A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    ...put together a team that has some semblance of contending for a playoff berth...

     

    I guess the sucess of this part of the plan is up for debate, but I really think Sox fans are smart enough to see through the pretend game, and would have preferred to have seen us go all out to build for 2014 and beyond with a few bridge signings to keep us half-way repsectable in 2013.

     



    I'm not sure it's about Sox fans being smart or not.  If the team falls out of the race early people tend to lose interest and tune out, that's just the nature of fans.  The smart ones might say 'it's OK, 2014 will be better' but that doesn't do anything for 2013 attendance and NESN ratings.

     



    I think pretty close to the same amount would watch, but I get that it's a business. It is also an admition that it is not about winning it all every few years, but just appearing to be able to every year. That reminds me of the Sox of old.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Sox and Breslow officially agree to deal. 2 years with a club option for 2015

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/01/red-sox-craig-breslow-agree-to-deal.html

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to mef429's comment:

    Sox and Breslow officially agree to deal. 2 years with a club option for 2015

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/01/red-sox-craig-breslow-agree-to-deal.html



    Finally, a move that helps us beyond 2013.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon, it's me sounding like a broken record again, but I really believe that the moves that are helping us in 2014 and beyond are the moves Ben and the FO are NOT making,  therefore keeping our own long-term controllable players. I admit that I don't know other teams' farm systems well enough to know about a Myers type, but I do know about the likes of Upton and Stanton. Stanton is clearly a stud and we should pursue him aggressively if we haven't already. ( But at his current salary, why should even a mismanaged franchise like the Marlins move him?) Upton, for all his natural talent, has not impressed me enough to empty part of the farm for him or to think he is our long-term 3-4 slot solution like Stanton would be. Perhaps Upton suffers in my eyes because of his underachieving brother, but I see both as tremendous athletes who don't have great baseball instincts or discipline. Just my take.

    On another subject entirely, and it may be more of a publicity stunt than a substantive move, the Pedro signing could potentially be a boon to some of our young pitchers as long as Farrell, Nieves and Pedro can coexist. Not to mention the impact Pedro could have on our long-term recruitment of Latin pitchers.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon, it's me sounding like a broken record again, but I really believe that the moves that are helping us in 2014 and beyond are the moves Ben and the FO are NOT making,  therefore keeping our own long-term controllable players.

     

    I appreciate this point and am happy we kept the kids too, but why not go with that plan all the way, or at least more than we did? Build up the farm even more? Make at least one signing that would give us a player in his prime over the 2014-2015 or beyond seasons?

     

    I admit that I don't know other teams' farm systems well enough to know about a Myers type, but I do know about the likes of Upton and Stanton. Stanton is clearly a stud and we should pursue him aggressively if we haven't already. ( But at his current salary, why should even a mismanaged franchise like the Marlins move him?) Upton, for all his natural talent, has not impressed me enough to empty part of the farm for him or to think he is our long-term 3-4 slot solution like Stanton would be. Perhaps Upton suffers in my eyes because of his underachieving brother, but I see both as tremendous athletes who don't have great baseball instincts or discipline. Just my take.

     

    As it turned out, like I had said all along, it wouldn't take "emptying the farm" to get Upton. The Braves got a steal. Also, Upton is a young player with some proven ability. It's not like trading some prospects for an old player.

     

    On another subject entirely, and it may be more of a publicity stunt than a substantive move, the Pedro signing could potentially be a boon to some of our young pitchers as long as Farrell, Nieves and Pedro can coexist. Not to mention the impact Pedro could have on our long-term recruitment of Latin pitchers.

     

    I love Pedro. I love that we got him onboard.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Perhaps Upton suffers in my eyes because of his underachieving brother, but I see both as tremendous athletes who don't have great baseball instincts or discipline.

    Many siblings are polar opposites.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Perhaps Upton suffers in my eyes because of his underachieving brother, but I see both as tremendous athletes who don't have great baseball instincts or discipline.

    Many siblings are polar opposites.




    how true. i am a twin and we're exact opposites in every single way

     
  8. 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:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to hill55's comment:

     

    One word: regression.

