A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    Will Middlebrooks has posted a sub-.275 on-base percentage and a sub-.700 OPS in 129 games since the trade of Kevin Youkilis in June 2012 (after a spectacular 40-game MLB debut). Projectiing a .310 OBP and an .800 OPS is highly optimistic. Middlebrooks probably is who he is.

    You can cherry pick SSS of the bad stats all you want. I dont. I also choose to put things in context, not just look at numbers. All you numbers guys forget that theres a human element to the game.

    If you look at his OBP throughout the MiL and MLB, you will see that .310 is far from "highly optomistic". Actually its pretty modest. Besides last years struggles, we have to take into consideration the broken wrist in 2012 and the broken ribs this year, he hasnt had an OBP below .325 in MLB or MiL since low A ball when he was 19.
    Hes had close to, or over a 500SLG a few times. His power is obviously there. to expect a SLG between 470-500 or better is aslo far from highly optomistic.

    In all fairness, the 129-game sample I cited (in a 169-game MLB career) is larger than any of the single-season samples you referenced.

    Here is an interesting tool titled the Minor League Equivalency Calculator, although I can't vouch for its accuracy:

    http://mlsplits.drivelinebaseball.com/mlsplits/mlecalc

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    Will Middlebrooks has posted a sub-.275 on-base percentage and a sub-.700 OPS in 129 games since the trade of Kevin Youkilis in June 2012 (after a spectacular 40-game MLB debut). Projectiing a .310 OBP and an .800 OPS is highly optimistic. Middlebrooks probably is who he is.

    You can cherry pick SSS of the bad stats all you want. I dont. I also choose to put things in context, not just look at numbers. All you numbers guys forget that theres a human element to the game.

    If you look at his OBP throughout the MiL and MLB, you will see that .310 is far from "highly optomistic". Actually its pretty modest. Besides last years struggles, we have to take into consideration the broken wrist in 2012 and the broken ribs this year, he hasnt had an OBP below .325 in MLB or MiL since low A ball when he was 19.
    Hes had close to, or over a 500SLG a few times. His power is obviously there. to expect a SLG between 470-500 or better is aslo far from highly optomistic.

    In all fairness, the 129-game sample I cited (in a 169-game MLB career) is larger than any of the single-season samples you referenced.




    Hows that? I used full season stats for everyone of his years in pro ball...

    I realize there are more games in an MLB season, but were talking about 10-20 game difference from yours. kinda pickin nits now.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Honestly, I think Im being ppretty realistic.  A .310OBP is nothing to write home about. I considered the injuries, the growing he went through last year having to be sent down because of his poor approach. I dont think hes going to be a high OBP guy, but should have a decent BA and SLG. I think your term highly optomistic is off base. Those numbers would be right in line with his production throughout his pro career.

    If you think hes a .274OBP guy well thats your opinion. But to look at ALL his stats and take EVERYTHING, not just the numbers, into consideration...Id say 250 310 480+ 25HR 150K is pretty realistic for Middy...

     

    Oh, and happy Thanksgiving to you and yours Hill.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    And Moon,

    The Reds dont need Dempster just like they dont need Peavy. Their rotation looks to be set. Plus the $$ isnt a good thing for them. But I agree that they should consider hanigan if the price is right.

    Maybe a three way deal then.

     




    How about just give them a relief pitcher or something we have a surplus of that is inexpensive?

     

    Hanigan shouldnt cost much since they already have their catchers and hes going to make 2-3M. No need to do a 3-way for Hanigan. Morales, villareal, Hernandez, Wilson are a few names Maybe an Almanzar or De La Cruz, maybe Coyle... Something along those lines.



    I'm sure something like what you list here could get the job done, but I'm thinking we can add salary space by trying to deal Dempster somehow. It doesn't have to be the Hanigan deal.

    If we deal Dempster, I'd like to keep Morales.

