A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I never bought into all that clubhouse cancer talk, and besides beer in the clubhouse is abaseball tradition.

    His attitude was horrible and some of his bad habits on the mound rubbed off on Lester and even Doubie.

     


    I seriously doubt that Lester and Doubie were adversly effected by Josh and others having some beers in the clubhouse.

     

     

    There is no evidence to say Sanchez would or would not have accepted $83M/5 from us. Also, trading prospects for solid starters got us Pedro, Schill, and Beckett and 2 rings. Never say never, but I do realize any trade would have been a gamble. (I still wish we had traded for Gio G last winter.)


    Sanchez was offered more by another team and still chose Detroit. If the Sox offered closer to 100M then maybe hed consider. But have to remember, the Tigers owners also have deep pockets too and you have to ask yourself if Sanchez was worth 80M, never mind the close to 100M it probably wouldve taken to even get him to listen.

     


    1) This is all heresay.

    2) I have said that I know we might not have gotten Sanchez, but that what bothers me most is that we seem to have not even tried very hard. If we had offered him $95M/6, and then Detroit countered with $100M/6, I wouldn't be here right now being so critical.

    3) I saw no evidence to show that Ben really tried hard to get an ace-type starter. He may have tried, and we never heard of it, so I am not blasting Ben like many here are. I am just giving my opinion on what plans I think were better than what plan we ended up with.

     

     

    A plan of mediocrity (IMO) is not "a plan".

    Its more than a 1 year plan Moon and Id hardly call this lineup mediocre. Once again, it wasnt a strong FA class and BC wasnt going to trade the farm for guys like Upton. Teams are locking up their own talent through their arb years and buying out some FA years as well more and more these days. The days of getting top FA in their prime are becoming far and few between. Developing our own talent is the way to go IMO.'

     


    I guess you can call Shane Victorino a 3 year plan, but I really don't see him as being much better than mediocre in 2014 & 2015. I realize that keeping the kids is part of the plan, and I don't necessarily disagree with that part of the plan.

    There were some younger Free Agents available, and yes, a guy like B McCarthy was a serious risk having not pitched 200+ innings, but he was young and relatively cheap. I know the talk was that he wanted to stay out west, but I have to believe $23-25M/3 would have brought him to Boston. He might have been a bust, but at least it would have been an attempt to have players that are on the upswing going into 2014/2015 than clinging to the last years of their prime at best (and not that great to begin with).

    As I said, my top plan was to build for the future not to go all out this year. I'd have been fine with not trading any prospects to work towards that goal, unless we could get a great young player with many years of control in return (I'm not talking Upton here), but this plan only makes sense if the rest of the plan matches up with it, namely the signing of over $50M worth of contracts for 2013 alone. I'm sorry, but I just don't see any of our signings as helping us that much in 2014, let alone 2015. The only argument I have heard is that they will all be gone when the kids are ready. That's not a "plan for the future". I've also heard hints that these guys aren't good enough to block any of our kids. I know you have not said this, but I have heard hints at this idea.

    $53+M could have got us something of value going forward.

    We do have a nice offensive team this year. I have never said otherwise. I never hinted that our offense was mediocre, but I will say that I liked our offense on paper last January more than this one, so I'm not all gah gah today. I still think we are a solid 3/4 profile away from being an elite offense, but the real fact remains is that we will need an elite offense to even have a chance at advancing to a ring due to our starting rotation issues. 

    We did not fill our two biggest needs, but we spent over $50M this year. I can't say it any simpler than that. We kept the kids, and I'm happy for that at least. But, to me, that's the only thing this winter that resembles a "plan for the future". Short term contracts will have to be replaced with more short term contracts. I wouldn't call that "plan for the future".




    We agree more than it appears Moon. I think we need another top of the rotation starter and a middle of the order bat as well. These signings are going to keep the team competitive until a player who is more of a "sure thing" becomes a FA or one of our "kids" (Bogy?) fill the MOTO bat and one (Barnes/RDLR/Webster?) fills the TOTR  spot.

    I believe BC checked in on every available FA and a lot of trade proposals as well. We all heard the Sox name involved with just about every FA this year. Also read where BC fielded a lot of calls wanting Bogy in a trade, which he refused. Of course we cant be positive exactly what they did, but with what we do know I think its safe to assume he checked in on all the names you mentioned and then some.

    Oh, and I never mentioned the beer drinking being something that rubbed off on Lester and Doubie. I could care less about that, as drinking beer goes on in just about every clubhouse. That whole thing was way overblown by the media IMO.

    I was referring to Lester slowing things down a lot on the mound and challenging the umps amongst other things. Lester usually worked at a much quicker pace and never challenged the umpires. Doubie started challenging them too. Lester was picking up all Becketts bad habits. Lesters attitude was even resembling Beckett last year.

    Buch and lester are very capable of 18 wins each. at 28 and 29 they are in their early prime and hardly in decline like some think. Farrell is going to have a very positive impact on this pitching staff. This year is going to be a big one for Lester in deciding whether they pick up the option, extend him, or allow him to hit FA.

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    The view of FOX Sports columnist Jon Paul Morosi:

    http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/2012-american-league-worst-teams-striving-to-improve-this-offseason-blue-jays-red-sox-royals-indians-mariners-twins-011813

    Scroll down.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    We agree more than it appears Moon.

    I know, but it seems like human nature to only discuss the fine points of disagreement.

    I think we need another top of the rotation starter and a middle of the order bat as well. These signings are going to keep the team competitive until a player who is more of a "sure thing" becomes a FA or one of our "kids" (Bogy?) fill the MOTO bat and one (Barnes/RDLR/Webster?) fills the TOTR  spot.

     

    $53+M is a lot to spend on carry-over or bridge players.

    I believe BC checked in on every available FA and a lot of trade proposals as well. We all heard the Sox name involved with just about every FA this year. Also read where BC fielded a lot of calls wanting Bogy in a trade, which he refused. Of course we cant be positive exactly what they did, but with what we do know I think its safe to assume he checked in on all the names you mentioned and then some.

    Yes, I agree that he checked on Sanchez and Hamilton, thought the price was too high, and moved on. I'm not sure he offered anything to those two, which I would have rather him done than spend on bridge players. I did not hear much on McCarthy or Marcum. I never heard of any interest shown in B Anderson, but we'll never know if he kicked the tires or not. This is one reason, I am trying not to judge Ben yet. I know we don't know everything that happened, and Ben deserves a chance to see how his moves pan out.

    Oh, and I never mentioned the beer drinking being something that rubbed off on Lester and Doubie. I could care less about that, as drinking beer goes on in just about every clubhouse. That whole thing was way overblown by the media IMO.

    I was referring to Lester slowing things down a lot on the mound and challenging the umps amongst other things. Lester usually worked at a much quicker pace and never challenged the umpires. Doubie started challenging them too. Lester was picking up all Becketts bad habits. Lesters attitude was even resembling Beckett last year.

    Could be, but we don't know if it was Beckett who caused the changes. Besides, I don't see Beckett complaining about pitches as much as Lester has recently.

    Buch and lester are very capable of 18 wins each. at 28 and 29 they are in their early prime and hardly in decline like some think. Farrell is going to have a very positive impact on this pitching staff. This year is going to be a big one for Lester in deciding whether they pick up the option, extend him, or allow him to hit FA.

    There certainly is potential in this staff. The upside is that both Lester and Buch can both pitch like aces or top 2nd slot starters. However, there are many teams that can say that. Dempster could do fine, and Doubront could improve on his 1.40+ WHIP. Lackey could surprise as well.

    My point has been that for several years now, most of us have seen this potential and wished and hoped it would all come together at the same time, or at least enough of it to bring us another ring. To me, we were wishing against the odds all these years, and I am tired of trying to convince myself that the next year will be any different, when no serious move has been made to address the starting rotation since the Lackey signing. I think that failed signing, along with CC's, has caused a bit of over-cautiousness.

    As I have said, I thought this was a weak FA class, and my top plan was not to sign Greinke, Sanchez or Hamilton, but I did expect us to try and make some signings that would really help us in 2014, 2015 and maybe beyond. I'd have even preferred not signing some of these guys or anyone else in order to save the money for a bigger push next year, when the market looks to be a little better, and some of our prospects may be stepping up by then. I also think we have a deep farm, which is a nice thing, but we could use a few more top prospects. 

