A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from iamme17. Show iamme17's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    This guy  Yoennis Cespedes would appear to maybe solve quite a few problems for us: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111107&content_id=25930334&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb&partnerId=rss_mlb And cost us no lost draft picks. Maybe we let Papi and Paps go for the 4 picks and we replace them with Darvish and Cespedes and keep all the picks! We are probably talking about not all that much more money and we get a lot younger.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom
    Not all that much money?Darvish could be about 100 million over posting fees and 5 years and cespedes could be chapman like 30 million.Not cheap at all.
     
  2. 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:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Not all that much money?Darvish could be about 100 million over posting fees and 5 years and cespedes could be chapman like 30 million.Not cheap at all.
    Posted by iamme17

    All that much MORE money than Papelbon and Ortiz ( when looked at on a year to
    year basis ).



















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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Here's another look at the FA pitchers on the market. (I may have missed if some of these guys signed or if arb was offered.)  I really don't think we will outbid anyone for CJ Wilson or Buehrle. I hope we don't overspend for these two. I think getting a top 3 slot pitcher via trade is the better route. I have mentioned several names and specific trade offers, but I think there are some good chances out there. I'd love to see us get Guthrie from Baltimore or Wandy Rodriguez from Houston. Guthrie will be a FA after 21012 and the Astros are looking to shed salary. There has been some discussion about Atlanta or SF maybe trading a pitcher to bolster their weak offenses, but it might take dealing Jacoby o make that a reality, and I'm not sure that is realistic (although I'd certainly look long and hard at getting Hanson from the Braves or Cain from SF for Ellsbury). I was suggesting maybe getting a 3rd team involved and maybe getting Jurrjens or a SF starter for Youk, Lowrie, Reddick, and Iggy (maybe more). My hope is we get a solid #1 to 3 type to be out 4th starter, and then maybe try to find a 5th starter by signing a few "projects" in hopes that one will do as well as Colon and Garcia did for the Yanks last year. I highlighted those types in Blue . Some could be offered minor league deals: others might take $1-2M to sign. If we can't get a good pitcher via trade and have to find one FA to sign, I don't like the choices here, but the "value deals" are highlighted in Green . Starting Pitchers Mark Buehrle CWS Bruce Chen KC Aaron Cook COL * Kyle Davies TOR Justin Duchscherer OAK Zach Duke ARI * Jeff Francis KC Freddy Garcia NYY Jon Garland LAD Aaron Harang SD Rich Harden OAK Livan Hernandez WAS Edwin Jackson STL Kenshin Kawakami ATL Scott Kazmir LAA Hiroki Kuroda LAD Rodrigo Lopez CHC Paul Maholm PIT John Maine COL Jason Marquis WAS Kevin Millwood NYY Scott Olsen PIT * Roy Oswalt PHI * Brad Penny DET Oliver Perez NYM Joel Pineiro LAA Carlos Silva NYY Javier Vazquez FLA Tim Wakefield BOS Brandon Webb ARI C.J. Wilson TEX Chris Young NYM There's certainly more relief pitchers I'd like to see o the Sox next year than starters... I'll discuss them more in a while... Relief Pitchers Danys Baez PHI Miguel Batista STL Heath Bell SD Blaine Boyer Jonathan Broxton LAD Shawn Camp TOR Matt Capps MIN Todd Coffey MIL Clay Condrey MIN Francisco Cordero CIN * Lance Cormier TB Juan Cruz TB Octavio Dotel STL * Randy Flores NYY Frank Francisco TOR Ryan Franklin STL Chad Gaudin WAS Mike Gonzalez TEX John Grabow CHC LaTroy Hawkins MIL Brad Lidge PHI * Scott Linebrink ATL Ryan Madson PHI Damaso Marte NYY * Sergio Mitre NYY Joe Nathan MIN * Hideki Okajima BOS Darren Oliver TEX Jonathan Papelbon BOS Joel Peralta TB Chad Qualls SD * Jon Rauch TOR * Chris Ray TEX Dennys Reyes BOS Arthur Rhodes TEX * Fernando Rodney LAA Francisco Rodriguez MIL George Sherrill ATL Rafael Soriano NYY (may opt out) Brian Tallet TOR Koji Uehara TEX * Tyler Walker WAS Kerry Wood CHC Jamey Wright SEA Michael Wuertz OAK Joel Zumaya DET
    Posted by moonslav59


