A total rebuild was the better long-term option

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gomes is not going to have a great anything

     

    let me be the first to call him

     

    Willie Mo Gomes

    [/QUOTE]

    Gomes will hit LHP.  Hopefully they get a RHH LF better than Nava. I would prefer someone like David Murphy,  Seth Smith,  or David DeJesus.

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No not really. 

    I only have one rule.  If you have two players of similar ability and on eof those players is 22 while ethe other is 31; play the 22 year old.

    22 year old players get better and 31 year old players do not. 

    I also think a team should have a plan in the off season - and not just a plan like "let's sign some slobs so the fans think we care.  The fans are dumb and we have plenty of apologists"

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not unreasonable, but who are the 22 y.o.s that are ready to take over?

    [/QUOTE]

    BTW, did I miss your list of 22 year olds ready to take over?

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Incomptent is spending 150 million a year and getting zero playoff wins, and doing the same thing, over and over and over and over and over.

    [/QUOTE]


    IncompTent is softy not getting that Ben went a long way!  A LONG LONG way in digging us out of a 1/4 BILLION $$$$$ in contractual obligations, two of which would have been franchise killers for the next 5+ years, & the third, A-Gon was HISTORIC overpaying for for a very good player (NOT GREAT) player.  He gave us back a shot at rebuilding.  He pushed the proverbial RESET button.  GREAT FIRST MOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  HISTORIC!

    Clearly, THE SOFT ONE can't understand this.  Not only did Ben C. not sign those three, but he went a long way in cleaning up the ACTUAL GROSS NEGLIGENCE of Theo & Larry. 

    NOW....  As for his signing THIS OFF SEASON???  I have serious doubts!!!!  These signings are a real sign of several coming "BRIDGE YEARS."  Ughhh!  Still, once again, the Soft One proves his INCOMPETENCE, not to mention his sheer stupidity.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In a nutshell, we're going to sink or swim on the arms of Lester, Buchholz and Lackey.  I agree with that, but it's not a great revelation.  We do have some options.  We have some pitching prospects and we also have some money in reserve.

    Cherington has gone with a patchwork strategy, no question.  But in the short term I think it was about as good as he could do. 

    [/QUOTE]

    If the short-term plan works out and the Sox get in the WC, does anyone think Lester, Buch, and Dempster can lead the Sox to a WS victory?

    The biggest problem with the patchwork strategy is the only way to win going forward (post new CBA) is with developing picks and in the Sox recent past trading for prospects.  The number of picks needs to be maximized b/c the old paradigm is broken.  Theo played the system: trades like Wagner for picks, FA short-term signings that netted picks (Beltre), overslot  spending(Westmooreland,....), and IFA (iglesias).  All those loopholes are gone (or more difficult).

    The mediocre Sox are likely to win between 75 and 85 games,  rebuild mode would have meant 65 for a year or two (MORE).   Papi (as I called for before he got hurt), Ellsbury, and Lester all should have been packaged last season to increase the number of top prospects in the system.  Don't bring up players too early, be patient and accept that even big market clubs need to have down cycle to replenish the core. 

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to tom-uk's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In a nutshell, we're going to sink or swim on the arms of Lester, Buchholz and Lackey.  I agree with that, but it's not a great revelation.  We do have some options.  We have some pitching prospects and we also have some money in reserve.

    Cherington has gone with a patchwork strategy, no question.  But in the short term I think it was about as good as he could do. 

    [/QUOTE]

    If the short-term plan works out and the Sox get in the WC, does anyone think Lester, Buch, and Dempster can lead the Sox to a WS victory?

    The biggest problem with the patchwork strategy is the only way to win going forward (post new CBA) is with developing picks and in the Sox recent past trading for prospects.  The number of picks needs to be maximized b/c the old paradigm is broken.  Theo played the system: trades like Wagner for picks, FA short-term signings that netted picks (Beltre), overslot  spending(Westmooreland,....), and IFA (iglesias).  All those loopholes are gone (or more difficult).

    The mediocre Sox are likely to win between 75 and 85 games,  rebuild mode would have meant 65 for a year or two (MORE).   Papi (as I called for before he got hurt), Ellsbury, and Lester all should have been packaged last season to increase the number of top prospects in the system.  Don't bring up players too early, be patient and accept that even big market clubs need to have down cycle to replenish the core. 

    [/QUOTE]

    1-Again, that all depends on your view of an 85-win season being the ceiling.  Not everyone agrees with that.

    2-If we make the WC, it will be because Lester and Buchholz have returned to form.  In that case, they can win the WS.  And even if not, no one has an inside path to the WS.

    3-We're not losing any picks by signing these guys.  The future is exactly the same as it was.