    In a sense, if we traded Dempster ina 3 way for Hanigan, we'd essentially get Hannigan and a $10M free agent or upgrade a FA by $10M.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    I'm going with Moon on this. We need some salary relief. Last year is done. Could be the difference in keeping Ellsbury?

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    Honestly, I think Im being ppretty realistic.  A .310OBP is nothing to write home about. I considered the injuries, the growing he went through last year having to be sent down because of his poor approach. I dont think hes going to be a high OBP guy, but should have a decent BA and SLG. I think your term highly optomistic is off base. Those numbers would be right in line with his production throughout his pro career.

    If you think hes a .274OBP guy well thats your opinion. But to look at ALL his stats and take EVERYTHING, not just the numbers, into consideration...Id say 250 310 480+ 25HR 150K is pretty realistic for Middy...

    Oh, and happy Thanksgiving to you and yours Hill.

    And Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family ... you are a gentleman who brings a great deal to this forum (and to the gameday chats).

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    And Moon,

    The Reds dont need Dempster just like they dont need Peavy. Their rotation looks to be set. Plus the $$ isnt a good thing for them. But I agree that they should consider hanigan if the price is right.

    Maybe a three way deal then.

     




    How about just give them a relief pitcher or something we have a surplus of that is inexpensive?

     

    Hanigan shouldnt cost much since they already have their catchers and hes going to make 2-3M. No need to do a 3-way for Hanigan. Morales, villareal, Hernandez, Wilson are a few names Maybe an Almanzar or De La Cruz, maybe Coyle... Something along those lines.



    I'm sure something like what you list here could get the job done, but I'm thinking we can add salary space by trying to deal Dempster somehow. It doesn't have to be the Hanigan deal.

    If we deal Dempster, I'd like to keep Morales.

    In a sense, if we traded Dempster ina 3 way for Hanigan, we'd essentially get Hannigan and a $10M free agent or upgrade a FA by $10M.




    How about lackey to Az for prospects?

    I just started a thread on this.

    Az is looking for Pitching for 2014 and are willing to part with some of their very good prospects in their system. Some could be ready in 2014 or 2015. They might even be willing to part with some MLB talent. They can afford lackey and would have a solid Vet for 2 years. Just a thought.

    That would clear 15.75 towards the LT this year and add a position of need and/or good prospects for the future and allow us to spend the 15.75 elsewhere. Both teams match up well.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    I'm going with Moon on this. We need some salary relief. Last year is done. Could be the difference in keeping Ellsbury?



    I'm not for signing Ellsbury at $19M a year, but by trading Dempster in a 3 way deal for Hanigan and saving about $10M, we coukld afford this and still stay under the limit:

    (Note: not my choice)

    $19M x 6 Ellsbury

    $14M x 3 Napoli

    $7M x 3 Mujica

    The 2014 25 man roster:

    C: Hanigan/Ross

    1B: Napoli/Carp

    2B: Pedey

    3B: Middy/Snyder or Holt

    SS: Bogey

    LF: Nava/Gomes

    CF: Ells (JBJ)

    RF: Victorino

    DH: Ortiz

    SP: Lester, Buch, Lack, Peavy, Demp, Morales

    RP: Uehara, Mujica, Breslow, Tazawa, Badenhop, Workman

     

    It's pretty close to the same team as last year, but with Bogey over Drew, Hanigan over Salty and a better April pen on paper.

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    How about lackey to Az for prospects?

    I just started a thread on this.

    Az is looking for Pitching for 2014 and are willing to part with some of their very good prospects in their system. Some could be ready in 2014 or 2015. They might even be willing to part with some MLB talent. They can afford lackey and would have a solid Vet for 2 years. Just a thought.

    That would clear 15.75 towards the LT this year and add a position of need and/or good prospects for the future and allow us to spend the 15.75 elsewhere. Both teams match up well.

    John Lackey has significant trade value, but only the AAV salary of about $8.5 million counts against the luxury tax.

    If the Red Sox farm system were barren, then perhaps the Sox could trade a productive starter for prospects. But given the current health of the Red Sox farm, the Sox probably would be better off keeping Lackey (although I subscribe to the idea of selling high).

