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:
    [QUOTE]

    Letting prospects go and aquiring prospects is always a gamble. some are more "surer bets" as you say moon, but still a gamble.

    All they can do is evealuate all the factors in each situation the best they can and live with their choice.

    I wouldnt give up any pitching prospects unless its for a proven commodity that will produce right away.

     

    I guess what I am saying is that I'd rather have 5 pitchers with a 50% chance at making it big over 10 pitchers with a 25% chance.

    I'm oversimplifying, but that is basically my position.

    [/QUOTE]


    At what age or point do you decide what percentage to place on these young men? What Im saying is that unless your name is Strasburg, its so hard to determine whos going to make it an who isnt. We all thought Bowden was going to be here when his numbers were right in line with Buchholz in AA and AAA. Zach Stewert was and is pitching great in AAA, so most considered him a high percentage guy in MLB. Hes done nothing at all and is very hittable in MLB.

    I do understand what your saying Moon and agree to a certain point, but Unless your a Felix Hernandez or a Stephen Strasburg its just too hard to put a definite percentage of likelihood who will make it and who wont. Some kids come out of nowhere and surprise you.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to carnie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Selling the farm for Johnny Cueto might be a good idea too.

     

    I mentioned trying to trade for this guy the last 2 winters. Not many agreed with me then, especially softy.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not much of a surprise, especially about softlaw. I must have missed the conversations about Cueto. Maybe I was busy posting one of my Pedro for pitching coach threads. :)

    [/QUOTE]

    I mentioned a lot of trade suggestions, mostly on Gavin Floyd, Wandy Rodriguez, Gio Gonzalez, and Cuerto. I'm not sure if we even made any offers for these guys.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    At what age or point do you decide what percentage to place on these young men? What Im saying is that unless your name is Strasburg, its so hard to determine whos going to make it an who isnt. We all thought Bowden was going to be here when his numbers were right in line with Buchholz in AA and AAA. Zach Stewert was and is pitching great in AAA, so most considered him a high percentage guy in MLB. Hes done nothing at all and is very hittable in MLB.

    I do understand what your saying Moon and agree to a certain point, but Unless your a Felix Hernandez or a Stephen Strasburg its just too hard to put a definite percentage of likelihood who will make it and who wont. Some kids come out of nowhere and surprise you.

     

    I understand that if you see it like this, you'd want to maximize the quantity of quality prospect pitchers to improve the odds, but surely some prospects appear to have a better chance than others. Sure, some guys that look like clear choices end up failing, but more often than not, the higher ranked pitching prospects succeed more than the lower ranked ones, at least at the same age and development stages in their careers. 

    Right now, we have a pretty good mix of young starters at various stages of development. I wouldn't mind us not trading any of them and giving them all a longer look, but I'd like to see 1-2 closer-to-ML-ready excellent pitching prospects in our system rather than the dozen or so longer-range or not really excellent prospects. Just a little more quality over quantity.

    I realize we could guess wrong, just as keeping some of these kids could go wrong too, if their stock falls next year. In a perfect world, I'd like to trade just positional player and maybe a lower level pitching prospect for a better pitcher, but I am not sure how realistic that is. In theory, we should be able to trade Brentz and Pimental for a much better pitching prospect than Stolmy, right?

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Tonight's line-up was full of prospects.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Not crying over spilt milk, but taking a look at Youk's numbers with the White Sox:

    He leads the team in PAs at 3B now (314 Total).

    OBP: .350

    OPS: .791

    Project his numbers to 628 PAs:

    .232   30   90

     

    He wouldn't have made a difference here, and maybe Stewart will amount to something, but it's good to see him bounce back to some extent. He should make a pretty good 1Bman/DH for some team next year.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    We're pretty much locked into a top 10 (and protected) pick. We could get the #6 pick, but likely will be at 7 or 8th.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Looks like Lester might end up under 5.00.

     

    Our starters have a 5.04 ERA and 1.400.