    Moon,

    My take on starting pitching with Lackey returning in 2013 is that the Sox need to sign or aquire two legit 30 start/200 innings sub 4.5 era middle of the rotation pitchers for the 2012 season.  One of them being a longer term fit 3 to 4 year deal to replace Matsusaka and the other perhaps a 1 or 2 year filler type to bridge the gap to Lackey in 2013. to me one of the keys to success is to figure out how to get Doubront back to his 2010 form to serve as organizatinal depth..By aquiring two this offseason. It will also buy them time to see exactly what they have in Ranaundo and Barnes who both are projected to be in the mix by 2014...
     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Cannot we all see this team is already built to win, and that come July we can make any move our heart desires... we need not sign any of these lame B-Grade free-agents.  None of them. Burr, take the Bedard example: he was signed for $1M which is very cheap and was a good gamble. We ended up trading a very good OF prospect (that we got from LA) to get a guy we could have signed for $1.1M last winter. We know we will need pitching in July, so why not get it nopw and not have to overpay out of desperation when the cost rises?
    Posted by moonslav59


    This might sound odd, but the one advantage the Sox have on many teams this offseason as opposed to last is that they have two spots open and thus it won't be difficult to sign guys. Especially the guys that are on the fringe or coming back from injuries...they tend to sign with teams with a clear path to being in the opening day rotation. Last year entering the spring, the Sox had 5 solid  so the opening day rotation was pretty much set to open the year. The to-do was to find some organizational depth which is where Miller, Dubront, Millwood and Wakefield came in to play...That's 9 guys for 5 1/2 slots...It's easy in hindsight to suggest that the Sox should've been proactive last winter but the reality is that guys like Bedard and Garcia would never have signed on with us because they had zero chance of making the team out of spring based on the merits of their performance, unless someone went down with injury. End of the day there's 28 other teams that have needs and probably half of them need quality starting pitching...I would guess that any of the guys that are on the list of type B and below would junp at the chance to join the Sox if they were assured a punchers chance of making the opening day roster...

    Not to rehash the fall of 2011 but IMHO that had more todo with a lack of real time reaction than in foresight planning...
     
  6. 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:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Moon, My take on starting pitching with Lackey returning in 2013 is that the Sox need to sign or aquire two legit 30 start/200 innings sub 4.5 era middle of the rotation pitchers for the 2012 season.  One of them being a longer term fit 3 to 4 year deal to replace Matsusaka and the other perhaps a 1 or 2 year filler type to bridge the gap to Lackey in 2013. to me one of the keys to success is to figure out how to get Doubront back to his 2010 form to serve as organizatinal depth..By aquiring two this offseason. It will also buy them time to see exactly what they have in Ranaundo and Barnes who both are projected to be in the mix by 2014...
    Posted by Beantowne


    Not bad, but I prefer to get one sub 4.00 guy or maybe even 3.50, but not fron the FA list. Then, get a few "project" types on 1 year deals to battle it out for the 5 slot. This would give us depth as well and they'll be gone for 2013 and the arrival of a prospect or two.

    I shutter at the thought of getting two 4.50 guys for fear that they may be both over 5.00. It's one thing to have a 6th or 7th starter at 5.00 or more, but how many 4.50 guys are steady enough that you can count on them not having an off year? 

     
  7. 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:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : This might sound odd, but the one advantage the Sox have on many teams this offseason as opposed to last is that they have two spots open and thus it won't be difficult to sign guys. Especially the guys that are on the fringe or coming back from injuries...they tend to sign with teams with a clear path to being in the opening day rotation. Last year entering the spring, the Sox had 5 solid  so the opening day rotation was pretty much set to open the year. The to-do was to find some organizational depth which is where Miller, Dubront, Millwood and Wakefield came in to play...That's 9 guys for 5 1/2 slots...It's easy in hindsight to suggest that the Sox should've been proactive last winter but the reality is that guys like Bedard and Garcia would never have signed on with us because they had zero chance of making the team out of spring based on the merits of their performance, unless someone went down with injury. End of the day there's 28 other teams that have needs and probably half of them need quality starting pitching...I would guess that any of the guys that are on the list of type B and below would junp at the chance to join the Sox if they were assured a punchers chance of making the opening day roster... Not to rehash the fall of 2011 but IMHO that had more todo with a lack of real time reaction than in foresight planning...
    Posted by Beantowne


    I agree on all points here.

