE]

    The Red Sox could offer the Rays more than James Shields is worth, but the Rays could still go with another team that makes an even better offer.


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 SS

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]False. TB will gladly trade Shields to the Sox, if we give them what they think is more value than he has.[/QUOTE]

    The Red Sox could offer the Rays more than James Shields is worth, but the Rays could still go with another team that makes an even better offer.


    [/QUOTE]

    Of course, but my point was taht we don't have to get "ridiculous" to outbid other teams and get the Rays to trade with us. 

    If the Rays get better value from us than another team, they will be better. They may also not fear us over the next 2 years like they have in the past.

     

Share