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    How about lackey to Az for prospects?

    I just started a thread on this.

    Az is looking for Pitching for 2014 and are willing to part with some of their very good prospects in their system. Some could be ready in 2014 or 2015. They might even be willing to part with some MLB talent. They can afford lackey and would have a solid Vet for 2 years. Just a thought.

    That would clear 15.75 towards the LT this year and add a position of need and/or good prospects for the future and allow us to spend the 15.75 elsewhere. Both teams match up well.

    John Lackey has significant trade value, but only the AAV salary of about $8.5 million counts against the luxury tax.

    If the Red Sox farm system were barren, then perhaps the Sox could trade a productive starter for prospects. But given the current health of the Red Sox farm, the Sox probably would be better off keeping Lackey (although I subscribe to the idea of selling high).



    I do not think the AVV is $8.5M. His whole deal average is what is used, and the 2015 option has not been activated yet, as far as I know.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    How about lackey to Az for prospects?

    I just started a thread on this.

    Az is looking for Pitching for 2014 and are willing to part with some of their very good prospects in their system. Some could be ready in 2014 or 2015. They might even be willing to part with some MLB talent. They can afford lackey and would have a solid Vet for 2 years. Just a thought.

    That would clear 15.75 towards the LT this year and add a position of need and/or good prospects for the future and allow us to spend the 15.75 elsewhere. Both teams match up well.

    John Lackey has significant trade value, but only the AAV salary of about $8.5 million counts against the luxury tax.

    If the Red Sox farm system were barren, then perhaps the Sox could trade a productive starter for prospects. But given the current health of the Red Sox farm, the Sox probably would be better off keeping Lackey (although I subscribe to the idea of selling high).




    I didnt realize It was only 8.5M towards the LT this year. Thanx for the info.

    Yeah, Im not so sure they do it either, but I was tired of the same names being talked about here. If we did get offered a very good package of players for Lackey+, Im sure they would have to seriously coinsider it. Lackey is their best option to get the best return right now.

    Since the Sox said to not get too attached to the veterans, Ive been thinking about a possible Lackey deal.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    How about lackey to Az for prospects?

    I just started a thread on this.

    Az is looking for Pitching for 2014 and are willing to part with some of their very good prospects in their system. Some could be ready in 2014 or 2015. They might even be willing to part with some MLB talent. They can afford lackey and would have a solid Vet for 2 years. Just a thought.

    That would clear 15.75 towards the LT this year and add a position of need and/or good prospects for the future and allow us to spend the 15.75 elsewhere. Both teams match up well.

    John Lackey has significant trade value, but only the AAV salary of about $8.5 million counts against the luxury tax.

    If the Red Sox farm system were barren, then perhaps the Sox could trade a productive starter for prospects. But given the current health of the Red Sox farm, the Sox probably would be better off keeping Lackey (although I subscribe to the idea of selling high).



    I do not think the AVV is $8.5M. His whole deal average is what is used, and the 2015 option has not been activated yet, as far as I know.




    It was activated the day he got surgery.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    A couple notes:

    1) I think Southpa has it right on Lackey's contract but I don't see why we would be looking to trade Lackey at all. We are in win now mode. If anything we should be looking to sell prospects to get better now, not the other way around. I don't like trading prospects much but I would certainly consider it whenever we are in this position. Lackey is exactly what we need to stay on top. A guy who can win a start in the playoffs and help us get there in the first place.

    2) I think the scenario Moon gave above might be as realistic as just about anything out there. Bringing back Ellsbury and Napoli might well be their choice with what to do in this situation. I would prefer Choo, Tanaka, Davis, Billy Butler, Hochevar... trading Dempster and Nava and a couple prospects like Webster and Betts to help get that done.