    It was hard to plan on our #3 and #4 guys being out almost all year, and then on top of that a brief injury to Beckett and Bedard and a mini slump by Lester at the most inopportune time.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Not bad, but I prefer to get one sub 4.00 guy or maybe even 3.50, but not fron the FA list. Then, get a few "project" types on 1 year deals to battle it out for the 5 slot. This would give us depth as well and they'll be gone for 2013 and the arrival of a prospect or two. I shutter at the thought of getting two 4.50 guys for fear that they may be both over 5.00. It's one thing to have a 6th or 7th starter at 5.00 or more, but how many 4.50 guys are steady enough that you can count on them not having an off year? 
    Posted by moonslav59


    My reference to 4.50 ERA is that it's the minimum threshold for a quality start...3 earned / 6 IP = 4.50 ERA...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I


    My father rarely came to any of the MANY ball games I played.

    But you know what?  I was playing for ME and not for him or anyone else.  So, I could have cared less if he was in the stands or not.  The most he was involved with baseball was when the old Colt-45's came to the house and wanted to sign me.  He asked if it would interfere with college.  They said "yes" and that was the end of my professional baseball career...*laugh*.

    Boomer, I think if a kid has the heart, he really doesn't need the love of his parents or anyone else as cheerleaders.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    My dad came to a few of my games, but sat in the stands grading papers, writing or reading something. My mom was more into it than he was.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    My parents hardly came to any of my stuff.  I think it was the "1950's" way.  As with your Dad Boom, mine grew up in the depression on a small farm in Maine.  They cut wood to stay warm and raised chickens and pigs, had a garden, etc.  That was the way.  Not much time for fun and games.  I don't think they had any traditions of attending games.  I don't pretend to know about your family, but growing up in the depression was pretty grim--I don't think it was a matter of not loving they learned but just surviving.  Those grim approaches carried over to their parenting.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from flag-waiver. Show flag-waiver's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I would consider trading Salty, but a year without catching Wakefield would probably raise his stock.  He seems to be a hard worker, and says and does all the right things - I think in another year or two he could be what Varitek was to this team at age 28.  While his arm isn't always accurate, it is strong - his 31% CS rate is better than Tek's at any point in his career. One thing that I don't understand is how he is a better left-handed hitter, when he's a natural righty.  I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.
    Posted by slomag

    People bat better from the other side because they have a better EYE from that side, as they see the ball coming at them. Eye strength has everything to do with it.
     
  13. 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:
    My father rarely came to any of the MANY ball games I played. But you know what?  I was playing for ME and not for him or anyone else.  So, I could have cared less if he was in the stands or not.  The most he was involved with baseball was when the old Colt-45's came to the house and wanted to sign me.  He asked if it would interfere with college.  They said "yes" and that was the end of my professional baseball career...*laugh*. Boomer, I think if a kid has the heart, he really doesn't need the love of his parents or anyone else as cheerleaders.
    Posted by ampoule

    My step-father came to far more games than my dad.... but my dad practiced with me a ton.  I always loved catching the ball more than hitting it... which is probably why I could not hit.

    Hockey was an equal passion of mine and I climbed hills to even learn to skate let alone play.  I did not start skating until I was 8, and most of the kids in pee-wee were skating since they were 4. 



