A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Our compensation picks have actually been pretty good picks. remember, several good players drop in the draft due to unsignability factors for poorer teams.

    We got...

    Ellsbury & Lowrie for losing Cabrera
    Hanson (helped get us JBay) & Bowden for losing Lowe
    Buchholtz for losing Pedro
    Bard for losing Damon
    Hagadone for losing Gonzo Vitek, Brentz, Ranaudo, and Workman for losing JBay and Wagner.
    Barnes, Swihart, Owens, and Bradley this year for losing VMart & Beltre
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I think that Ellsbury will likely continue to produce, but I think it's likely when we look back on his career, this will be among his top 2 or 3 best seasons.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]
    I suspect Jacoby Ellsbury has more productive seasons, but I doubt he'll ever again approach the 9.4 WAR* he posted this year.

    * Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Hill I know I have brought this up before and I am not being critical, just asking.  You are about as unbiased as they come, but I detect a slight anti-Ells bias.  Am I wrong?

    On Ellsbury, I highly doubt a deal that helps both clubs can be ironed out. Below is a snip from an article on trading Votto, which I think mirrors/informs this debate some (maybe to the Rays!! no chance) Read the comments too for the Rays stuff.

     http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/trading-joey-votto/
    "I will simply note four conditions that an appropriate trade partner for the Reds on Votto probably needs to meet:
     1) the team getting Votto needs to believe they can contend in 2012 and/or 2013 (after which Votto will be a premier free agent);
     2) the team needs to have an open spot at first base or the ability to make space there (this is a bit tougher than just bumping a number five starter out of the rotation);
    3) the team needs to have very good prospects and/or good players signed to team-friendly contracts that they are willing to move and that they can contend without in 2012 and 2013;
    4) the team needs to have space on their projected 2013 payroll for Votto’s $17 million contract"

    "The article focuses on the Cliff Lee trade as somewhat of a comparison, where the Mariners got essentially an elite prospect – top 10 in all of baseball – and some extra, somewhat useful but lightly valuable players.

    The Roy Halladay and Adrian Gonzalez deals of the past two offseasons are comparable as well, where it was a package of 3 very good prospects, arguably all top-100 prospects, but no “elite” ones (at the time of the trade).

    Of course, Votto comes with an extra year of control than any of those three did, but expecting 6 top-100 prospects is going to be pretty much impossible for any team to meet, even if one were willing."

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Our compensation picks have actually been pretty good picks. remember, several good players drop in the draft due to unsignability factors for poorer teams. We got... Ellsbury & Lowrie for losing Cabrera Hanson (helped get us JBay) & Bowden for losing Lowe Buchholtz for losing Pedro Bard for losing Damon Hagadone for losing Gonzo Vitek, Brentz, Ranaudo, and Workman for losing JBay and Wagner. Barnes, Swihart, Owens, and Bradley this year for losing VMart & Beltre
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    That's a good list of our successes and potential successes, but there are plenty of Ryan Dent, Kristopher Johnson, Caleb Clay, Abe Alvarez, Rick Asadoorian types who never make an impact.  Really of your list, only Bard, Ellsbury and Buchholz have been proven, positive factors.  Even Lowrie, despite his abilities, is a net nuetral player at best, given his injuries and defensive liabilities.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Slo, I like your rationale, but I'm in Moon's camp: I would like to see the actual trade before approving.  Also, CC left such a bad taste this year, I have trouble imagining him being better than Ells in the future.  I sincerely hope so but...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]The reason is not so much that we don't think he will continue to produce for 2 more years 9at least I think he will), but rather we ONLY have 2 more years of control, then maybe 2 draft picks. Trading him now, might net 2+ players with 5 years of controlabilty each. I'm not for trading just for the sake of dumping him while his stock is high. I want to see the deal before I say yes or no.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I can't remember the Sox doing that sort of deal in the modern era. They usually trade FOR top players just coming into their prime. The chances of this happening are next to nil.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I suspect Jacoby Ellsbury has more productive seasons, but I doubt he'll ever again approach the 9.4 WAR* he posted this year. * Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs
    Posted by hill55[/QUOTE]

    I don't think he tops it but he may well approach it several times again or more. There is no reason to think that Ellsbury is not for real. If anything, he has steadily improved almost month to month during his career, except for last year's injury year. His trajectory has been a near constant upward path since his rookie year short season sample.