    I know you disagree with the philosophy to trade off some of our chances for 2013 to improve 2014, but to me that would have been the best strategy. Getting one big named player who is under team control for 3 or more years would have kept the fans happy, and getting some prospects via trades would have added excitement as well.

    We could have gotten some nice prospects for Ellsbury, Salty, Breslow, and maybe even Myers for Lester, and more prospects for Miller, Bailey and other who will be gone by 2015. I know that seems radical, but I really think the fans would have understood. Afterall, I think most liked the Dodger trade and that was more radical than my plan. We didn't need to do all of what I suggested, but we really didn't do anything resembling any of this. Not one. Had we made moves to get more prospects and then signed teh bridge players we did and maybe aqa couple more, then I'd see some positive direction, but instead we have played it down the middle: not improving enough to win it all this year, and not improving at all for the future. We stayed the same, unless we want to count losing Sands and Pimental as a slight decline in prospects.

    Not trading prospects does not improve our future: it just kept it the same. With all the money spent, and players that will be walking next year garnering us nothing but maybe one draft pick (for Ells), IMO, we missed the boats this winter.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to hill55's comment:



    The biggest concern remains the rotation. Newly signedRyan Dempster doesn’t exactly have a robust track record in the American League, and returning starters Jon LesterClay Buchholz and Felix Doubront must improve upon ERAs of 4.82, 4.56 and 4.86, respectively.

    As it stands today, the Red Sox have no better than a mediocre starting rotation when compared with the rest of the league. And mediocre starting rotations tend to produce mediocre seasons.

     

    It's clear to everyone what we needed. We spent over $53M on this year's salries alone, but did not fill our biggest need (1/2 slot starter) or our second biggest need (legitimate and reliable 3/4 slot hitter).

    That really is the bottom line, and all the rest is fluff.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Brandon McCarthy:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4662&position=P

    Ryan Dempster:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=517&position=P

    Look at the overall record and the parks they played in. Also, the innings pitched over the past 5 years. Dempster is the better pick to me. The only positive is the extra year for McCarthy in 2015 but having success in a park like Oakland does not ensure success in another park.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Buchholz

    Lackey

    Lester

    Doubront

    Dempster

    Morales

    De La Rosa

    1-7 is stronger than it may seem. Dempster is a solid quality start guy who will give us a lot of innings. Doubront might well emerge as an above average starter this year. Lackey may come back strong now that he is healthy. We have a shot.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    Brandon McCarthy:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4662&position=P

    Ryan Dempster:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=517&position=P

    Look at the overall record and the parks they played in. Also, the innings pitched over the past 5 years. Dempster is the better pick to me. The only positive is the extra year for McCarthy in 2015 but having success in a park like Oakland does not ensure success in another park.



    That's my main point: 2015.

    Yes, Dempster has been better over the last few years, but past performance is not always an indicator of future performance, especially when you look at the ages.

    I have repeatedly said that McCarthy would be a gamble, but I like his chances of having a big year in 2014 (age 30) and 2015 (age 31) over Dempster in 2014 (36-37 yrs old) and 2015 when he won't even be here.

    BM has been pretty decent away from Oakland:

    2012: 4-2 3.66  1.316

    2011: 3-6  3.99  1.156

    Most baseball people agree that BM has some nasty stuff. His issue is injury.

    Dempster had a 4.80 overall ERA in 2011 and a 5.09 ERA with Texas last year.

    His career WHIP is 1.430

    Career vs...

    NYY:  0-4  7.62

    TBR:  3-4   4.24

    TOR: 0-0   5.27

    BAL: 1-0  1.35

     

    I'm not saying BM will do better than RD in 2013, and he may not do better in 2014, but 3 years of him would be better for our future than 2 years of a 36-37 year old.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Buchholz   ...if he stays healthy

    Lackey     ...if he can come back to the form of 3 years ago

    Lester      ...if he can turn around his slide

    Doubront  ...if he can improve on a 1.4+ WHIP

    Dempster  ...speaking of 1.4+ WHIP...

    Morales    ...if ...

    De La Rosa  ...if...

    1-7 is stronger than it may seem. Dempster is a solid quality start guy who will give us a lot of innings. Doubront might well emerge as an above average starter this year. Lackey may come back strong now that he is healthy. We have a shot.

    Yes, these guys have a shot one by one, but there's too many "ifs" for 4 or 5 of them to all happen at once.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Have to stop with the coulda woulda stuff.

    Why? I enjoy this tuff.

    Just think time could be better spent on players who want to play in Boston or may eventually play in Boston. Seems we have a pretty good idea where certain players want to play and what teams are being played in negotiations.

    No, it doesn't, but that shouldn't end the discussion.

    We can talk about trading for a player like Justin Upton, but if RS are on list of 4 team on his no trade clause for me a total waste of time, if A.Sanchez states he really wants to return to Detroit and in the end turned down more $ elsewhere to play in Detroit, do you really think RS should overpay to get this player? or we as fans should say our $ would have been better spent trying to sign him for who knows what it would have cost than the signings we did make?

    We don't, but that shouldn't end the discussion. (Ask lefty Papi if he'd rather have played in another park.)

    I think if you asked most power hitting LH bats where they would rather play Fenway or say Yankee Stadium, think it would be a no brainer. Imagine the numbers Papi would put up hitting in Yankee Stadium, thank lord he's on our team and so loved in Boston, remember not so long ago Papi saying he would consider playing for Yanks, can you blame him?

    And, I'm arguing we played the wrong cards.

     But if those cards really weren't in play for RS. Then did they play the wrong cards?

    I respect you opinion, but disagree.

    Would agree with your assumption that RS need a top of rotation starter and a middle of the order bat to be considered a WS contender. But if those things weren't in play for RS this offseason, who is at fault, M.Cain or C.Hammels for signing their extensions? Where I disagree is signing Hamilton / Sanchez / or Greinke would have been the answer. Look Dodgers aren't going to be there every year to take our bad signings off our hands.

    Well signing mediocre players to over $53M this year alone is not smart either.

    I like the fact that Ben went after high character guys, this will mean a lot over 162 game schedule. But signing these guys will not impede the futures of guys in minors. All are short term contracts and if need be sure RS could trade anyone of these players to make way for a young player by kicking in a little $ to make it desirable for other team, Yanks have always been good at this = Burnett [remember when everyone said they could never get rid of that contract]. If Brentz or Kalish prove ready this year, I'm sure RS in off season could trade Victorino by eating 5-6 mil of remaining contract when he had a lot of suitors this off season? 2 yrs @ 20 mil someone would be interested, he's a better player than Pagan.

    I agree. I did not want Greinke. (I'd still take him over Dempster and Drew)

    Totally disagree here. I'll take a starting SS and a No.4 starter over a guy who has a personality disorder make him the highest pd pitcher in baseball throw him in Boston and tell him to live up to that contract. IMO this has the makings as one of the worst signings ever in baseball. 

    5 years is not that long. He has had over 190 IP for 3 straight years. He is about as young as Buch and Lester. 

    We could also say sign E.jackson who has put up almost 6 yrs straight of 190 IP for a lot less $. Sanchez has been a .500 pitcher for his career w/ both elbow and shoulder injuries on his resume who pitched great in post season last season is this what we base giving a 5yr at huge $ for? or Greinke who in his 2 seasons in NL had a 3.44 and 3.83 era which compares favorably w/ Dempsters 3.65/ 3.85/ 2.25 era's in NL the past few seasons. This is the guy we want to make the highest pd pitcher in baseball. Sometimes the cards aren't there and you have to know when to fold them. 

    All moves are gambles.

    Agreed. And this years even more so on the high end signings.

    Developing players are on the farm. These gusy are not going to "help" them in anyway, shape or form, except that they are not good enough to block them- hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?

    Like I said there is not one contract RS signed this offseason that they couldn't move w/ a little help if need to be to let a player like Iggy / Bradley/ Brentz/ Boegarts/ De La Rosa/ Barnes / Webster suddenly proves to be ready ahead of schedule.

    One more reason why we should have gotten at least one of Sanchez (my choice) or Hamilton. We have had to gaping holes in our team for years now: an ace-type starter and a power bat. We spent over $53M for 2013 on FAs and got neither. That's the bottom line.