     
  14. 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:
    My father rarely came to any of the MANY ball games I played. But you know what?  I was playing for ME and not for him or anyone else.  So, I could have cared less if he was in the stands or not.  The most he was involved with baseball was when the old Colt-45's came to the house and wanted to sign me.  He asked if it would interfere with college.  They said "yes" and that was the end of my professional baseball career...*laugh*. Boomer, I think if a kid has the heart, he really doesn't need the love of his parents or anyone else as cheerleaders.
    Posted by ampoule

    I agree that kids play because they want to but every time my dad did show up I was a nervous wreck trying to show him how good I was. The normal discussions of how did the game go afterward didn't even happen. It affected me and my brothers. Also, he wasn't there to look out for me as was exampled by my broken nose in little league. That went 2 years without any medical care. I'm not trying to bash my dad as most of his problems were just ignorance and selfishness but as dads we should make an attempt to be involved in our kids lives. There is no question about that IMO. 

    When my dad got parkinsons I found myself being the one who volunteered to take care of him. Dressing him every morning. Putting his teeth in, feeding him...etc. He was a terrible dad but that doesn't mean I didn't love him. He was just from a different era and ignorant of how to be a good father. He was pleasant to be around and friendly. He only hit me once and it was deserved when he did ( I didn't water or feed the cows one morning ). 

    Anyway, I got off on a tangent after something Burrito said but Dads should be involved in their kids lives. I'm glad most are now.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    FWIW a nasty little nugget from Heyman of SI:

    "People familiar with what went on in the Red Sox clubhouse say Francona tried to stem unrest among the players with a late team meeting but believe Francona may have erred by never confronting Josh Beckett one-on-one. Beckett was seen by other Red Sox players as among the more vocal detractors of Francona behind the scenes. Francona long was beloved in the clubhouse so this was a unusual situation for him."

     
  16. 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:
    My parents hardly came to any of my stuff.  I think it was the "1950's" way.  As with your Dad Boom, mine grew up in the depression on a small farm in Maine.  They cut wood to stay warm and raised chickens and pigs, had a garden, etc.  That was the way.  Not much time for fun and games.  I don't think they had any traditions of attending games.  I don't pretend to know about your family, but growing up in the depression was pretty grim--I don't think it was a matter of not loving they learned but just surviving.  Those grim approaches carried over to their parenting.
    Posted by Critter23

    I think you are absolutely right Critter. Dad's generally had 40 hour weeks though. What I would have given for a 40 hour week as a young dad. I absolutely agree with your post but there was still no excuse for it. No one expected them to be more involved though. It would have been an anomoly given how their fathers raised them.

    That scene in that horse move where the parents give away the child when he becomes a jockey because they couldn't afford to feed him comes to mind. It wasn't that bad for him I don't think but life was hard. I think it was more of a 50s thing. That show "madmen" might have some insight on that era. It was all about chasing women whether they were married on not. They were not expected to be involved in the kids.
     
  17. 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:
    FWIW a nasty little nugget from Heyman of SI: "People familiar with what went on in the Red Sox clubhouse say Francona tried to stem unrest among the players with a late team meeting but believe Francona may have erred by never confronting Josh Beckett one-on-one. Beckett was seen by other Red Sox players as among the more vocal detractors of Francona behind the scenes. Francona long was beloved in the clubhouse so this was a unusual situation for him."
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut


    To all the posters who complained about no team meetings being held, I said it then, how do we know if one was held in secret or not? How do we know if Tito, VTek, or other fveterenas tried to do something or not?

    ... we don't know for sure. We may never know.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I see us facing the same old self-set trap again, rather than go with a rookie the brass may very well decide it needs to sign a FA for RF. Sign someone just for the sake of signing someone, not because it makes sense.  This team has so much power monetary-wise and offensively that we should be able to hold tight until July - then target a big name who is headed for FA in 2012-13, and only if our young players have not performed.


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The Madsen deal probably signals Paps departure from Boston if the historic approach of caution with signing our own FA results. The 4 years with an option for a 5th at $$$ Madsen got have set a very high comp for Papelbon when we consider they are the same age and Papelbon has the deeper resume.

    While I happen to think that this was in the RS longer term plans to see Papelbon walk when FA hit, things haven't gone according to that plan. I certainly think they had hoped that they had seen a more consistent year from Bard, that the bullpen had more depth beyond Bard and Aceves, that the stating rotation had not lost 2 starters for 2012.