    Who knows, he might keep getting better for a while!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I'm not saying give up on 2012 - 2013.  I actually see a lot of options out there for replacing Ellsbury, not the least of which is Grady Sizemore, who I think has about a 25% chance of having a better season than Ells in 2012 (50/50 if both are fully healthy).  We could also sign Beltran to a one-year deal, so we're not committing money that could be used for a 2012 FA pitcher, but have a serviceable CF in the meantime.  There's also a chance that both Kalish and Reddick could prove ready for full-time duties next year.  Ultimately, though, we could put Darnell McDonald out there and offense would not be a problem for this team.   Draft picks are important, but remember, we're never going to get a top 15 pick, no matter how many of our FAs walk, so the chance for that particular compensation pick to actually become an impact player is not high, and would not happen for several years.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    slomag - Grady Sizemore has been injured and has underproduced the last 3 years, not one year, but 3!  He has averaged a K every 4 At bats throughout his career. He had four good years, but ever since steroid testing started, he's done nothing.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : slomag - Grady Sizemore has been injured and has underproduced the last 3 years, not one year, but 3!  He has averaged a K every 4 At bats throughout his career. He had four good years, but ever since steroid testing started, he's done nothing.
    Posted by ADG[/QUOTE]

    Sizemore has never been a slugger exactly - I don't think there is any reason to connect him to steroids, and testing started in 2006, which was a terrific year for him, followed by an even better 2007 and very solid 2008.  Injuries cut short his '09, and robbed him of most of '10 and '11, but Ellsbury hasn't exactly been an iron-man himself prior to this year.  Most importantly, though the Ks are high with Sizemore, the career OBP is 90 points higher than his BA.  As a table-setter, that means a .260 BA is the equivalent of a .300 for Ellsbury.  



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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    That's a good list of our successes and potential successes, but there are plenty of Ryan Dent, Kristopher Johnson, Caleb Clay, Abe Alvarez, Rick Asadoorian types who never make an impact.  Really of your list, only Bard, Ellsbury and Buchholz have been proven, positive factors.  Even Lowrie, despite his abilities, is a net nuetral player at best, given his injuries and defensive liabilities.

    True, but remember that hanson helped get us JBay, and Hagadone helped us get VMart, and then both of them got us a fresh set of kids as of yet not known if they will help or not. I'd say we have a close to 25-30 % rate of very good success and 25-30% pretty good success with our comp picks. In theory, it might mean we get one good player that helps for losing Ellsbury to free agencey after 2013.

    The longer we hold him, the less we get for him.

    The 2 years we get from him could be some awesome years that bring us a ring or two and that have great value to this club. It's a tough decision to make. I'm always open to listen to offers, but I don't think we should just deal him for the best offer we can get, unless we think the return is worth it. I do like the idea of getting 2-3 good guys under team control for 3-5 years over keeping one guy for 2 years and just getting a couple comp picks.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I can't remember the Sox doing that sort of deal in the modern era. They usually trade FOR top players just coming into their prime. The chances of this happening are next to nil.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    You are right, but when's the last time we had a player that is entering his prime and we havn't locked him up in an extension, like Youk, Pedey, Lester, Buch... (usually that went beyondwhat would have been their 1st FA year).

    Having BorA$$ for an agent pretty much means he won't extend. Knowing our philosophy on offering our own FA's to be an amount that is not top market price and losing them (to gain picks), I'd say for the first time I can remember, we have a player that we probably can't (or won't) keep. That's what makes the Ellsbury case so different from others.

    You can't compare it to the Manny case, because there was more to dealing Manny than just the fact that we knew we were going to lose him after the season was over, and because Theo had already tried to unload him before.

    I doubt Theo seriously looks into trading Jacoby, but I would like to see what teams would offer. We have a lot of holes to fill. 