    Like I said sometimes its not in the cards. Can't fault RS or Ben for the cards not being there. But feel they did the best they could w/ what was available. As for signings the likes of Sanchez / Hamilton / Greinke all signings are a gamble but these would have been even BIGGER gambles and the Dodgers will not be there every year to clean up our mess. Short term deals that could be easily moved to allow the developement of a young player or if a better player w/ less warts becomes avilable on the FA market in the future sounds like the right play this year.




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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Have to stop with the coulda woulda stuff.

    Why? I enjoy this stuff.

    Just think time could be better spent on players who want to play in Boston or may eventually play in Boston. Seems we have a pretty good idea where certain players want to play and what teams are being played in negotiations.

    I understand that this is part of the game and winter moves, but are you so sure the guys we signed really wanted to play here or just took the best money deal? Would that be so much different than outbidding other teams for the players that signed elsewhere. We really don't know what is inside the heads of signing players everywhere, and we can not always believe everything they say on signing day or otherwise.

     

    No, it doesn't, but that shouldn't end the discussion.

    We can talk about trading for a player like Justin Upton, but if RS are on list of 4 team on his no trade clause for me a total waste of time, if A.Sanchez states he really wants to return to Detroit and in the end turned down more $ elsewhere to play in Detroit, do you really think RS should overpay to get this player? or we as fans should say our $ would have been better spent trying to sign him for who knows what it would have cost than the signings we did make?

    Just because we are on the "no trade list" does not mean we can never get him. Oftentimes a player will put teams like the Sox on the no-trade list as a bargaining chip for a re-negotiation of their contract if a deal can be made.

     

    We don't, but that shouldn't end the discussion. (Ask lefty Papi if he'd rather have played in another park.)

    I think if you asked most power hitting LH bats where they would rather play Fenway or say Yankee Stadium, think it would be a no brainer. Imagine the numbers Papi would put up hitting in Yankee Stadium, thank lord he's on our team and so loved in Boston, remember not so long ago Papi saying he would consider playing for Yanks, can you blame him?

    I wasn't aware that there are only 2 parks in MLB and that the Yanks are an option for every player I mentioned signing. Fenway is very freindly to all hitters. Yes, it takes away from HRs of RF/power alley hitting lefties, but it gives singles & dbls freely. There is a long history of lefties doing very well in Fenway. It is not like lefties do not want to play here vs the average park, in fact, I think compared to the average park, most would like to play here. It is not a deterrent.

     

    And, I'm arguing we played the wrong cards.

     But if those cards really weren't in play for RS. Then did they play the wrong cards?

    1) Any card is in play at the right cost.

    2) You and I have no way to know if the cards were truely in play at reasonable costs or not. That's why discussing these things on a forum like this is not something that needs to be severely limited by your narrow view on what was possible or not based mostly on heresay and possible posturing by players or agents or GMs.

     

    I respect you opinion, but disagree.

    Would agree with your assumption that RS need a top of rotation starter and a middle of the order bat to be considered a WS contender. But if those things weren't in play for RS this offseason, who is at fault, M.Cain or C.Hammels for signing their extensions? Where I disagree is signing Hamilton / Sanchez / or Greinke would have been the answer. Look Dodgers aren't going to be there every year to take our bad signings off our hands.

    I have stated that getting a true ace would be extremely costly, anpossible and that it might not have been possible to get this winter. However, getting a potential ace-type or a solid #2 type was possible and a better plan than the one we had.

    We should not be scared off by some past poor signings. Sanchez got a 5 year deal- not 7. He is still very young for a FA. He has pitched 190+ IP for 3 straight years. He is a gamble. If he stinks, there may not be a Dodger team around to take him. I get that, and I understand your position, but I happen to disagree. We needed to at least try and fill our biggest 2 holes, and spending $53M this year on new salary without filling these two holes is really the bottom line.

     

    Well signing mediocre players to over $53M this year alone is not smart either.

    I like the fact that Ben went after high character guys, this will mean a lot over 162 game schedule. But signing these guys will not impede the futures of guys in minors. All are short term contracts and if need be sure RS could trade anyone of these players to make way for a young player by kicking in a little $ to make it desirable for other team, Yanks have always been good at this = Burnett [remember when everyone said they could never get rid of that contract]. If Brentz or Kalish prove ready this year, I'm sure RS in off season could trade Victorino by eating 5-6 mil of remaining contract when he had a lot of suitors this off season? 2 yrs @ 20 mil someone would be interested, he's a better player than Pagan.

    Doesn't the fact that trading Burnett  makes the possibility of trading Sanchez if he fails a possibility? You seem to be arguing opposite points to suit your position.

    We'll see who does better the next 3 yeas: SV or AP, and remember, we could have had AP for a 4th year at about the same cost of SV at 3. Also, A. Pagan was not on my wish list, I just pointed him out as a better 2014 and beyond option than SV.

     

    I agree. I did not want Greinke. (I'd still take him over Dempster and Drew)

    Totally disagree here. I'll take a starting SS and a No.4 starter over a guy who has a personality disorder make him the highest pd pitcher in baseball throw him in Boston and tell him to live up to that contract. IMO this has the makings as one of the worst signings ever in baseball. 

    I guess we disagree on how much Drew brings to the Sox over a much better fielding Iggy, but I respect your position here. It's a close call for me. I do not like Greinke much, and it's not even about his "crumble in the spotlight" issues some here touted. His age and his inconsistencies scare me. I would not have offered Greinke anything close to what he got. We agree on this.

     

    5 years is not that long. He has had over 190 IP for 3 straight years. He is about as young as Buch and Lester. 

    We could also say sign E.jackson who has put up almost 6 yrs straight of 190 IP for a lot less $. Sanchez has been a .500 pitcher for his career w/ both elbow and shoulder injuries on his resume who pitched great in post season last season is this what we base giving a 5yr at huge $ for? or Greinke who in his 2 seasons in NL had a 3.44 and 3.83 era which compares favorably w/ Dempsters 3.65/ 3.85/ 2.25 era's in NL the past few seasons. This is the guy we want to make the highest pd pitcher in baseball. Sometimes the cards aren't there and you have to know when to fold them. 

    E Jackson's WHIP scares the bejesus out of me. 

    My first plan was to trade for B Anderson if possible, sign B McCarthy and maybe Marcum, and trade a starter or two from our team for prospects or a big middle order bat (Lester>Myers?).

    Signing Sanchez was not my idea. I've had to say this too many times.

    Signing Sanchez was better than what we did. That is all I said and continue saying. He is not really worth a 5 year deal at that money, but his worth is more than SV at 3 years, Dempster at 2 years, Drew at 1 year, and on and on... To me, he clearly would have been better than SV/RDSD who are signed for a combined 6 years and for about the same total money. One big difference is that ASanchez would be here in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 while these others will not all be here. To me, it was about the future, not short term bridges to the next short term bridges.

     

    All moves are gambles.

    Agreed. And this years even more so on the high end signings.

    Developing players are on the farm. These gusy are not going to "help" them in anyway, shape or form, except that they are not good enough to block them- hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?

    Like I said there is not one contract RS signed this offseason that they couldn't move w/ a little help if need to be to let a player like Iggy / Bradley/ Brentz/ Boegarts/ De La Rosa/ Barnes / Webster suddenly proves to be ready ahead of schedule.

    It's kind of shocking to me that the best part of the deal we made is that we "can trade them". I've never heard this argument used as the best reason to sign someone. (I'm not saying you think it is the best reason, but to me, it is the only justification for most of our signings.) I also fear that Sox management will not choose to trade guys if we are within and reasonable chance of making the playoffs. 

     

    One more reason why we should have gotten at least one of Sanchez (my choice) or Hamilton. We have had to gaping holes in our team for years now: an ace-type starter and a power bat. We spent over $53M for 2013 on FAs and got neither. That's the bottom line.

    Like I said sometimes its not in the cards. Can't fault RS or Ben for the cards not being there. But feel they did the best they could w/ what was available. As for signings the likes of Sanchez / Hamilton / Greinke all signings are a gamble but these would have been even BIGGER gambles and the Dodgers will not be there every year to clean up our mess. Short term deals that could be easily moved to allow the developement of a young player or if a better player w/ less warts becomes avilable on the FA market in the future sounds like the right play this year.