    That is my ideal. Butler / Hochevar should be available in a Nava , Dempster, Webster, Betts trade as they would clearly be getting more value. They have substantial money tied up in Butler and Hochevar also, so the cash Dempster makes is compensated for there. In 2 years we have nothing but a possible pick for Butler or Hochevar and KC still have Nava, Webster, Betts. If I were KC, I would take that deal. They get 2 starters they put right into their rotation plus a decent DH and a great prospect.  My point is that we should be able to improve this team with a pickup like Billy Butler, who should be excellent as a Papi protector and Right handed wall ball expert. A solid setup guy like Hochevar also. Butler should be a  25 HR and .300 average guy in Fenway with less than average defensive ability but clearly not the horrible defense at 1st some people project from him.

    Butler is a great fit and KC has Hosmer so they don't need him at 1st. Nava could step in and give them good production as a DH, reserve OF. We should be able to do some sort of deal for Butler. Add Choo, Butler, Bogaerts to this lineup and Tanaka replacing Dempster in the rotation and this team is clearly better.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    A couple notes:

    1) I think Southpa has it right on Lackey's contract but I don't see why we would be looking to trade Lackey at all. We are in win now mode. If anything we should be looking to sell prospects to get better now, not the other way around. I don't like trading prospects much but I would certainly consider it whenever we are in this position. Lackey is exactly what we need to stay on top. A guy who can win a start in the playoffs and help us get there in the first place.

    2) I think the scenario Moon gave above might be as realistic as just about anything out there. Bringing back Ellsbury and Napoli might well be their choice with what to do in this situation. I would prefer Choo, Tanaka, Davis, Billy Butler, Hochevar... trading Dempster and Nava and a couple prospects like Webster or Barnes to help get that done.

    That is my ideal. Butler / Hochevar should be available in a Nava , Dempster, Webster, Betts trade as they would clearly be getting more value. They have substantial money tied up in Butler and Hochevar also, so the cash Dempster makes is compensated for there. In 2 years we have nothing but a possible pick for Butler or Hochevar and KC still have Nava, Webster, Betts. If I were KC, I would take that deal. They get 2 starters they put right into their rotation plus a decent DH and a great prospect.  My point is that we should be able to improve this team with a pickup like Billy Butler, who should be excellent as a Papi protector and Right handed wall ball expert. A solid setup guy like Hochevar also. Butler should be a  25 HR and .300 average guy in Fenway with less than average defensive ability but clearly not the horrible defense at 1st some people project from him.

    Butler is a great fit and KC has Hosmer so they don't need him at 1st. Nava could step in and give them good production as a DH, reserve OF. We should be able to do some sort of deal for Butler. Add Choo, Butler, Bogaerts to this lineup and Tanaka replacing Dempster in the rotation and this team is clearly better.



    If they did get tanaka would you think that would make up for the possible loss of Lackey? I understand the win now and not to take away from thw rotation with a guy like lack, but how many Sox fans realistically expect a repeat? As long as they remain competetive I think it would be OK.

    I suppose it would depend on the return Though.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    How about lackey to Az for prospects?

    I just started a thread on this.

    Az is looking for Pitching for 2014 and are willing to part with some of their very good prospects in their system. Some could be ready in 2014 or 2015. They might even be willing to part with some MLB talent. They can afford lackey and would have a solid Vet for 2 years. Just a thought.

    That would clear 15.75 towards the LT this year and add a position of need and/or good prospects for the future and allow us to spend the 15.75 elsewhere. Both teams match up well.

    John Lackey has significant trade value, but only the AAV salary of about $8.5 million counts against the luxury tax.

    If the Red Sox farm system were barren, then perhaps the Sox could trade a productive starter for prospects. But given the current health of the Red Sox farm, the Sox probably would be better off keeping Lackey (although I subscribe to the idea of selling high).




    I didnt realize It was only 8.5M towards the LT this year. Thanx for the info.

    Yeah, Im not so sure they do it either, but I was tired of the same names being talked about here. If we did get offered a very good package of players for Lackey+, Im sure they would have to seriously coinsider it. Lackey is their best option to get the best return right now.