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]That's a good list of our successes and potential successes, but there are plenty of Ryan Dent, Kristopher Johnson, Caleb Clay, Abe Alvarez, Rick Asadoorian types who never make an impact.  Really of your list, only Bard, Ellsbury and Buchholz have been proven, positive factors.  Even Lowrie, despite his abilities, is a net nuetral player at best, given his injuries and defensive liabilities. True, but remember that hanson helped get us JBay, and Hagadone helped us get VMart, and then both of them got us a fresh set of kids as of yet not known if they will help or not. I'd say we have a close to 25-30 % rate of very good success and 25-30% pretty good success with our comp picks. In theory, it might mean we get one good player that helps for losing Ellsbury to free agencey after 2013. The longer we hold him, the less we get for him. The 2 years we get from him could be some awesome years that bring us a ring or two and that have great value to this club. It's a tough decision to make. I'm always open to listen to offers, but I don't think we should just deal him for the best offer we can get, unless we think the return is worth it. I do like the idea of getting 2-3 good guys under team control for 3-5 years over keeping one guy for 2 years and just getting a couple comp picks.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    OK, let's play out some hypotheticals - which of these (if any) do you pull the trigger on.  Also, which do you think are unrealistic returns for Ellsbury?

    1) SF offers Cain & Romo (I can only see this happening if Sabathia signs with SF in the off-season)

    2) ATL offers Venters and Teheran

    3) CWS offers Sale and Viciedo

    4) LAA offers Walden & Trout


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    OK, let's play out some hypotheticals - which of these (if any) do you pull the trigger on.  Also, which do you think are unrealistic returns for Ellsbury?

    1) SF offers Cain & Romo (I can only see this happening if Sabathia signs with SF in the off-season)

    Close, but no. 2 years of Jacoby for 1 year of Cain and 3 years of Romo is not quite enough.
    Cain is 27 and I feel he is the real deal. I'd love to have him here, but he'll make $15M in 2012 and the will be a FA. 
    Romo has 3 arb years left after making $450K this year.

    Maybe Ellsbury, Lowrie, Kalish, Weiland and Ranaudo for Cain, Romo and Bumgarner

    2) ATL offers Venters and Teheran

    No.
    I'd rather give Ellsbury, Reddick and Lowrie for Tommy Hanson (3 or 4 arbs left) or Jair Jurrjens (2 arbs left), O'Flaherty (LHP relief with 2 arbs left) and Teheran.

    3) CWS offers Sale and Viciedo

    No. Maybe this...  Ellsbury, Lackey, Reddick and Lowrie for Alexei Ramirez  
    12:$5M, 13:$7M, 14:$9.5M, 15:$10M, 16:$10M club option ($1M buyout)
     and Jesse Crain ($9M/2) and Chris Sale (4-5 years of team control and arbs)

    4) LAA offers Walden & Trout
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I can't comment on the trades above as I do not know the players that well.  But living in the San Fran market, I will say this:  SF will never go for Sabathia, first because they will not put that much money into a pitcher and second, because they tried that once before, Zito, and got burned big time.  Finally, they have a lot of talent coming and don't really need starting pitching.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    SF does have a ton of talent in the minor leagues.  Their "A" team, San Jose Giants, has been in on the league championships two years in a row with lots of all star representation at that level.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Yes, Crit, the idea is to help boost their bad offense and get some of their arms in return.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon:  I just think we both view the statement "played like losers" differently.

    Yes, we do. It's a matter of terminology.


    I do think cellar-dwellers play like losers, and it's not "blaming" them for anything, if they were indeed the worst team on paper that year. Again, it doesn't matter to me if they were the worst team on paper or failed to meet expectations, if you lose 20 out of 27, you played like losers. It doesn't mean they didn't give it their all and do the best they could and got the expected result or not.

    To me, giving one's all is not playing like a loser. Some teams simply don't have the pitching or the hitting or the defense or the FO to succeed.

    The sticking point goes beyond the definition.



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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    moon, fivekatz, harness - you can see the board the last two weeks has been filled with we "should sign CJ Wislon," which is typical. Curious what you 3 think, though I need to skim through this thread maybe you have already made statements on it.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I got a headache trying to just read it.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    If that writing style is what passes for accpetable in today's i-pad world I am very concerned.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    If we get a great return back for Ellsbury than fine, but if it is not in our interest to keep him with 2 years left, with our OF situation, why would anyone else want him more? We have the need and the cash. He's probably staying in Boston until FA IMO. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I believe they know full well already if they are going to pay to keep Elles. I can see him here for 2012 though, I think the entire baseball world will want to see if he can repeat or come close to 2011. Its his most important year imo.