                 IP  ERA

    Lest      200  4.94

    Buch     188  4.22

    Doub    154  4.91

    Beck     127  5.23

    Cook       93  5.14

    Bard        54  5.23

    Mora       46  4.14

    Dice        43  7.68

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    We've freed up a ton of salary while Liverpool has spent a fortune and look like they may be relegated to 2nd division this year. That is unheard of in England and a huge financial disaster if it ends up that way. I'm not convinced our decisions are always separate from those made in England. The world of sports franchises is not so rosy for Henry and company this year. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    With Crawford, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Adrian's salaries gone, we don't even have a stud worthy of buying on the FA market. It probably ends up with quite a few lower tier guys to try to put a competitive team on the field. We are officially in rebuild mode guys, and it probably takes at least 2-3 years.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    With Crawford, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Adrian's salaries gone, we don't even have a stud worthy of buying on the FA market. It probably ends up with quite a few lower tier guys to try to put a competitive team on the field. We are officially in rebuild mode guys, and it probably takes at least 2-3 years.

     
  11. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    At what age or point do you decide what percentage to place on these young men? What Im saying is that unless your name is Strasburg, its so hard to determine whos going to make it an who isnt. We all thought Bowden was going to be here when his numbers were right in line with Buchholz in AA and AAA. Zach Stewert was and is pitching great in AAA, so most considered him a high percentage guy in MLB. Hes done nothing at all and is very hittable in MLB.

    I do understand what your saying Moon and agree to a certain point, but Unless your a Felix Hernandez or a Stephen Strasburg its just too hard to put a definite percentage of likelihood who will make it and who wont. Some kids come out of nowhere and surprise you.

     

    I understand that if you see it like this, you'd want to maximize the quantity of quality prospect pitchers to improve the odds, but surely some prospects appear to have a better chance than others. Sure, some guys that look like clear choices end up failing, but more often than not, the higher ranked pitching prospects succeed more than the lower ranked ones, at least at the same age and development stages in their careers. 

    Right now, we have a pretty good mix of young starters at various stages of development. I wouldn't mind us not trading any of them and giving them all a longer look, but I'd like to see 1-2 closer-to-ML-ready excellent pitching prospects in our system rather than the dozen or so longer-range or not really excellent prospects. Just a little more quality over quantity.

    I realize we could guess wrong, just as keeping some of these kids could go wrong too, if their stock falls next year. In a perfect world, I'd like to trade just positional player and maybe a lower level pitching prospect for a better pitcher, but I am not sure how realistic that is. In theory, we should be able to trade Brentz and Pimental for a much better pitching prospect than Stolmy, right?

    [/QUOTE]


    If we could trade BB and SP for a better pitching prospect I would pull that trigger (not for another RF'er). After the big trade we now have Barnes, De La Rosa, Webster, on the cusp of better than average success...Britton, Workman, Ranaudo are of the 2nd tier middle to bottom rotation types...Now they could all prove me wrong, but from what Ive seen from them (Live, Video, Articles) this is where Id put them...

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I dont see 2-3 years unless they decide to not go out and obtain the players they need. I honestly think they can be competitive next year. Underdogs? for sure. But if we have good health and a good winter, it can be done. 2014 will see more kids coming through while guys like WMB mature more. It really all depends on health and if this ownership is commited to putting a quality product on the field.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I think we can compete next year too, without major deals, but I don't think we are serious contenders until 2013 or 2014. However, I said a similar thing in 1975.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    ...and anything can happen when a team is lead by some fine young players.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Wouldn't it be great to see the O's overtake the Yanks and force them to play the wildcard play-in game and use up a quality starter (or is that an oxymoron)?

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon et al, does the baseball draft work like the football draft?  For example, if we end up picking 7th in the first round, do we pick 7th in subsequent rounds?  If that is how it goes, then we should be getting higher picks all the way through.

    Where is 5-Katz?

    I am listening to what I think is the basic question under discussion here:  how to handle the next couple of years.  Can we win next year by going minimally into the free agent market,  go for pitchers only, or just go for winning in two years?  It seems this organization is slow at bringing along its young players; maybe it would be best right now to bring up the best young guys and let them go for two years.  That may be what some of you are saying, but would that put us in a better position two years from now rather than bringing in free agents.  I agree with Boom/Prospects, that we are in a building mode.  We may not want to circumvent that healthy process by bringing in too many outsiders--unless as you say Moon, they are young and part of that future.

    Finally, does anyone here think BV will be here next year?  I think we need (for you more mature posters) a "Ralph Houk" type of guy for at least two years and BV is not really that guy.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share