    I don't think Sanchez signing would prevent any Sox pitcher from developing. I don't think BMcCarthy would either. We spent $53M on this year. Yes, most are on 1-2 years deals, so we can start over next year. That may sound like a plus, but starting over is not good plan to me. We just pushed off the big decisions to another time. We still need an ace of solid # SP. We still need a solid 3/4 slot hitter. We will probably have to wait until next year, when the same arguments will be made against getting one then as well.

    "How soon Is Now?"

     

    When you say it's gonna happen "now"
    Well, when exactly do you mean ?
    See I've already waited too long
    And all my hope is gone

    - The Smiths

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon, if I let you borrow my rose-tinted glasses will you wear them? I'm not used to seeing you this down. I really believe that the players you would've liked to see us grab, players who will help in 2015 and beyond, were not available to us this year. And any who were available, Ben did not believe were any better than our own farm studs. I know that Bogy and Barnes could just as easily turn into Lars Anderson and Michael Bowden, but obviously the front office has much higher hopes for them than that. And most of the guys you've mentioned, McCarthy, Anderson, Marcum, none of them fit the 1 or 2 rotation stud description. Also, the front office probably does not see any of them being better than Ruby or Tazawa or Barnes, etc. And for position players, Upton may be the best "available", but even he may not project to be that middle of the order stud that Bogy projects to. So Ben played it safe. He spent a ton of money, but that's all he spent. And we still have all the studs in our system, improving their skills at least part of this season in the minors.

    Are there a lot of "ifs" surrounding this team? Of course there are and there should be when you are discussing a LAST place team. But I doubt that any last place team improves as much as this team will this year and we still have a 2015 team that looks like this...

    1b Middlebrooks/Bogy/Gomez/FA, 2b Pedroia, 3b Middlebrooks/Bogy/Ceccini, SS Iggy/Marrero/Ciriaco, LF Kalish/Bogy/FA, CF Bradley/Victorino, RF Kalish/Brentz, C Lava/Swihart. SP Lester/Buchholtz/Barnes/De La Rosa/Webster, Pen Tazawa/Bard/Morales/Mortensen. And we've got two more years to sign more free agents to fill holes.

    PS I'm also sure that Boom or many of you other folks who know more about our prospects than I do can add to this roster.

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    Moon, if I let you borrow my rose-tinted glasses will you wear them? I'm not used to seeing you this down. I really believe that the players you would've liked to see us grab, players who will help in 2015 and beyond, were not available to us this year. And any who were available, Ben did not believe were any better than our own farm studs. I know that Bogy and Barnes could just as easily turn into Lars Anderson and Michael Bowden, but obviously the front office has much higher hopes for them than that. And most of the guys you've mentioned, McCarthy, Anderson, Marcum, none of them fit the 1 or 2 rotation stud description. Also, the front office probably does not see any of them being better than Ruby or Tazawa or Barnes, etc. And for position players, Upton may be the best "available", but even he may not project to be that middle of the order stud that Bogy projects to. So Ben played it safe. He spent a ton of money, but that's all he spent. And we still have all the studs in our system, improving their skills at least part of this season in the minors.

    Are there a lot of "ifs" surrounding this team? Of course there are and there should be when you are discussing a LAST place team. But I doubt that any last place team improves as much as this team will this year and we still have a 2015 team that looks like this...

    1b Middlebrooks/Bogy/Gomez/FA, 2b Pedroia, 3b Middlebrooks/Bogy/Ceccini, SS Iggy/Marrero/Ciriaco, LF Kalish/Bogy/FA, CF Bradley/Victorino, RF Kalish/Brentz, C Lava/Swihart. SP Lester/Buchholtz/Barnes/De La Rosa/Webster, Pen Tazawa/Bard/Morales/Mortensen. And we've got two more years to sign more free agents to fill holes.

    PS I'm also sure that Boom or many of you other folks who know more about our prospects than I do can add to this roster.

     

     



    I started a "positive thread" a while back that showed the enormous upside potential of our offense position by position over last year's final numbers. I'm not worried about our offense, except for the timely hitting part of which no GM can plan for. I do wish we had a stud batting 4th behind Papi, and I agree that Upton might not have materialized into that player. 

    My main concern is with the starting rotation. It's nice to have 7-8 or more guys who  could  pitch well in 2013 (Lester, Buch, Lackey, Dempster, Doubront, Morales, Tazawa, Mortensen and maybe de la Rosa or Webster later in the season) However, I don't see the odds in our favor. I see other teams starting ahead of us this winter and improving over the winter.

    Here's how I see the chances, one-by-one, of each starter's ability to pitch very well and stay healthy all year (or at least enough to make a difference and be healthy for the playoffs):

    Lester: 67%

    Buch:    60%

    Lackey: 40%

    Dempster: 40%

    Doubront: 33%

    Morales: 30%

    Mortensen & Tazawa will probably be in the pen.

    Webster & de la Rosa may help mid season if someone is injured or faltering.

    I'm not a math whiz, but I figure adding Lester to Doubront gives us 1 solid starter chance. Buch plus Lackey gives us another. Dempster plus Morales and the kids might give us close to another. In total, we might be lucky to have 3 starters who pitch well and stay healthy all year. 

    With a good offense (maybe ranked 3-8th in runs scored), this may be enough to squeek us into the wild card game, but I don't see it being enough to make us serious contenders for a ring. teams have won before with less on paper at this point before, so I am not saying it is impossible.

    I'm not down on our team, because I thought we could or should be serious contenders this year. I knew better than to wish for that, but I had hoped we would have made at least one move that significantly bolstered our chances in 2014 or 2015 and beyond. Not trading prospects is nice, but it doesn't "bolster" our future chances- it just keeps them even.

    It would take some high-powered pink glasses to see this team as highly competitive. Wearing glasses that powerful could seriously impair your vision going forward.

    I've been critical in the past, but always tried to remain positive and optimisitic about our chances. I have projected 95+ wins for several years in a row. Injuries have played a big role in our short-comings, but the way I look at it, this team on paper is not as good as the last few year's teams on paper at this time of the winter, so if I was way off those years, how can I possibly project better for this year?

    As GW once said, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

    (BTW, was GW quoting The Who?)

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Pete Townsend is surely one of the great statesmen of all time;) I'm in the same boat in terms of seeing this as a 95 win team in January, only to be disappointed as injuries and poor play derailed us these last two years. And this season does not appear to be a 95 win season. All I've said this pre-season is that I believe they will win more than they lose. Coming off a 69 win season, that is a big improvement of at least 12 games. And if they can win 12 more than last year, is it too much of a stretch to think they can improve by 21 games and sneak into the playoffs? Perhaps it is. But if we improve by 12 games this season, and the new arrivals from the farm and maybe a free agent or two gives us 12 more games of improvement in 2014, then we are a playoff team with a great core of young talent.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    Pete Townsend is surely one of the great statesmen of all time;) I'm in the same boat in terms of seeing this as a 95 win team in January, only to be disappointed as injuries and poor play derailed us these last two years. And this season does not appear to be a 95 win season. All I've said this pre-season is that I believe they will win more than they lose. Coming off a 69 win season, that is a big improvement of at least 12 games. And if they can win 12 more than last year, is it too much of a stretch to think they can improve by 21 games and sneak into the playoffs? Perhaps it is. But if we improve by 12 games this season, and the new arrivals from the farm and maybe a free agent or two gives us 12 more games of improvement in 2014, then we are a playoff team with a great core of young talent.



    I have said we might squeek into the playoffs, but that's not the same as saying we have a good chance to win it all. I have also said that I am fine without having a chance to win it all in 2013. I never expected us to be there so quickly.

    My issues are basically these:

    1) We spent $53+M on this year's salaries alone and did not fill either of our biggest needs.

    2) We did not make any move that significantly helps us in 2014 or 2015 or beyond.

    3) PASSING THE BUCK to the next season is not a sound strategy.

    4) The infusion of youth over the next few years is very encouraging, but we needed to improve the foundation under and around them over the next 2-3+ years. It's just my opinion, but I don't see any of the guys we signed providing much of that.