    Depending on 2012, should the Sox not plan to offer him an accpetable contract you will see him traded that winter or by the all*star break. If that happens he will be moved in an old-school trade where we actually get something significant back, someone already proven.

    What about Furcal guys? Can we use him at SS for the next year? I think his injuries may force him to take a short term deal with incentives.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    My whole point is that the "expectation" part doesn't matter anyways,

    Exactly. Expectation is not relevant.


    and besides that all September you and I believed we were better and would win enough to make the playoffs,

    It doesn't matter what we expected. Only what happened.


    so we failed to meet your expectations and mine.

    Yup.



    Now, in hindsight, you are acting like you knew all along we were not good enough to win 2 more games.

    Knowing what I know now, the team would be hard-pressed to have won more than they did. Ya can't give up 6 or more runs in 19 of 27 games and think otherwise.


    Even though you refuse to answer the question I have asked 2 or 3 times (did we play like winners in Sept or not?),

    I didn't refuse to answer it. Here's the statement:

    I originally took issue with "We played like losers" label. I don't like labels.
    Did we play like winners? No. I don't like labels on either side.


    I'd bet we'd win more than 7 games in Sept even if we had this for a starting 5:
    Wake
    Lackey
    Weiland
    Miller
    Wally

    I wouldn't.


    As for the 6-7 runs question, of course in hindsight, I'd say  we wouldn't win much letting up 6-7 or more runs, but that is hindsight. Playing like losers includes letting up 6-7 runs in many games;


    Of course it's hindsight. All that matters is what happened, not what we thought was gonna happen.


    it also includes losing those 1-0, 4-3 , 5-4, 4-2, 6-5 and 4-3 games.

    Yes, teams will lose one-run games. It's what made the month even harder to take.


    You don't think the worst team in baseball plays like losers if they are expected to play like that.

    As I said, I don't like lables. But I do think Boston fielded the worst team overall. And that is why they lost. What we perceived them to be is why we toss away our losing tickets.
    This is winter protocol for me. Whether I learn from it and prosper depends on how I accept it. If I label a horse a loser, I don't mess with it anymore. I cut the string. Take my losses. 

    I can't tell you how many times I'd wished I hadn't. That same horse burns me in future races to the point where I can't even play the damn race he/she's in anymore..

     Let's move on...

    Nothing more to cover or say, really. Forgive my horse analogies. I'm obviously getting into giddy horse mode.








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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]moon , fivekatz , harness - you can see the board the last two weeks has been filled with we "should sign CJ Wislon," which is typical. Curious what you 3 think, though I need to skim through this thread maybe you have already made statements on it.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    I like CJ. He doesn't have a lot of wear and tear on his arm for his age. However, his price tag will be very very high, and the chance of another Lackey is scary. I think someone will outbid us.  I'd offer him about Lackey money ($83M/5 with a 6th year club option $10M with $2M buyout). Don't quote me on this. I haven't really researched this issue that much yet. I may change my mind after seeing other options.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    As I said, I don't like lables.

    One last statement. I didn't "label" them "losers". I just said they PLAYED like losers (for about 20 games in Sept.). I never meant to imply they were losers. I still respect and love this team.

    Nothing more to cover or say, really. Forgive my horse analogies. I'm obviously getting into giddy horse mode.

    When are you cutting out of here to dedicate yourself to the horses?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]As I said, I don't like lables. One last statement. I didn't "label" them "losers". I just said they PLAYED like losers (for about 20 games in Sept.). I never meant to imply they were losers. I still respect and love this team. Nothing more to cover or say, really. Forgive my horse analogies. I'm obviously getting into giddy horse mode. When are you cutting out of here to dedicate yourself to the horses?
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Is this a wish? Or a request?  Foot in mouth


    The end of the month.


    I realize what you weren't implying, Moon.
    I just don't like using that term in association with the club....in any way.
    The collapse is tough enough - and sticking around to hear posters like
    AndrewBitch gloat makes it all the more so.
     

Share