    More words: Solid seasons from John Lackey and Ryan Dempster are not out of the question.

     



    Of course they are not out of the question. I know we got potential, but I've been hearing "what ifs" for too long now.

     

    "What if Beckett, Lester and Buchholtz stay healthy and pitch well this year..."

    "What if Bard becomes as great a starter as he was a set-up man?"

    "What if Dice-K is allowed to do his own thing?"

    "What if this is a typical odd year for Beckett?"

    I'm sorry, but I do not see anything to get more excited about this year than the last few years. 

     

    Sure, Lackey and Dempster should do better than Cook, Dice-K and Bard, but we need them to be better than Beckett in 2011 as well.

    We need lester to be better.

    We need Buch to be better.

    Doubront to be better.

    Or at least 4-5 of these prayers to all come true at the same time.

    If Beckett, Lester and Buch could never put it all together for a full season, I don't see why we should suddenly feel all warm and fuzzy about Lester, Buch, Dempster and Lackey.

    I'd like nothing better for it all to happen. I'll be tickled pink to come on this site and apologize to everyone. I guess I'd rather do that than come back like I have the past few years and explain why my projected 95+ win seasons didn't materialize. I've been labelled an optimist for years, although I thought I was being objective and realistic.

    I thought we needed pitching every winter since 2007 (and even before), but I still projected 95+ win seasons for several seasons now. The one year, I wake up and smell the coffee, I'm getting called a "pessimist" (not by you).

     




    I dont think your a pessimist Moon. Like all the years before, your just stating what you think and feel about our chances. Just because your outlook isnt as optimistic as it usually is doesnt mean your a pessimist.

     

    I think some posters here are so used to the glass half full side of you and now that its not very positive, albeit still realistic, theyre thrown off a bit. I may not agree with a lot of your viewpoints lately, but still have the same amount of respect for your posts, research and thoughts on anything baseball.

    Personally, I look at the comment of trading Lester for Myers and paying Sanchez an ungodly amount of money to fill his spot and can only think of one question. Do you believe that Sanchez is better than Lester now and going forward?  Why not extend Lester with some of that money?

     

     



    Thanks, southpaw.

     

    I think Lester and Sanchez are close. Assuming they both would cost the same for 5 years, I'd probably go with Lester, but it's very very close.

    The real comparison is Lester vs Sanchez & Myers, and the latter is no-brainer.

    Ther's a chance I may change my outlook on 2013. We certainly look better than last September's team, but there was such a long way to go that nothing short of a miracle or an all out spending spree would have made us serious contenders in 2013. Maybe we look at the word "serious" differently. We do have a chance. I'm not as upset about what we did for 2013: it's more about what we didn't do for 2014 and beyond.




    Well hopefully some of these prospects will change your mind on 2014...We'll have to wait and see if it was worth protecting them.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Well hopefully some of these prospects will change your mind on 2014...We'll have to wait and see if it was worth protecting them.

    I am certain by 2014 and 2015 several of our prospects will be making big impacts on the big club. In that sense, I am a big optimist. That is also part of the reason I feel we missed an opportunity this winter to get the 2014 prepared for their arrival and make us solid ring contenders in 1-2 years. 

    Yes, not trading prospects was a good idea, but I think we should have tried very hard to either increase our prospect pool (trading Ellsbury and others who are not in our longterm plans), trading or signing younger players who will help us beyond 2013, or both.  

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Well hopefully some of these prospects will change your mind on 2014...We'll have to wait and see if it was worth protecting them.

    I am certain by 2014 and 2015 several of our prospects will be making big impacts on the big club. In that sense, I am a big optimist. That is also part of the reason I feel we missed an opportunity this winter to get the 2014 prepared for their arrival and make us solid ring contenders in 1-2 years. 

    Yes, not trading prospects was a good idea, but I think we should have tried very hard to either increase our prospect pool (trading Ellsbury and others who are not in our longterm plans), trading or signing younger players who will help us beyond 2013, or both.  