    5) Saying that we can trade the guys we just signed for prospects this July, or that they are not too good or signed for too long to block our kids is, quite frankly, laughable positions to hold, or at best they are measures of trying to make excuses or to gloss over a poor overall plan.

     

    I'm going to be a huge Sox fan this summer, as always. I'll be tickled pink to have admit I was terribly wrong this winter. I am not calling for Ben's head. He deserves a chance to let his plan play out, at least through this year and next winter, but the emmense hope I felt after the Dodger trade is fading away quickly.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I understand that this is part of the game and winter moves, but are you so sure the guys we signed really wanted to play here or just took the best money deal? Would that be so much different than outbidding other teams for the players that signed elsewhere. We really don't know what is inside the heads of signing players everywhere, and we can not always believe everything they say on signing day or otherwise.

    Would you really have paid even more money for Sanchez / Hamilton / Greinke than what Detroit / Angels / Dodgers paid for anyone of those guys- Not me, too many warts on each one of these guys to justify.

     

     

    Just because we are on the "no trade list" does not mean we can never get him. Oftentimes a player will put teams like the Sox on the no-trade list as a bargaining chip for a re-negotiation of their contract if a deal can be made.

    Possible. But would think he would have Yankees and Dodgers on that list as well if that were the case. Or maybe he just doesn't want to play in Boston?

     

     

    I think if you asked most power hitting LH bats where they would rather play Fenway or say Yankee Stadium, think it would be a no brainer. Imagine the numbers Papi would put up hitting in Yankee Stadium, thank lord he's on our team and so loved in Boston, remember not so long ago Papi saying he would consider playing for Yanks, can you blame him?

    I wasn't aware that there are only 2 parks in MLB and that the Yanks are an option for every player I mentioned signing. Fenway is very freindly to all hitters. Yes, it takes away from HRs of RF/power alley hitting lefties, but it gives singles & dbls freely. There is a long history of lefties doing very well in Fenway. It is not like lefties do not want to play here vs the average park, in fact, I think compared to the average park, most would like to play here. It is not a deterrent.

     

    As you can see by my quote above "or say Yankee Stadium" I was only using it for comparision. But you are absolutely right their are many parks and many are better parks for a LH  power hitter than Fenway. If you are a LH w/ inside out swing and go the other way alot Fenway would work well. But their were also those who thought Agon would hit 50 hr's in Fenway.

     

     

    1) Any card is in play at the right cost.

    Would agree to some extent. Not sure Angels would trade Trout or Nat's would trade Strasburg. Sure if we offered the world they might take it, but what good would that do? We'd finish in last place w/ one star player.

    2) You and I have no way to know if the cards were truely in play at reasonable costs or not. That's why discussing these things on a forum like this is not something that needs to be severely limited by your narrow view on what was possible or not based mostly on heresay and possible posturing by players or agents or GMs.

    Moon have always respected your views and like to have open discussion on these and different topics. Just trying to bring a different point of view to some of the shoulda coulda discussion and blaming Ben or RS for not doing this or that by saying alot of these things suggested aren't always options. But getting in to name calling  is a little of of line for you, actually thought I was the one offering a little different view than the RS could basically do what ever they wanted and those players would come? I'm sure Ben C would agree w/ some of your views and maybe he found players like McCarthy / Sanchez / Hamilton and others weren't really interested in playing in Boston. The narrow point of view would be to believe that they all would.

     

     

    I have stated that getting a true ace would be extremely costly, anpossible and that it might not have been possible to get this winter. However, getting a potential ace-type or a solid #2 type was possible and a better plan than the one we had.

    And at what cost? Getting a #1 or 2 starter would have been a great thing for RS agree 100% but the 2 that moved this winter [1] which made Greinke the highest paid starter in baseball and never would have succeeded in the Boston mkt the other was 38 yrs old and cost the Blue Jays one of the top catching and pitching prospects in their system. So would you give up a Boegarts and say a Webster or Barnes for a 38 yr old. Could make the case for J.Johnson but think the RS would have jumped right back into a trade just mos after unloading Agon/ Beckett/CC it would have been risky move by RS if it did not work out.

     

    We should not be scared off by some past poor signings. Sanchez got a 5 year deal- not 7. He is still very young for a FA. He has pitched 190+ IP for 3 straight years. He is a gamble. If he stinks, there may not be a Dodger team around to take him. I get that, and I understand your position, but I happen to disagree. We needed to at least try and fill our biggest 2 holes, and spending $53M this year on new salary without filling these two holes is really the bottom line.

    Only time will tell on this one. If Sanchez goes and avg's 15-20 wins for the next 5 yrs, your right would have been a good sign. But if he ends up back on the DL or continues to be a just above .500 pitcher and wins 10-14 games then I'll be right and not worth the $ he's being pd. But also believe putting $ into multiple players better than all your money on 1 or 2 as RS found w/ CC amd Lackey. Remember Patriots had there best succes when signing the lower profile guys.

     

     

     

     

    Doesn't the fact that trading Burnett  makes the possibility of trading Sanchez if he fails a possibility? You seem to be arguing opposite points to suit your position.

    Never said impossible to get rid of thought my point w/ Burnett made that perfectly clear. My point was even if Victorino was productive w/ RS and Kalish or Brentz came up and showed they were ready at a much cheaper price that RS would find it much easier to find a trade for Victorino and actually maybe get something of value in return?  Sanchez w/ that contract and if he continues to be 500 pitcher good luck finding a taker let alone getting anything back, plus alot easier to eat 5-6 mil in trade vs. 20+ mil.

    We'll see who does better the next 3 yeas: SV or AP, and remember, we could have had AP for a 4th year at about the same cost of SV at 3. Also, A. Pagan was not on my wish list, I just pointed him out as a better 2014 and beyond option than SV.

    Not sure I would say better than Shane. Their 162 game avg very comparable. AP has only played 2 seasons of 150 or more games while Victorino has been a starter most of his career. Shane has a higher OPS and the gold gloves on his resume and if I had my choice would prefer Victorino but barely, the only thing that is worrisome w/ Shane was the downward trend last 2 seasons other wise the choice would have been easy. Also like the fact that Victorino has always had the knack for the big hit in the big spot. When I saw Phillies play other than Utley thought Shane was the hardest out in a big spot, not Howard, Rollins, or others. 

     

     

    I guess we disagree on how much Drew brings to the Sox over a much better fielding Iggy, but I respect your position here. It's a close call for me. I do not like Greinke much, and it's not even about his "crumble in the spotlight" issues some here touted. His age and his inconsistencies scare me. I would not have offered Greinke anything close to what he got. We agree on this.

    While we both agree that Iggy would be great at SS. I'm not willing to give position to someone who hasn't proved he can hit his weight at MLB. If Iggy proves to me that he can hit .240 w/ even just minimal obp I'm all for giving him the position, but not until.

     

     

    E Jackson's WHIP scares the bejesus out of me. 

    Agreed but at right $ for #5 spot I would do it. One thing RS need is innings eaters. But with strength of bullpen might not be as important. But 1 thing we know the less you use a pen usualy the better it is.

    My first plan was to trade for B Anderson if possible, sign B McCarthy and maybe Marcum, and trade a starter or two from our team for prospects or a big middle order bat (Lester>Myers?).

    I like McCarthy but never thought he was an option unless no one else went after, he wanted west coast and if offers were comparable knew he would stay.

    Signing Sanchez was not my idea. I've had to say this too many times.

    Signing Sanchez was better than what we did. That is all I said and continue saying. He is not really worth a 5 year deal at that money, but his worth is more than SV at 3 years, Dempster at 2 years, Drew at 1 year, and on and on... To me, he clearly would have been better than SV/RDSD who are signed for a combined 6 years and for about the same total money. One big difference is that ASanchez would be here in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 while these others will not all be here. To me, it was about the future, not short term bridges to the next short term bridges.

    But that arguement is flawed because the RS are on the hook for no more tha 3 yrs to a total of 6 players. Lets say you give all that $ to Sanchez and he doesn't play to the contract a.k.a. Lackey then your stuck. With 6 players even if 2 don't play up to contract still have 4 who do. plus all are done in 3 yrs or less and can use that $ on others in Sanchez your stuck for 5 yrs. 