    4-Had we traded Ells and Lester, we'd basically be saying that we were going to shut down major league operations until 2015 at the earliest, and more likely not compete until 2016.  With our financial strength, I see no need for that.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    1-Again, that all depends on your view of an 85-win season being the ceiling.  Not everyone agrees with that.

    (((( Of course, Vegas has the Sox at  range from 28-40 to 1 (tied for ~14th with the Brewers and Royals).  Joe, I wish I had your optimism, after 2010 you were optimistic about Buch's future.  I disagreed b/c his peripherals were poor.  I was right b/c I went with the numbers and you went with your eyes and memory in that case)))))

    2-If we make the WC, it will be because Lester and Buchholz have returned to form.  In that case, they can win the WS.  And even if not, no one has an inside path to the WS.

    ((( Look at the top two starters of the other AL contenders, are any worse than the Sox? )))))))

    3-We're not losing any picks by signing these guys.  The future is exactly the same as it was.

    ((((( Victorino may have been signed to replace Ells))))))

    4-Had we traded Ells and Lester, we'd basically be saying that we were going to shut down major league operations until 2015 at the earliest, and more likely not compete until 2016.  With our financial strength, I see no need for that.

    (((((( The other option is becoming the Mets North, IMO.  The top players no longer make it to FA,  most of the top FA have been busts b/c  of age related decline, therefore Ben should have emptied the shelves for a brighter future just like the 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012 Mets should have.)))))))))

    [/QUOTE]


     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to tom-uk's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    1-Again, that all depends on your view of an 85-win season being the ceiling.  Not everyone agrees with that.

    (((( Of course, what does Vegas say?  Joe, I wish I had your optimism, after 2010 you were optimistic about Buch's future.  I disagreed b/c his peripherals were poor.  I was right b/c I went with the numbers and you went with your eyes and memory in that case)))))

    2-If we make the WC, it will be because Lester and Buchholz have returned to form.  In that case, they can win the WS.  And even if not, no one has an inside path to the WS.

    ((( Look at the top two starters of the other AL contenders, are any worse than the Sox? )))))))

    3-We're not losing any picks by signing these guys.  The future is exactly the same as it was.

    ((((( Victorino may have been signed to replace Ells))))))

    4-Had we traded Ells and Lester, we'd basically be saying that we were going to shut down major league operations until 2015 at the earliest, and more likely not compete until 2016.  With our financial strength, I see no need for that.

    (((((( The other option is becoming the Mets North, IMO.  The top players no longer make it to FA,  most of the top FA have been busts b/c  of age related decline, therefore Ben should have emptied the shelves for a brighter future just like the 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012 Mets should have.)))))))))

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    1-I did not know Buchholz had congenital issue with his neck.  He had a 3.48 in 2011, and had a 3.41 in 2012 in his last 20 starts, and Bill James has him forecast for a 3.68 this year.

    2-Are any two worse?  In the playoffs?  If Lester returns to form, he is as good as anyone.

    3-Not sure what you mean.  Vic won't replace Ellsbury unless he is traded, or unless Bradley takes a step back.  And if he replaces Ellsbury, doesn't that mean we're are obtaining picks, not losing them?

    4-Not sure what you mean here either.  The way I see it, these short-term signings are here so that we don't have to either trade the kids, or bring them up too soon.

    Don't get me wrong, the heart of my philosophy has always been to develop the minor league system.  But no minor league system can supply every position, and no minor league system pumps out x number of players each year.

    The only thing that signing Victorino and Napoli and Dempster does is to ensure that we are competitive until the 4 Bs++ arrive.  No one gets held back.  No picks are lost.  No prospects have been traded.

    The only thing not signing these guys would've done is to put more money in Henry's pockets, and possibly drive down future revenues.

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    Didn't Lucchino get the initial phone call from the Dodgers about the big trade?

    I read that he said this on a radio interview.

    If so, it tells me that Ben C. had nothing to do with the trade at all.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    He gave us back a shot at rebuilding. 

    Folks, read the words of an imbecile. The Red Sox, with about 150 million set to be spent for 2013, now have "a shot" at rebuilding. And, the Wards says, it's "historic".

    [/QUOTE]


    Softy,

     

    Stop taking my wArds out of context!

     

    :)

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gomes is not going to have a great anything

     

    let me be the first to call him

     

    Willie Mo Gomes

    [/QUOTE]

    Gomes will hit LHP.  Hopefully they get a RHH LF better than Nava. I would prefer someone like David Murphy,  Seth Smith,  or David DeJesus.

    [/QUOTE]

    I assume you meant LHH LF'er.