     



    It may be a pipe-dream, but I'm not sure the FO is convinced that Ellsbury is gone after next year. An outfield of Bogie, Ells and Bradley or Brentz, Ells and Bradley with Bogie at a corner infield slot is not preposterous. We have huge financial resources and Fenway is a great park to hit in, for right and left-handed hitters.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Little side track--in discussion of last year's pitchers' outcomes above, Bard's disappointing season was mentioned.  I remember someone here, it could be Southpaw but I think it was Amp who doesn't come here anymore, was very, very adament that he was totally against changing Bard to a starter, it could be really harmful, screw a guy up badly, etc..  I remember either dismissing this argument or being blase about it, but in thinking about it today, it seems like Amp (?) was really right and maybe some pitchers are more sensitive to this kind of change than others.  Aceves, for example, I think actually would have been  better as a starter than a closer.  Anyway, I just wanted to throw kudos to somebody here who was really against that move.  I hope we can salvage Bard and get him back to that success he had in his set-up role; getting him there would be a huge help to the team. 

    Boom, glad you liked my inane sense of humor.  I am going to try to be more positive now.  Look at the cup as "half full" like you guys have been saying, and we've got all these guys with potential on the farm.  I have been surprised in the last week or so at some of the Boston writers who seem pretty positive about this team.  I actually like characters like Johnny Gomes and will enjoy rooting for him regardless of his performance.  ST is always a time of "renewal" and fresh starts, and positive outlook.  Have a great weekend everyone.

     
  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:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Well hopefully some of these prospects will change your mind on 2014...We'll have to wait and see if it was worth protecting them.

    I am certain by 2014 and 2015 several of our prospects will be making big impacts on the big club. In that sense, I am a big optimist. That is also part of the reason I feel we missed an opportunity this winter to get the 2014 prepared for their arrival and make us solid ring contenders in 1-2 years. 

    Yes, not trading prospects was a good idea, but I think we should have tried very hard to either increase our prospect pool (trading Ellsbury and others who are not in our longterm plans), trading or signing younger players who will help us beyond 2013, or both.  

     



    It may be a pipe-dream, but I'm not sure the FO is convinced that Ellsbury is gone after next year. An outfield of Bogie, Ells and Bradley or Brentz, Ells and Bradley with Bogie at a corner infield slot is not preposterous. We have huge financial resorces and Fenway is a great park to hit in, for right and left-handed hitters.

     



    Convinced or not, he's as good as gone.

    Even if we offer him $2-3M more total than the next highest bidder, he'll walk.

    Just my opinion.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Critter23's comment:

    Little side track--in discussion of last year's pitchers' outcomes above, Bard's disappointing season was mentioned.  I remember someone here, it could be Southpaw but I think it was Amp who doesn't come here anymore, was very, very adament that he was totally against changing Bard to a starter, it could be really harmful, screw a guy up badly, etc..  I remember either dismissing this argument or being blase about it, but in thinking about it today, it seems like Amp (?) was really right and maybe some pitchers are more sensitive to this kind of change than others.  Aceves, for example, I think actually would have been  better as a starter than a closer.  Anyway, I just wanted to throw kudos to somebody here who was really against that move.  I hope we can salvage Bard and get him back to that success he had in his set-up role; getting him there would be a huge help to the team. 

    I was dead set against it as well, and wanted him to be our next closer. (Not sure that would have worked either.) I wanted us to trade Reddick and others for Gio Gonzalez.

    Boom, glad you liked my inane sense of humor.  I am going to try to be more positive now.  Look at the cup as "half full" like you guys have been saying, and we've got all these guys with potential on the farm.  I have been surprised in the last week or so at some of the Boston writers who seem pretty positive about this team.  I actually like characters like Johnny Gomes and will enjoy rooting for him regardless of his performance.  ST is always a time of "renewal" and fresh starts, and positive outlook.  Have a great weekend everyone.




    I have never said I will not enjoy watching the Sox. I enjoyed watching last year even into September. I enjoyed 1997, 92-94, etc...