    Since the Sox said to not get too attached to the veterans, Ive been thinking about a possible Lackey deal.



    It's not $8.5.

    If they count the 2015 option year, he will have been paid about $83M/6 or an AVV of about $14M.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    How about lackey to Az for prospects?

    I just started a thread on this.

    Az is looking for Pitching for 2014 and are willing to part with some of their very good prospects in their system. Some could be ready in 2014 or 2015. They might even be willing to part with some MLB talent. They can afford lackey and would have a solid Vet for 2 years. Just a thought.

    That would clear 15.75 towards the LT this year and add a position of need and/or good prospects for the future and allow us to spend the 15.75 elsewhere. Both teams match up well.

    John Lackey has significant trade value, but only the AAV salary of about $8.5 million counts against the luxury tax.

    If the Red Sox farm system were barren, then perhaps the Sox could trade a productive starter for prospects. But given the current health of the Red Sox farm, the Sox probably would be better off keeping Lackey (although I subscribe to the idea of selling high).



    I do not think the AVV is $8.5M. His whole deal average is what is used, and the 2015 option has not been activated yet, as far as I know.




    It was activated the day he got surgery.



    Every time I see the break down of our luxury tax budget, it shows Lackey at $16.5M not the $13.9M it should be if the option had been activated.

    Cots says it is a club option.

     

    • 2015 club option at Major League minimum salary if Lackey misses significant time with surgery for pre-existing elbow injury in 2010-14
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    If they did get tanaka would you think that would make up for the possible loss of Lackey? I understand the win now and not to take away from thw rotation with a guy like lack, but how many Sox fans realistically expect a repeat? As long as they remain competetive I think it would be OK.

    I suppose it would depend on the return Though.

    Maybe Lackey will not repeat 2013, but I'd guess he projects to a better 2014 than Peavy or Dempster.

    Yes, he will get a better return, but for what we can get for the money saved by trading Peavy or Dempster, I think that is the better way to go.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: 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:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    How about lackey to Az for prospects?

    I just started a thread on this.

    Az is looking for Pitching for 2014 and are willing to part with some of their very good prospects in their system. Some could be ready in 2014 or 2015. They might even be willing to part with some MLB talent. They can afford lackey and would have a solid Vet for 2 years. Just a thought.

    That would clear 15.75 towards the LT this year and add a position of need and/or good prospects for the future and allow us to spend the 15.75 elsewhere. Both teams match up well.

    John Lackey has significant trade value, but only the AAV salary of about $8.5 million counts against the luxury tax.

    If the Red Sox farm system were barren, then perhaps the Sox could trade a productive starter for prospects. But given the current health of the Red Sox farm, the Sox probably would be better off keeping Lackey (although I subscribe to the idea of selling high).



    I do not think the AVV is $8.5M. His whole deal average is what is used, and the 2015 option has not been activated yet, as far as I know.




    It was activated the day he got surgery.



    Every time I see the break down of our luxury tax budget, it shows Lackey at $16.5M not the $13.9M it should be if the option had been activated.

    Cots says it is a club option.

     

    • 2015 club option at Major League minimum salary if Lackey misses significant time with surgery for pre-existing elbow injury in 2010-14




    Ok, thanks. I must not have read it correctly. I though it automatically activated the option.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    If they did get tanaka would you think that would make up for the possible loss of Lackey? I understand the win now and not to take away from thw rotation with a guy like lack, but how many Sox fans realistically expect a repeat? As long as they remain competetive I think it would be OK.

    I suppose it would depend on the return Though.

    Maybe Lackey will not repeat 2013, but I'd guess he projects to a better 2014 than Peavy or Dempster.

    Yes, he will get a better return, but for what we can get for the money saved by trading Peavy or Dempster, I think that is the better way to go.




    I dont disagree with you at all. Im just looking at realistically repeating vs adding some young talent for the future/present. I think we could easily still be very competetive without lackey, but like i said, I dont disagree with your idea.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    It's not $8.5.