     

    It's kind of shocking to me that the best part of the deal we made is that we "can trade them". I've never heard this argument used as the best reason to sign someone. (I'm not saying you think it is the best reason, but to me, it is the only justification for most of our signings.) I also fear that Sox management will not choose to trade guys if we are within and reasonable chance of making the playoffs. 

    Never said best reason, so don't try making your arguement look better. Just stated that if a young player progresses ahead of schedule none of these are long term contracts and unloading them is easier. Sanchez doesn't perform and lets say a Barnes / Webster / or De La Rosa are ready to take a spot, more difficult to get rid of a Sanchez [5yrs @18 mil per]contract than any of the others we did sign this off season, going to cost us a lot more than 5-6 mil to get rid of. He gets hurt theirs no getting rid of w/ his history.

     

    I don't think Sanchez signing would prevent any Sox pitcher from developing. I don't think BMcCarthy would either. We spent $53M on this year. Yes, most are on 1-2 years deals, so we can start over next year. That may sound like a plus, but starting over is not good plan to me. We just pushed off the big decisions to another time. We still need an ace of solid # SP. We still need a solid 3/4 slot hitter. We will probably have to wait until next year, when the same arguments will be made against getting one then as well.

    Lets not call it starting over how about buying time and still fielding a competetive team. Lets just say RS didn't like the high end FA's that were on the Mkt this year and would prefer to find players to invest in that are more likely to work out in the long term. For a team that has had a problem signing high $ FA's recently maybe the Greinke's/Hamiltons/Sanchez's weren't the answer but maybe in by waiting we could get the next Manny /Mussina/CC Sabathia/ or for that matter Mike Trout, Bryce Harper or Stephen Strasburgh that come to FA and be in a position to pursue. Instead of giving some .500 pitcher who is coming off 1 good playoffs w/ a history of arm troubles a boat load of money.

    "How soon Is Now?"

     

    When you say it's gonna happen "now"
    Well, when exactly do you mean ?
    See I've already waited too long
    And all my hope is gone

    - The Smiths




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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I would project 88 wins from this team as is with a chance to reach 92-93 wins. They are not off the charts stud type players but most should be relatively solid. Consistent achievers. Innings eaters. And we should have an absolutely excellent pen with lots of depth all around. I wish we were better at 1st but we have a chance to have a 30 HR / .280 average with lots of doubles guy in Napoli. Fenway park should be a plus for him and playing first more than catcher should be a plus for him. And that is one of our weaker positions.

    Whenever doing projections it is important to factor in the likelihood of each player performing as expected. What they did last year is important but what they are likely to do next year is far more important. We shouldn't be looking mainly at last year's stats. We have a lot of guys who are likely to put up career average years and if they do we will be fine. We have a lot of guys who underperformed last year. I don't think Pedroia is likely to have to play with such a bad injury again. I don't think Napoli is going to hit .220 again. Or Middlebrooks will miss half the season etc...and often when a pitching staff doesn't come off a lot of innings pitched the year before they come back strong the next year.

    We appear to not be exceptional in the OF but there is a real good chance Ellsbury puts up a near MVP year to me. And I wouldn't be surprised if Nava helps us more than projected. We have a decent platoon situation with Gomes and Nava in LF even though it may not look impressive from the outside. Nava had a .383 OBP last year against RH pitching. And Gomes was a decent stud against LH. 

    I think we surprise people. When we drill down and really factor the probabilities we have what looks to me to be a decent team. A lot of guys who are probably going to have decent years. If even one or 2 guys really step up for top flight years ( Ortiz, Ellsbury, Middlebrooks, Pedroia....etc.) we have a real chance. We have lots of great pen help and lots of decent supplementary players. We just have to get more quality starts from the top 5 pitchers. And we should be better positioned to win close games than we were last year.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I understand that this is part of the game and winter moves, but are you so sure the guys we signed really wanted to play here or just took the best money deal? Would that be so much different than outbidding other teams for the players that signed elsewhere. We really don't know what is inside the heads of signing players everywhere, and we can not always believe everything they say on signing day or otherwise.

    Would you really have paid even more money for Sanchez / Hamilton / Greinke than what Detroit / Angels / Dodgers paid for anyone of those guys- Not me, too many warts on each one of these guys to justify.

    No, No, and No. I merely said, I'd rather have paid A Sanchez (or maybe Hamilton) for 5 years than Victorino, Dempster, and Drew for their combined 6 years.

     

     

    Just because we are on the "no trade list" does not mean we can never get him. Oftentimes a player will put teams like the Sox on the no-trade list as a bargaining chip for a re-negotiation of their contract if a deal can be made.

    Possible. But would think he would have Yankees and Dodgers on that list as well if that were the case. Or maybe he just doesn't want to play in Boston?

    Maybe, yes "maybe"-- not certainly.

     

     

    I think if you asked most power hitting LH bats where they would rather play Fenway or say Yankee Stadium, think it would be a no brainer. Imagine the numbers Papi would put up hitting in Yankee Stadium, thank lord he's on our team and so loved in Boston, remember not so long ago Papi saying he would consider playing for Yanks, can you blame him?

    I wasn't aware that there are only 2 parks in MLB and that the Yanks are an option for every player I mentioned signing. Fenway is very freindly to all hitters. Yes, it takes away from HRs of RF/power alley hitting lefties, but it gives singles & dbls freely. There is a long history of lefties doing very well in Fenway. It is not like lefties do not want to play here vs the average park, in fact, I think compared to the average park, most would like to play here. It is not a deterrent.

     

    As you can see by my quote above "or say Yankee Stadium" I was only using it for comparision. But you are absolutely right their are many parks and many are better parks for a LH  power hitter than Fenway. If you are a LH w/ inside out swing and go the other way alot Fenway would work well. But their were also those who thought Agon would hit 50 hr's in Fenway.

    It's not always about HRs either. When a lefty power-pull hitter plays in Fenway, the RF'er and CF'er play deep and there is a lot of room for singles that would be outs in Yankee Stadium. 

    One could also use the reverse of this to ration that a RH'd pitcher like A Sanchez would like to play in a park like Fenway.

     

    1) Any card is in play at the right cost.

    Would agree to some extent. Not sure Angels would trade Trout or Nat's would trade Strasburg. Sure if we offered the world they might take it, but what good would that do? We'd finish in last place w/ one star player.

    They would, but the cost would be way too high.

     

    2) You and I have no way to know if the cards were truely in play at reasonable costs or not. That's why discussing these things on a forum like this is not something that needs to be severely limited by your narrow view on what was possible or not based mostly on heresay and possible posturing by players or agents or GMs.

    Moon have always respected your views and like to have open discussion on these and different topics. Just trying to bring a different point of view to some of the shoulda coulda discussion and blaming Ben or RS for not doing this or that by saying alot of these things suggested aren't always options. But getting in to name calling  is a little of of line for you, actually thought I was the one offering a little different view than the RS could basically do what ever they wanted and those players would come? I'm sure Ben C would agree w/ some of your views and maybe he found players like McCarthy / Sanchez / Hamilton and others weren't really interested in playing in Boston. The narrow point of view would be to believe that they all would.

    I wouldn't say you having a "narrow view" is name calling, but I apoligize for getting testy.

    I understand that the players I wanted might not have been available, but did you ever hear that we made a serious play for them? This is wwhat bothers me more than the fact we got none.

    I think it was more about Ben not wanting them- not so much them not wanting Boston, but it may be inbetween somewhere. 

     

    I have stated that getting a true ace would be extremely costly, anpossible and that it might not have been possible to get this winter. However, getting a potential ace-type or a solid #2 type was possible and a better plan than the one we had.

    And at what cost? Getting a #1 or 2 starter would have been a great thing for RS agree 100% but the 2 that moved this winter [1] which made Greinke the highest paid starter in baseball and never would have succeeded in the Boston mkt the other was 38 yrs old and cost the Blue Jays one of the top catching and pitching prospects in their system. So would you give up a Boegarts and say a Webster or Barnes for a 38 yr old. Could make the case for J.Johnson but think the RS would have jumped right back into a trade just mos after unloading Agon/ Beckett/CC it would have been risky move by RS if it did not work out.

    I have said I did not want Greinke or the 38 year old. I didn't even want Sanchez, but he was a better choice than either of those two, and a much better choice than Dempster IMO.