    I'm not so into the hype about "great clubhouse guys" or "rah-rah" guys. I don't enjoy watching players break their bats after a K (Trot and others) or throw down the water cooler (Youk). I prefer the quiet but deadly approach of a Manny or a Papi.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I saw an interesting clip on here today of Pedro talking aside to Dan Shaugnessey at a news conference, saying "Try not to be so negative all the time, come on, just try to be positive some days."  And Dan just sort of smiled and then they talked about "burying the hatchett" from the past.  It sort of made me think about RS ownership and some of what happens here on these pages.  Do the RS want Pedro to be a poster boy for the "Good Ship Lollipop" (which the clip made me think...) or is he being hired for his input into pitching and helping acquire/evaluate etc. young pitchers from Latin America?  Dan S. is not hired to be a RS cheerleader but ask hard questions as a sports journalist.  I think we all go through the same thing here on a different scale.  We're all fans, we want the best, but sometimes we just question the steps the RS take, and it may be taken as too negative or not being a real fan.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Critter23's comment:

    Little side track--in discussion of last year's pitchers' outcomes above, Bard's disappointing season was mentioned.  I remember someone here, it could be Southpaw but I think it was Amp who doesn't come here anymore, was very, very adament that he was totally against changing Bard to a starter, it could be really harmful, screw a guy up badly, etc..  I remember either dismissing this argument or being blase about it, but in thinking about it today, it seems like Amp (?) was really right and maybe some pitchers are more sensitive to this kind of change than others.  Aceves, for example, I think actually would have been  better as a starter than a closer.  Anyway, I just wanted to throw kudos to somebody here who was really against that move.  I hope we can salvage Bard and get him back to that success he had in his set-up role; getting him there would be a huge help to the team. 

    Boom, glad you liked my inane sense of humor.  I am going to try to be more positive now.  Look at the cup as "half full" like you guys have been saying, and we've got all these guys with potential on the farm.  I have been surprised in the last week or so at some of the Boston writers who seem pretty positive about this team.  I actually like characters like Johnny Gomes and will enjoy rooting for him regardless of his performance.  ST is always a time of "renewal" and fresh starts, and positive outlook.  Have a great weekend everyone.



    Switching from the pen to starter only works if the pitcher has a certain mindset.
    Bard doesnt have the mindset to be a starter. You have to have a short memory, in a sense, and be able to turn the page right away.

    Bard gets in his own head too much and over analyzes things. Hes got too much time in between starts to think, whereas being a setup/closer type he can go right back out there the next day. 

    Farrell basically said the same thing.

     
  16. 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:

    In response to jidgef's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Well hopefully some of these prospects will change your mind on 2014...We'll have to wait and see if it was worth protecting them.

    I am certain by 2014 and 2015 several of our prospects will be making big impacts on the big club. In that sense, I am a big optimist. That is also part of the reason I feel we missed an opportunity this winter to get the 2014 prepared for their arrival and make us solid ring contenders in 1-2 years. 

    Yes, not trading prospects was a good idea, but I think we should have tried very hard to either increase our prospect pool (trading Ellsbury and others who are not in our longterm plans), trading or signing younger players who will help us beyond 2013, or both.  

     



    It may be a pipe-dream, but I'm not sure the FO is convinced that Ellsbury is gone after next year. An outfield of Bogie, Ells and Bradley or Brentz, Ells and Bradley with Bogie at a corner infield slot is not preposterous. We have huge financial resorces and Fenway is a great park to hit in, for right and left-handed hitters.

     

     



    Convinced or not, he's as good as gone.

     

    Even if we offer him $2-3M more total than the next highest bidder, he'll walk.

    Just my opinion.




    Cant remember where, but I remember reading something within the last couple days that people shouldnt be so quick to think Ellsbury will just leave and doesnt like it here. Just because hes a quiet person doent mean hes unhappy. I know it was from someone with inside info.

    Not sure how true but he had some good points. Ill need to see if I can find it again.

    on a side note...One good thing about gathering more prospects Moon, is if were not doing well the trade deadline could bring us a wealth of young talent.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to jidgef's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Well hopefully some of these prospects will change your mind on 2014...We'll have to wait and see if it was worth protecting them.

    I am certain by 2014 and 2015 several of our prospects will be making big impacts on the big club. In that sense, I am a big optimist. That is also part of the reason I feel we missed an opportunity this winter to get the 2014 prepared for their arrival and make us solid ring contenders in 1-2 years. 