    If they count the 2015 option year, he will have been paid about $83M/6 or an AVV of about $14M.

    Thank you for the correction, Moon.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    If they did get tanaka would you think that would make up for the possible loss of Lackey? I understand the win now and not to take away from thw rotation with a guy like lack, but how many Sox fans realistically expect a repeat? As long as they remain competetive I think it would be OK.

    I suppose it would depend on the return Though.

    Maybe Lackey will not repeat 2013, but I'd guess he projects to a better 2014 than Peavy or Dempster.

    Yes, he will get a better return, but for what we can get for the money saved by trading Peavy or Dempster, I think that is the better way to go.




    I dont disagree with you at all. Im just looking at realistically repeating vs adding some young talent for the future/present. I think we could easily still be very competetive without lackey, but like i said, I dont disagree with your idea.




    Chances are we don't repeat, but I still like our chances.

    Middy should do better.

    Bogey can outhit Drew.

    That may cancel out the loss of Salty or Napoli.

    Ellsbury will be hard to replace, but I like our staff.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    I haven't looked at it much but I thought Lackey's option kicked in automatically but wouldn't count against the cap until the last year. It was an option after all. They had no way of knowing in those first few years. I don't know for sure but I think it might just be he is at mlb minimum against the cap that last year or they have done some sort of correction from the time they determined the option was applicable ( when he had surgury ).

    I think we definitely have as good a chance as anyone except maybe the Dodgers to repeat. It depends on the off season and of course there are no guarantees. Anything could happen but why not go for it?

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    I haven't looked at it much but I thought Lackey's option kicked in automatically but wouldn't count against the cap until the last year. It was an option after all. They had no way of knowing in those first few years. I don't know for sure but I think it might just be he is at mlb minimum against the cap that last year or they have done some sort of correction from the time they determined the option was applicable ( when he had surgury ).

    It says "club option" on Cots, so I think the team has to accept it (no brainer unless he gets hurt in 2014).

    I agree on the numbers. I think the club option amount counts only on for 2015, so it will be $16.5 M in 2014, then the minimum for 2015. That's one reason I suggested a restructuring of his deal to be something like $8.5M for 2014 and $8.5M for 2015. He would make $17M vs about $15.75M, but it would reduce our luxury hit for 2014 by about $8M and add $8M to the 2015 budget.

     

    I think we definitely have as good a chance as anyone except maybe the Dodgers to repeat. It depends on the off season and of course there are no guarantees. Anything could happen but why not go for it?

    Yes, go for it, but preserve the main structure of future.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    As good as Webster's stuff is, unless he controls it we will not have much to work with. Betts is an excellent prospect but he's still in A ball and most likely a 2nd baseman. Both guys have real value. I would be willing to trade Barnes also. All these guys are great prospects but I think we still retain a ton of talent on the farm even after losing these guys. 

    Basically I'm saying we've got to give up something if we are going to get much back. But we do have some talent to trade and we still retain lots of top guys. Owens, Cechinni, Ranaudo, Swihart...etc. 

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    As good as Webster's stuff is, unless he controls it we will not have much to work with. Betts is an excellent prospect but he's still in A ball and most likely a 2nd baseman. Both guys have real value. I would be willing to trade Barnes also. All these guys are great prospects but I think we still retain a ton of talent on the farm even after losing these guys. 

    Basically I'm saying we've got to give up something if we are going to get much back. But we do have some talent to trade and we still retain lots of top guys. Owens, Cechinni, Ranaudo, Swihart...etc. 



    I'm fine with dealing a few kids, especially blocked ones.

    I agree with the ones you want to keep. My list of those I'd try hard to keep goes like this:

    A+ Bogey & Owens

    A  Cecchini, Ranaudo & Swihart

    A- JBJ, Betts, T Ball

    B+  Workman

    B Vazquez, Barnes

    B- Britton, Webster

     

    Anyone know why de la Rosa is no longer listed as a top 60 prospect on soxprospects.com? Is he no longer a prospect?

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share