     

    We should not be scared off by some past poor signings. Sanchez got a 5 year deal- not 7. He is still very young for a FA. He has pitched 190+ IP for 3 straight years. He is a gamble. If he stinks, there may not be a Dodger team around to take him. I get that, and I understand your position, but I happen to disagree. We needed to at least try and fill our biggest 2 holes, and spending $53M this year on new salary without filling these two holes is really the bottom line.

    Only time will tell on this one. If Sanchez goes and avg's 15-20 wins for the next 5 yrs, your right would have been a good sign. But if he ends up back on the DL or continues to be a just above .500 pitcher and wins 10-14 games then I'll be right and not worth the $ he's being pd. But also believe putting $ into multiple players better than all your money on 1 or 2 as RS found w/ CC amd Lackey. Remember Patriots had there best succes when signing the lower profile guys.

     

    It's not so much the multiple player idea as it is that we have signed nobody who will help us greatly in 2014, 2015 or beyond. We just put off that issue until next year or 2015.

    I'll answer the rest later... gotta go...

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Doesn't the fact that trading Burnett  makes the possibility of trading Sanchez if he fails a possibility? You seem to be arguing opposite points to suit your position.

    Never said impossible to get rid of thought my point w/ Burnett made that perfectly clear. My point was even if Victorino was productive w/ RS and Kalish or Brentz came up and showed they were ready at a much cheaper price that RS would find it much easier to find a trade for Victorino and actually maybe get something of value in return?  Sanchez w/ that contract and if he continues to be 500 pitcher good luck finding a taker let alone getting anything back, plus alot easier to eat 5-6 mil in trade vs. 20+ mil.

    True, but Sanchez makes only $16M a year not $20M- less than Beckett, but yes- more years. It would have been a gamble that I would not take, but as I said, I'd take it over the signings of SV, RD, & SD.

     

    We'll see who does better the next 3 yeas: SV or AP, and remember, we could have had AP for a 4th year at about the same cost of SV at 3. Also, A. Pagan was not on my wish list, I just pointed him out as a better 2014 and beyond option than SV.

    Not sure I would say better than Shane. Their 162 game avg very comparable. AP has only played 2 seasons of 150 or more games while Victorino has been a starter most of his career. Shane has a higher OPS and the gold gloves on his resume and if I had my choice would prefer Victorino but barely, the only thing that is worrisome w/ Shane was the downward trend last 2 seasons other wise the choice would have been easy. Also like the fact that Victorino has always had the knack for the big hit in the big spot. When I saw Phillies play other than Utley thought Shane was the hardest out in a big spot, not Howard, Rollins, or others. 

    They are very close, but AP is slightly younger and got 4 years for about what SV got for 3. That extra year is what I was talking about as an example of helping in 2015 and beyond. 

     

    I guess we disagree on how much Drew brings to the Sox over a much better fielding Iggy, but I respect your position here. It's a close call for me. I do not like Greinke much, and it's not even about his "crumble in the spotlight" issues some here touted. His age and his inconsistencies scare me. I would not have offered Greinke anything close to what he got. We agree on this.

    While we both agree that Iggy would be great at SS. I'm not willing to give position to someone who hasn't proved he can hit his weight at MLB. If Iggy proves to me that he can hit .240 w/ even just minimal obp I'm all for giving him the position, but not until.

    Many SSs have been given a chance with worse numbers on offense than Iggy. Iggy's 83 MLb PAs spread over two seasons are not enough of a sample size to judge him over.

    Iggy has hit .264 in the minors, including .266 in 2012 in AAA. What does he have to hit in AAA to guarantee a .240 MLB BA? Besides, if he hits .220 and fields like I think he can, he'll break even with a S Drew hitting .300 with below average fielding. 

     

    E Jackson's WHIP scares the bejesus out of me. 

    Agreed but at right $ for #5 spot I would do it. One thing RS need is innings eaters. But with strength of bullpen might not be as important. But 1 thing we know the less you use a pen usualy the better it is.

    I think EJ got 4 years and $52M. Doubront can give us a 1.40+ WHIP for much less.

     

     

    My first plan was to trade for B Anderson if possible, sign B McCarthy and maybe Marcum, and trade a starter or two from our team for prospects or a big middle order bat (Lester>Myers?).

    I like McCarthy but never thought he was an option unless no one else went after, he wanted west coast and if offers were comparable knew he would stay.

    Could be, but I'd have loved to have heard Ben offer him $25M/3. If he turned that down for $15.5M/2 than I wouldn't be hre now complaining about not signing him.

     

     

    Signing Sanchez was not my idea. I've had to say this too many times.

    Signing Sanchez was better than what we did. That is all I said and continue saying. He is not really worth a 5 year deal at that money, but his worth is more than SV at 3 years, Dempster at 2 years, Drew at 1 year, and on and on... To me, he clearly would have been better than SV/RDSD who are signed for a combined 6 years and for about the same total money. One big difference is that ASanchez would be here in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 while these others will not all be here. To me, it was about the future, not short term bridges to the next short term bridges.

    But that arguement is flawed because the RS are on the hook for no more tha 3 yrs to a total of 6 players. Lets say you give all that $ to Sanchez and he doesn't play to the contract a.k.a. Lackey then your stuck. With 6 players even if 2 don't play up to contract still have 4 who do. plus all are done in 3 yrs or less and can use that $ on others in Sanchez your stuck for 5 yrs. 

    A valid point, but the fact is Sanchez at 5 years briongs us up to and including 2017. That's a plan for the future, not the hear and now so much. Yes, he could pull a Lackey, and the odds are greater that one gets hurt rather than all 3, but they are all signed for now & and 2 for 2014 and 1 for 2015. Since i am close to writing off this year, Sanchez gives us 4 years after 2013, while SV, RD, & SD gives us only 3 combined.

     

    It's kind of shocking to me that the best part of the deal we made is that we "can trade them". I've never heard this argument used as the best reason to sign someone. (I'm not saying you think it is the best reason, but to me, it is the only justification for most of our signings.) I also fear that Sox management will not choose to trade guys if we are within and reasonable chance of making the playoffs. 

    Never said best reason, so don't try making your arguement look better. Just stated that if a young player progresses ahead of schedule none of these are long term contracts and unloading them is easier. Sanchez doesn't perform and lets say a Barnes / Webster / or De La Rosa are ready to take a spot more difficult to get rid of a Sanchez [5yrs @18 mil per]contract than any of the others we did sign this off season, going to cost us a lot more than 5-6 mil to get rid of. He gets hurt theirs no getting rid of w/ his history.

    I did not mean to imply you used the arguments listed here. I have agreed that if Sanchez bombs or gets hurt, the gamble was lost. It would be costly, but there is an equal or greater chance he does well or good enough to be able to be traded if we want to later down the road. Even his last year under a 5 year contract will not be in old age. He will still be in his prime at 33.

     

    I don't think Sanchez signing would prevent any Sox pitcher from developing. I don't think BMcCarthy would either. We spent $53M on this year. Yes, most are on 1-2 years deals, so we can start over next year. That may sound like a plus, but starting over is not good plan to me. We just pushed off the big decisions to another time. We still need an ace of solid # SP. We still need a solid 3/4 slot hitter. We will probably have to wait until next year, when the same arguments will be made against getting one then as well.

    Lets not call it starting over how about buying time and still fielding a competetive team. Lets just say RS didn't like the high end FA's that were on the Mkt this year and would prefer to find players to invest in that are more likely to work out in the long term. For a team that has had a problem signing high $ FA's recently maybe the Greinke's/Hamiltons/Sanchez's weren't the answer but maybe in by waiting we could get the next Manny /Mussina/CC Sabathia/ or for that matter Mike Trout, Bryce Harper or Stephen Strasburgh that come to FA and be in a position to pursue. Instead of giving some .500 pitcher who is coming off 1 good playoffs w/ a history of arm troubles a boat load of money.

    I understand not going after any big ticket FAs this winter. It was a weak class. I was not for signing any of these 3. We did make signings that will require a reset after 1, 2 and 3 years. That flexibility can be an asset, but not always. There is a chance that Sanchez has 4-5 very good years, and the guys we signed this winter do not help us even reach the playoffs.