    Yes, Gomes had great numbers vs LHPs. His career OPS is a hefty .894 vs lefties. To get an idea of what he can do in this split, here are his career numbers prorated to 650 PAs:

    .284  29  90  (.382 OBP/.512 SLG)

    His OPS in 2012: .974 in 196 PAs. Prorated to 650: .299  36  89  (.413/.561)

     

    As it stands now, if we don't get a LHH'ing LF'er, we have a few players who will be fighting for the slot, none of which inspire much confidence:

    Numbers vs RHPs (note: most are small sample sizes):

    Nava (SH) .261/.369/.399/.768 in 374 career PAs. (.261  6  79 w 53 2B/3Bs)

    Kalish (LH) .239/.295/.348/.644 in 222 career PAs. (.239  11  73 w 29 2Bs)

     

    As I have mentioned before, Shane Victorino really struggles vs RHPs as well, so getting another corner OF'er who can hit righties well and also field RF well might be a nice pick-up.

    Victorino (SH) vs RHPs:

    .267/.330/.402/.732 in career 2979 PAs (not counting a .563 OPS batting RH'd vs RHPs in 91 career PAs.)

    Prorated to 650: .267  10  60  (35 2B+3Bs)

    2012: .229/.296/.333/.629 (Prorated: .229  6  53 with 32 2B+3Bs)

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    wArd up!  Who exactly rid the Sox of the A-Gon, Beckett, & Crawbust contracts, all of which were railed against by the Soft One?

    I think softy has a hard time keeping track of the BS he spouts.

    I know it's hard for softy to follow simple logic, but ....  Here are the facts.

    Ben C. was the driving force behind dealing A-Gon, Beckett, & Craw.

    Great move!  Saving 1/4 BILLION IN future contracts which would have crippled RSN

    THAT!!!!  Gave the RS a new lease on life!  PERIOD!  FACT!

    NOW (get it soft one?) NOW...  Ben C. is making some highly questionable moves.  I'm not thrilled with a single one!!!!  I will hold out hope, AS I AM A 50 YEARS LONG RS FAN, unlike the soft one!  I doubt he was even a pretend Sox fan before 04.

    TOO TOUGH TO FOLLOW STIFFY???  

     

    GET A LIFE!

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You can bet that the order to get rid of Crawbust and Beckett came from Henry and never even went to Cherry. That AGon was the price is the cost of embarrassing contract offers to Crawbust and the silly premature extension to Beckett.

    [/QUOTE]


    Blah blah blah, the same old nonsense from you.  AGon was an extremely valuable player through 2011 because his performance so greatly exceeded his compensation.  From 2012, he has been fully if not over-priced so he is simply not that valuable....similar to the way Manny cleared irrevocable waivers in the winter of 2003 i.e. no one would take him for free.  If the Dodgers chose to overvalue him (SoCal roots?  Ethnic heritage?  Other?) that's their problem and our big win.  Funny how so many people here slaughtered the trade at first and so few now do.  For example, you were spitting blood about the "farm scraps" the Dodgers sent us not understanding how highly rated two of them are.....


    Feel free to repeat your nonsense in the futile hope that someone will eventually agree with you.

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Damned if they do and damed if they don't.....

    [/QUOTE]


    This is NOT true. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    BS it is true...

    many want the kids And many don't.

    many want the big signings like Hamilton

    many hated the past big signings Agon / CC

    many of the same people hate either one of the above or ttwo they are damned easy way they go.

    Then when "fans" say they don't have a plan they show themselves to be the all unknowing fans they are.

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You can't go with an all-youth team, especially in Boston where people have such little patience.  The youth need veterans to lean on and learn from.  An all-youth team could be a disaster.

    [/QUOTE]


    The 1975 team.  Look at the ages on that team sometime and then re-read your post.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The average age in 75 was 27 and won nothing.

    in 04 and 07 the average age was 30. 

    Younger is only good if they have the pedigree Rice spent 4 yrs in the minors hitting 300 with 78 hrs and 310 RBIs.

     

     

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    [/QUOTE]

    Gomes will hit LHP.  Hopefully they get a RHH LF better than Nava. I would prefer someone like David Murphy,  Seth Smith,  or David DeJesus.

    [/QUOTE]

    I assume you meant LHH LF'er.

    Yes, Gomes had great numbers vs LHPs. His career OPS is a hefty .894 vs lefties. To get an idea of what he can do in this split, here are his career numbers prorated to 650 PAs:

    .284  29  90  (.382 OBP/.512 SLG)

    His OPS in 2012: .974 in 196 PAs. Prorated to 650: .299  36  89  (.413/.561)

     

    As it stands now, if we don't get a LHH'ing LF'er, we have a few players who will be fighting for the slot, none of which inspire much confidence:

    Numbers vs RHPs (note: most are small sample sizes):

    Nava (SH) .261/.369/.399/.768 in 374 career PAs. (.261  6  79 w 53 2B/3Bs)

    Kalish (LH) .239/.295/.348/.644 in 222 career PAs. (.239  11  73 w 29 2Bs)

     

    As I have mentioned before, Shane Victorino really struggles vs RHPs as well, so getting another corner OF'er who can hit righties well and also field RF well might be a nice pick-up.