    Yes, not trading prospects was a good idea, but I think we should have tried very hard to either increase our prospect pool (trading Ellsbury and others who are not in our longterm plans), trading or signing younger players who will help us beyond 2013, or both.  

     



    It may be a pipe-dream, but I'm not sure the FO is convinced that Ellsbury is gone after next year. An outfield of Bogie, Ells and Bradley or Brentz, Ells and Bradley with Bogie at a corner infield slot is not preposterous. We have huge financial resorces and Fenway is a great park to hit in, for right and left-handed hitters.

     

     



    Convinced or not, he's as good as gone.

     

    Even if we offer him $2-3M more total than the next highest bidder, he'll walk.

    Just my opinion.

     




    Cant remember where, but I remember reading something within the last couple days that people shouldnt be so quick to think Ellsbury will just leave and doesnt like it here. Just because hes a quiet person doent mean hes unhappy. I know it was from someone with inside info.

    My opinion is not based on Jacoby's quietness. 

    1) The whole injury and recovery issue was fracturing. Yes, Youk is gone, but I do not think Jacoby is very close to many of his teammates (not that he has to be to want to play here).

    2) The media has not treated him kindly, no matter how much softy wants to claim otherwise.

    3) He seems to have a west coast mentality, and I feel he'd enjoy it more our west. No evidence to base this on, but my own feelings.

    4) Sox management should have learned its lesson with Crawford. 

    5) Ellsbury will seek a 5+ year deal, unless he has an off year and needs to prove himself, and the Sox will not want to give 5+ years.

     

    Not sure how true but he had some good points. Ill need to see if I can find it again.

    on a side note...One good thing about gathering more prospects Moon, is if were not doing well the trade deadline could bring us a wealth of young talent.




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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Not sure how true but he had some good points. Ill need to see if I can find it again.

    on a side note...One good thing about gathering more prospects Moon, is if were not doing well the trade deadline could bring us a wealth of young talent.

     

    It's about the only good thing I see about most of our signings.

     
  19. 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:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to jidgef's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Well hopefully some of these prospects will change your mind on 2014...We'll have to wait and see if it was worth protecting them.

    I am certain by 2014 and 2015 several of our prospects will be making big impacts on the big club. In that sense, I am a big optimist. That is also part of the reason I feel we missed an opportunity this winter to get the 2014 prepared for their arrival and make us solid ring contenders in 1-2 years. 

    Yes, not trading prospects was a good idea, but I think we should have tried very hard to either increase our prospect pool (trading Ellsbury and others who are not in our longterm plans), trading or signing younger players who will help us beyond 2013, or both.  

     



    It may be a pipe-dream, but I'm not sure the FO is convinced that Ellsbury is gone after next year. An outfield of Bogie, Ells and Bradley or Brentz, Ells and Bradley with Bogie at a corner infield slot is not preposterous. We have huge financial resorces and Fenway is a great park to hit in, for right and left-handed hitters.

     

     



    Convinced or not, he's as good as gone.

     

    Even if we offer him $2-3M more total than the next highest bidder, he'll walk.

    Just my opinion.

     




    Cant remember where, but I remember reading something within the last couple days that people shouldnt be so quick to think Ellsbury will just leave and doesnt like it here. Just because hes a quiet person doent mean hes unhappy. I know it was from someone with inside info.

    My opinion is not based on Jacoby's quietness. 

    1) The whole injury and recovery issue was fracturing. Yes, Youk is gone, but I do not think Jacoby is very close to many of his teammates (not that he has to be to want to play here).

    2) The media has not treated him kindly, no matter how much softy wants to claim otherwise.

    3) He seems to have a west coast mentality, and I feel he'd enjoy it more our west. No evidence to base this on, but my own feelings.

    4) Sox management should have learned its lesson with Crawford. 

    5) Ellsbury will seek a 5+ year deal, unless he has an off year and needs to prove himself, and the Sox will not want to give 5+ years.