    My displeasure with this winter's plan is not all about the FA choices either. It involves keeping Ellsbury, Salty and some of the players that will be FAs after 2014. It involves not making trades that help us more in 2014, 2015 and beyond rather that the one we made for a 1 year player (Hanarahan)- a good trade overall, but not really about the future unless we trade him in July.

     

    "How soon Is Now?"

     

    When you say it's gonna happen "now"

    Well, when exactly do you mean?

    See I've already waited too long

    And all my hope is gone

       - The Smiths

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    Pete Townsend is surely one of the great statesmen of all time;) I'm in the same boat in terms of seeing this as a 95 win team in January, only to be disappointed as injuries and poor play derailed us these last two years. And this season does not appear to be a 95 win season. All I've said this pre-season is that I believe they will win more than they lose. Coming off a 69 win season, that is a big improvement of at least 12 games. And if they can win 12 more than last year, is it too much of a stretch to think they can improve by 21 games and sneak into the playoffs? Perhaps it is. But if we improve by 12 games this season, and the new arrivals from the farm and maybe a free agent or two gives us 12 more games of improvement in 2014, then we are a playoff team with a great core of young talent.




    ....and let's not forget Mr. Townsend's "Research"!

    Research!?!?

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    I would project 88 wins from this team as is with a chance to reach 92-93 wins. They are not off the charts stud type players but most should be relatively solid. Consistent achievers. Innings eaters. And we should have an absolutely excellent pen with lots of depth all around. I wish we were better at 1st but we have a chance to have a 30 HR / .280 average with lots of doubles guy in Napoli. Fenway park should be a plus for him and playing first more than catcher should be a plus for him. And that is one of our weaker positions.

    Whenever doing projections it is important to factor in the likelihood of each player performing as expected. What they did last year is important but what they are likely to do next year is far more important. We shouldn't be looking mainly at last year's stats. We have a lot of guys who are likely to put up career average years and if they do we will be fine. We have a lot of guys who underperformed last year. I don't think Pedroia is likely to have to play with such a bad injury again. I don't think Napoli is going to hit .220 again. Or Middlebrooks will miss half the season etc...and often when a pitching staff doesn't come off a lot of innings pitched the year before they come back strong the next year.

    We appear to not be exceptional in the OF but there is a real good chance Ellsbury puts up a near MVP year to me. And I wouldn't be surprised if Nava helps us more than projected. We have a decent platoon situation with Gomes and Nava in LF even though it may not look impressive from the outside. Nava had a .383 OBP last year against RH pitching. And Gomes was a decent stud against LH. 

    I think we surprise people. When we drill down and really factor the probabilities we have what looks to me to be a decent team. A lot of guys who are probably going to have decent years. If even one or 2 guys really step up for top flight years ( Ortiz, Ellsbury, Middlebrooks, Pedroia....etc.) we have a real chance. We have lots of great pen help and lots of decent supplementary players. We just have to get more quality starts from the top 5 pitchers. And we should be better positioned to win close games than we were last year.



    It's also important to project that some players will get hurt or dissappoint. If a few step up beyond expectations, it may cancel out the downers, but to me, it really comes down to the rotation. While there is reason to be optimistic due to the apparent depth, I really think it is taking a big leap of faith to expect that 3-4 will stay healthy and pitch well enough for us to have a real chance at a ring. I'm not saying it's impossible, but looking at it from an objective and league comparative point of view, we are not much improved over last year's 5.00+ ERA rotation.

    Now, I will attempt to show how optimistic I can possibly get with this year's starting picthers as compared to last year's debacle:

    2012 starters: 48-72  5.19  1.417 WHIP

    Returning from 2012:

    Lester  205 IP  9-14  4.82  1.38

    Buchholtz 189  11-8  4.56  1.32

    Doubront   161 11-10 4.86  1.44

    Morales        46   3-3    4.14  1.24

    Thre is room for much improvement here, but it is hard to say we can expect it. While Lester cam on pretty strong at the end of 2012, if you count his ending to 2011, he's had a rough last 1.3 seasons.  Buchholtz seems to be all about health. His injury is usally the type that reoccurs often. Doubront and Morales are wild cards, and Lackey is tough to project as well. Between the 3, there's a good chance one will do well.

     

    Gone from 2012:

    Beckett  127  5-11  5.23  1.33

    A Cook      94  4-11  5.65  1.47

    D Bard       54   4-6   5.30  1.62

    Dice-K       46    1-7  8.28  1.71

    Stewart     6    0-2   22.24  3.00

    It's hard to imagine Dempster, Lackey and more IP from Doubront and maybe Morales (Tazawa, Mortensen, de la Rosa, & Webster) doing worse than the 327 IP from the 2012 guys listed here. There is room for great strides here.

    Overall, there is a lot of promise here, but little sure bets. I'm going to hope for the best, but am not holding my breath that all or just enough will work out.

     

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Updated...

    2013 PAYROLL (LUXURY TAX THRESHOLD: $178 MILLION)

    Guaranteed deals

    John Lackey, $16.5 million
    Ryan Dempster, $13.25 million
    David Ortiz, $13 million
    Mike Napoli, $5 million
    Shane Victorino, $13 million
    Stephen Drew, $9.5 million
    Clay Buchholz, $7.4 million
    Dustin Pedroia, $6.80 million
    Jon Lester, $6 million
    Jonny Gomes, $5 million
    Koji Uehara, $4.25 million

    Joel Hanrahan, $4.1 million
    David Ross, $3.1 million
    Jose Iglesias, $2.1 million

    TOTAL GUARANTEED: APPROX $109 MILLION (Not counting 2013 bonues)

    Avoiding Arbitration Signings:

    Jacoby Ellsbury $9M
    Jarrod Saltalamacchia  $4.5M
    Andrew Bailey  $4.1M
    Alfredo Aceves  $2.65M
    Craig Breslow  $3.125M
    Andrew Miller  $1.475M
    Daniel Bard   $1.8625M
    Franklin Morales $1.4875M

     TOTAL: $28 MILLION (Not counting bonuses that may be earned in 2013)

    Pre-arbitration eligible

    Junichi Tazawa
    Felix Doubront

    Ryan Kalish
    Daniel Nava
    Will Middlebrooks
    Clayton Mortensen
    Pedro Ciriaco

    PROJECTED TOTAL: APPROXIMATELY $5 MILLION

    Additional expenses

    Benefits, $10.8 million
    40-man roster members, $1.2 million
    Dodgers subsidy, $3.9 million

    APPROXIMATELY $16 MILLION

    ESTIMATED 2013 TOTAL COMMITMENTS: $158 MILLION

    (AS MEASURED FOR LUXURY TAX PURPOSES) 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon, we agree on one thing for sure. It is all about the rotation. Biggest factor in a championship level team.

    The thing I try to keep in mind is that very few teams actually have more than a 1 in 5 chance of winning it all. Maybe none. Most teams have roughly a 1 out of 30 chance right (on average). So, to say our rotation and team have a chance is maybe putting them in the 1 out of 15 chance likelihood.

     

    I'm ok with that in 2013.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I think we have more than a 1 in 15 chance. Maybe 1 in 12 at best but the baseball world has changed. A lot more teams are in it. More teams get in the playoffs. Any team in the PO can go on a run with a couple hot pitchers and win it all. I'm ok with that given how difficult, and costly, it was to even get us in this position.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    I think we have more than a 1 in 15 chance. Maybe 1 in 12 at best but the baseball world has changed. A lot more teams are in it. More teams get in the playoffs. Any team in the PO can go on a run with a couple hot pitchers and win it all. I'm ok with that given how difficult, and costly, it was to even get us in this position.



    I'd say we have a 1 in 25 chance... maybe 1 in 20 best case scenario... assuming no more major moves.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    moon you're right of course that they didn't do anything to improve the rotation.  My only guess is that they feel that they have to evaluate exactly how good or bad the rotation they have now is.  Lester, Buchholz and Lackey all have a lot of x-factor going.  Lester in particular-what happened to this guy since Sept/11?  I think they're hoping desperately that all the changes will help Lester return to what he was.

    Maybe part of the strategy is to start working toward assembling a package of players they can trade for a #1-2 starter.

    Obviously I'm trying to put this in a framework where biding time makes sense as a strategy toward upgrading the rotation.

     

Share