    Victorino (SH) vs RHPs:

    .267/.330/.402/.732 in career 2979 PAs (not counting a .563 OPS batting RH'd vs RHPs in 91 career PAs.)

    Prorated to 650: .267  10  60  (35 2B+3Bs)

    2012: .229/.296/.333/.629 (Prorated: .229  6  53 with 32 2B+3Bs)

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd be ok with a Gomes/Nava LF platoon if they each batted the other way around i.e. cheap pair that mashes against righties and has a high OBP against lefties.  But they don't, and neither fields well, so that doesn't seem like a good platoon to me.

    Victorino's splits as a LHB were decent until 2012 so if he can recover to a respectable level (career LHB OPS is .732 plus his great defense and speed) perhaps he could play every day platooning with Gomes in LF and a decent LHB in RF. 

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to ampoule's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Didn't Lucchino get the initial phone call from the Dodgers about the big trade?

    I read that he said this on a radio interview.

    If so, it tells me that Ben C. had nothing to do with the trade at all.

    [/QUOTE]

    I seriously doubt LL would involve himself in the details.  He's not enough of a BB person.  Ego yes, details no.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to ampoule's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Didn't Lucchino get the initial phone call from the Dodgers about the big trade?

    I read that he said this on a radio interview.

    If so, it tells me that Ben C. had nothing to do with the trade at all.

    [/QUOTE]

    http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8323305/boston-red-sox-los-angeles-dodgers-blockbuster-trade-anatomy

    It may have been one of the most significant dinner-table conversations inRed Sox history, one already given a name by Red Sox CEO Larry Lucchino: "The Denver Resurrection."

    This was Aug. 14 at the Four Seasons Hotel in Denver, where major league baseball's owners had assembled for their quarterly meeting. John W. Henry, Tom Werner and Larry Lucchino were all there representing the Red Sox. The biggest item on the agenda was approving the sale of the San Diego Padres. But while they were breaking bread that night, Henry struck up a dialogue with Mark Walter, who only months earlier had bought the Los Angeles Dodgers for a record $2 billion.

     Walter, a native Iowan, is chief executive officer of Guggenheim Capital LLC, a global company that offers diversified financial services. If Magic Johnson is the public face of the new Dodgers ownership, Walter is the bagman. Henry knew Walter only casually. Lucchino had never met him before that night.

    The topic turned to Red Sox first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, a player coveted by the Dodgers. The teams had engaged in serious talks up to the trading deadline, but could not close a deal. Now Walter had a suggestion for Henry: What if the Dodgers would consider taking outfielder Carl Crawford in the deal as well?

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    You might say that Ben is the Tim Wakefield of G.M.s . He eats losing seasons and " gives you a shot at rebuilding. "  He can give you two last place finishes in two years on the job, and his loyal defenders here will still say that his " plan " is working. 

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ampoule's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Didn't Lucchino get the initial phone call from the Dodgers about the big trade?

    I read that he said this on a radio interview.

    If so, it tells me that Ben C. had nothing to do with the trade at all.

    [/QUOTE]

    I seriously doubt LL would involve himself in the details.  He's not enough of a BB person.  Ego yes, details no.

    [/QUOTE]


    I think LL knows basebal better than most gim him credit for.  He has worked in the industry for a long time.   Surely something he has picked up something by now.

     

    He has enough pwer and a low enough profile that he maes for an ideal scapegoat.  And he might even be ridiculously egomaniacal, I wouldn't know.  But I do doubt he is ignorant on the subject, and even if he admitted as much (which I believe he has), it probably comes from comparing himself to peers or possibly out of humility (if he has any). 

     

    That casual fans like us think we have more of a clue about baseball than him is actually quite ridiculous...

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    If you're going to blame Ben for 2011, why not blame him for the late '20s and early '30s too?

     

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

    Re: A total rebuild was the better long-term option

    Of course, he's been with the Sox since 1999 so give him full credit for 2004 and 2007 if you give him full responsibility for 2011.


    The bottom line is that there are two factions re Ben Cherington:

    1. Those that hate him, think he's a disaster, has no plan and is ruining the Red Sox (including, to at least one poster, his responsibility for the 2011 debacle, har de har har); and
    2. those - including me - that think it's far too early to tell because he had no power before November 2011, no budget since, and now has little to spend the money on that's been freed up since.

     

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share