     

    Not sure how true but he had some good points. Ill need to see if I can find it again.

    on a side note...One good thing about gathering more prospects Moon, is if were not doing well the trade deadline could bring us a wealth of young talent.

     




     




    all very valid points.

    I was just referring to something I read with someone close to the situation. Personally, I think hes all but gone too...

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon, et al, my two cents says Ells is gone as well, just not convinced the FO feels the same way. I think they would have been much more aggressive about trying to move him if they thought there was no chance of keeping him. And for all I know, maybe they were aggressive about moving him and just couldn't find a match. Time will tell.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    +

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    There are 2 reasons why Ellsbury is probably gone:

     

    1) He's probably worth more to the Yanks or Philadelphia

    2) He might be worth a #1 draft pick for the Sox.

     

    Look at the Bourn situation though. No one is knocking down his door because they would have to give up their #1 pick to get him. Ellsbury will hopefully draw a qualifying offer if he has a great year.  We may actually decide to offer him a solid deal and try to keep him. He's an exciting player and he can put up some outstanding numbers potentially. I wouldn't rule it out that we keep him. Maybe a 15-20% chance.

     
  23. 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, et al, my two cents says Ells is gone as well, just not convinced the FO feels the same way. I think they would have been much more aggressive about trying to move him if they thought there was no chance of keeping him. And for all I know, maybe they were aggressive about moving him and just couldn't find a match. Time will tell.



    Maybe they realized he will sell more seats and draw more viewers on NESN in 1 year than the prospect he is traded for will bring us for years to come.

     
  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:

    There are 2 reasons why Ellsbury is probably gone:

     

    1) He's probably worth more to the Yanks or Philadelphia

    2) He might be worth a #1 draft pick for the Sox.

     

    Look at the Bourn situation though. No one is knocking down his door because they would have to give up their #1 pick to get him. Ellsbury will hopefully draw a qualifying offer if he has a great year.  We may actually decide to offer him a solid deal and try to keep him. He's an exciting player and he can put up some outstanding numbers potentially. I wouldn't rule it out that we keep him. Maybe a 15-20% chance.



    I think the odds are less than 5%.

    BTW, a team in the top 10 picks does not lose a pick if they sign Bourn... or Ellsbury next year.

    I wonder why we didn't use this clause this year, if it was all about selling viewership.

    I'm not saying I like the idea, but we could have traded Ellsbury and then signed Bourn and not lost the top 10 pick.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    There are 2 reasons why Ellsbury is probably gone:

     

    1) He's probably worth more to the Yanks or Philadelphia

    2) He might be worth a #1 draft pick for the Sox.

     

    Look at the Bourn situation though. No one is knocking down his door because they would have to give up their #1 pick to get him. Ellsbury will hopefully draw a qualifying offer if he has a great year.  We may actually decide to offer him a solid deal and try to keep him. He's an exciting player and he can put up some outstanding numbers potentially. I wouldn't rule it out that we keep him. Maybe a 15-20% chance.

     



    I think the odds are less than 5%.

     

    BTW, a team in the top 10 picks does not lose a pick if they sign Bourn... or Ellsbury next year.

    I wonder why we didn't use this clause this year, if it was all about selling viewership.

    I'm not saying I like the idea, but we could have traded Ellsbury and then signed Bourn and not lost the top 10 pick.



    The Sox did say Ellsbury was the kind of player they would consider keeping earlier this winter. They don't appear to fault him for his injuries, which makes sense to me because I don't fault him for that either ). He keeps himself in great shape by going to the API every winter, which is exactly what I want from every player. He is a major fan draw. It looks like most teams don't even want to sign Bourn considering that it costs them a pick, cutting down the competition level for each player. Losing that pick can really be a disincentive for teams to offer a lot of money and lots of teams aren't going to pony up big money for any type of player of Ellsbury's worth assuming he is worth a qualifying offer ( big assumption in itself ). I think a 15-20% likelihood might even be conservative. Look at Michael Bourn, a very comparable player if not even better.

    It potentially takes a big market team to sign him, and the Redsox are one of the few big market teams. It depends in part how JBJ does next summer also but we will see. Who are the Redsox going to spend their money on?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share