    That and a number of other game changers to the "long term plans" like projected development in the minors not happening are going to make this a long off season of what will underwhelming signings and trades that only time will tell if they work. Just don't see any big splashes here.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    FA talent is obviously going through an inflationary spurt. The Phillies offering Madsen that much is ridiculous. Plus the 4 years. Will the Redsox go there, a 4 year type deal at a high dollar amount? Papelbon has such fan appeal and he has performed in this tough market. He is the top closer available. He's going to cost some cash.
     
  21. 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:
    The Madsen deal probably signals Paps departure from Boston if the historic approach of caution with signing our own FA results. The 4 years with an option for a 5th at $$$ Madsen got have set a very high comp for Papelbon when we consider they are the same age and Papelbon has the deeper resume. While I happen to think that this was in the RS longer term plans to see Papelbon walk when FA hit, things haven't gone according to that plan. I certainly think they had hoped that they had seen a more consistent year from Bard, that the bullpen had more depth beyond Bard and Aceves, that the stating rotation had not lost 2 starters for 2012. That and a number of other game changers to the "long term plans" like projected development in the minors not happening are going to make this a long off season of what will underwhelming signings and trades that only time will tell if they work. Just don't see any big splashes here.
    Posted by fivekatz

    I just don't see the Sox offering Paps $56M/4. Even $52M/4 is a long contract. I had projected he'd get about $48M/4, but that looks low now. I'm not sure any closer, except Mo in his prime is worth more than $48M/4. 

    I hate to keep beating a dead horse here, but last winter I mentioned how the Crawford signing would "cripple us" for years to come. Well, we may lose Paps over maybe $1-2M a year x 4 and Papi for about $1-2M x 3. That's maybe $10M total. There's still about $110M to go!

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Saw this morning the RS are sniffing around Beltran.  This is only my IMPRESSION but I'm not sure I like that idea.  He played for the Giants at the end of this year and I think he was a little streaky, a little injured, and a little cocky at the end of the year..."I won't come back unless this happens and that happens, etc."  I'm not sure we can afford him.  I wish some of our young outfielders were right handed hitters.  Maybe we could trade one of our lefties for someone's rightie...
     
  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:
    Saw this morning the RS are sniffing around Beltran.  This is only my IMPRESSION but I'm not sure I like that idea.  He played for the Giants at the end of this year and I think he was a little streaky, a little injured, and a little cocky at the end of the year..."I won't come back unless this happens and that happens, etc."  I'm not sure we can afford him.  I wish some of our young outfielders were right handed hitters.  Maybe we could trade one of our lefties for someone's rightie...
    Posted by Critter23

    I still think the best option is to find a cheap platoon player that does very well ve LHPs (like Cody Ross), and use the "saved" money to trade for a pitcher with a salary that is straining a low-budget team. I feel pretty good about one of our lefty OF prospects doing well next year (by well, I mean .789-.820 OPS vs RHPs and good fielding).

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The 4th year is going to be the pain point IMO and Madsen getting 4 certainly breaks the 3 year ceiling that has been in place for a couple of years for relievers. Of course typical of any Heyman story about a  Boras client. Word today is that a deal isn't done and Papelbon is still in the mix for Philly.

    Signing a closer long term is full of peril but so is not having a real steady one.

    Yes Moon the Crawford deal is a hamstring which certainly is magnified by how bad his 2011 was. The "hope" has to be that he returns to career norms at this point and that is still a lot of money tied up in a corner IF. That wasn't who the RS thought they were signing IMO.

    In this particular case I don't know if it would have made much of a difference regarding Papelbon. While Cherington is a different guy than Epstein I think the over riding philosophy was and probably is to have great reluctance to the size and length contract that the market suggests Papelbon will earn for a closer. If there were more headroom in the budget would that have changed given the circumstances the RS find themselves in?  Could have but I think they'd have to swallow really hard before they did  something close to a $60M deal with a closer.

    Any irrationality the RS have shown in terms of large contracts in recent years has been with other folks FA's and not their own.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I agree with you Moon on the right field solution.  I think Beltran will want big money.  And I do agree our left handers would be fine out there.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share