Beltre

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

    Beltre

    It's like ever since Beltre was not retained, the Sox have tried to figure out what to do with third base...If there was one guy who did everything you wanted--defense, offense, power--it was Beltre. It was fun watching him as a Sox. So even now with the Sox in 1st place, there is a void on the left side of the infield...although Jose pulled in Peavy for Sox run, and he played exceptional defense in his time there. Youkilis fell apart when he moved to 3b. I still hated that the Sox didn't make an effort to sign Beltre long-term. But they had their heart set on AGon, and I guess in the scheme of things it helped return the Sox back to quality one year after being a laughing-stock.

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

    Re: Beltre

    If Sox didn't care about the money and yrs and exteended all those came and left players, we would have Agon, Beltre, Bogaerts, Pedey, and VMart on our infield.  That's pretty good lineup. 

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

    Re: Beltre

    So Youkilis doesn't count any more?

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

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

    Re: Beltre


    Sorry, dannycater, but I'm just not buying it.  Yes, absolutely, Beltre is an exceptional thirdbaseman and worth every bit of his $15M/ year. He has definitely helped the Rangers too.

    But in 2010 with Beltre the Sox came in second to the Yankees in AL scoring and of course didn't make it to the playoffs, primarily because of the pitching.  The next year, 2011, without Beltre, the Sox scored 50 more runs than in 2010 and led the AL in scoring, but they still finished out of the running because of the pitching.  Last year, 2012, the pitching was again lousy, so Beltre could not have saved the Sox.

    This year, 2013, the Sox are second in MLB in scoring, which is excellent, and are doing so without Beltre, without AGon, with Crawford, without Manny, etc.  And the pitching, thank goodness, is much improved.  All in all, I just don't think Beltre is missed that much. 

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

    Re: Beltre

    max, not my point. My point is that Beltre solves any questions about 3rd base, making say a Jose at SS for longterm more a reason to do so due to Jose's defense. It just would have EVEN NOW make things much easier in terms of solving the left-side issue...and even now, with the rotating Pawtucket 3rd basemen alignment--is an issue.

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

    Re: Beltre

    20-20 hindsight points to what you are saying, but I was appalled when he was dismissed by Sox management as a 1-year bridge. He proved he could be a great Sox..and then they said he was too expensive, but then gave 142 mil to Crawford..so what the hell do I know?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: Beltre

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    It's like ever since Beltre was not retained, the Sox have tried to figure out what to do with third base...If there was one guy who did everything you wanted--defense, offense, power--it was Beltre. It was fun watching him as a Sox. So even now with the Sox in 1st place, there is a void on the left side of the infield...although Jose pulled in Peavy for Sox run, and he played exceptional defense in his time there. Youkilis fell apart when he moved to 3b. I still hated that the Sox didn't make an effort to sign Beltre long-term. But they had their heart set on AGon, and I guess in the scheme of things it helped return the Sox back to quality one year after being a laughing-stock.



    This post is totally using 20/20 hindsight to state a case...

    First off, 3rd base has not been at issue at all until this year (2013) and Middlebrook's underacheivement.

    Here's a recap of reality:

    1. In 2010, Beltre was replaced by AGon, PLANNED!
    2. In 2010, Youkilis moved to 3B. PLANNED!
    3. In 2012, Youkilis was replaced by Middlebrooks, as PLANNED! Maybe this happened a year earlier than expected, but this was the team's planned expectation for 3B
    4. In 2013, Middlebrooks slumped creating the exposure to this position that is being addressed today, UNPLANNED!

    As much as I like Beltre, and with hindsight being 20/20, The Sox would have re-signed him rather than acquire Gonzalez which takes me back to my original statement paragragh.

     

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

    Re: Beltre

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    max, not my point. My point is that Beltre solves any questions about 3rd base, making say a Jose at SS for longterm more a reason to do so due to Jose's defense. It just would have EVEN NOW make things much easier in terms of solving the left-side issue...and even now, with the rotating Pawtucket 3rd basemen alignment--is an issue.



    Danny...Hard not to love Beltre, but I can't agree he solves any questions about 3B....Adrian is 34 years old....already have 26 years in the Majors....almost 2300 games....and plays the game real hard....hard to believe a guy like that (with no steroids of course) could be depnded on to have more than 2 or 3 good years left.....W need to get middlebrooks right and hope a combination of him , Boegaarts and Cecchinni and Marrerro, solve our 1b, SS, and 3B in the future.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Beltre

    In response to Soxdog67's comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    It's like ever since Beltre was not retained, the Sox have tried to figure out what to do with third base...If there was one guy who did everything you wanted--defense, offense, power--it was Beltre. It was fun watching him as a Sox. So even now with the Sox in 1st place, there is a void on the left side of the infield...although Jose pulled in Peavy for Sox run, and he played exceptional defense in his time there. Youkilis fell apart when he moved to 3b. I still hated that the Sox didn't make an effort to sign Beltre long-term. But they had their heart set on AGon, and I guess in the scheme of things it helped return the Sox back to quality one year after being a laughing-stock.

     



    This post is totally using 20/20 hindsight to state a case...

     

    First off, 3rd base has not been at issue at all until this year (2013) and Middlebrook's underacheivement.

    Here's a recap of reality:

    1. In 2010, Beltre was replaced by AGon, PLANNED!
    2. In 2010, Youkilis moved to 3B. PLANNED!
    3. In 2012, Youkilis was replaced by Middlebrooks, as PLANNED! Maybe this happened a year earlier than expected, but this was the team's planned expectation for 3B
    4. In 2013, Middlebrooks slumped creating the exposure to this position that is being addressed today, UNPLANNED!

    As much as I like Beltre, and with hindsight being 20/20, The Sox would have re-signed him rather than acquire Gonzalez which takes me back to my original statement paragragh.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree, but I'll go one step further. I would have gotten a stop-gap corner infielder instead of A-Gon and instead of re-signing Beltre, put Youk at 1B or 3B depending on who came in at the other corner, then wait for Rizzo and Middlebrooks to be ready.

    Middlebrooks slumped this year and Rizzo has been up and down (17 HR, 62 RBI, but just a .245 BA and that's after raising from being in the .230s recently. So I'm not saying I'd be right in the long run -- who knows what Middlebrooks will be -- but I like giving the home-grown kids a chance, rather than always going out and signing veterans in their 30s (or about to be 30) to long-term contracts.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: Beltre

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    max, not my point. My point is that Beltre solves any questions about 3rd base, making say a Jose at SS for longterm more a reason to do so due to Jose's defense. It just would have EVEN NOW make things much easier in terms of solving the left-side issue...and even now, with the rotating Pawtucket 3rd basemen alignment--is an issue.



    I agree.  The Red Sox definitely should have resigned Beltre when they had the chance. 

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

    Re: Beltre

    If the Sox had re-signed Beltre, they would still have Crawford and Beckett...

     

     

    Duh“Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

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

    Re: Beltre

    In response to notin's comment:

    If the Sox had re-signed Beltre, they would still have Crawford and Beckett...

    And they wouldn't have Swihart and Bradley Jr.

     

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

    Re: Beltre

    I have to laugh at how many people poo-poo the notion that Beltre was not going to be a longterm Sox, so therefore it was okaythe Sox did what they did---overpay Crawford badly, overpay AGON, and assume that Youkilis would transition to third even though he had turned into a quality 1b....People talk 20-20 hindsight, but this was an all-time no brainer. He had proven he was a terrific Red Sox, a terrific fielder, and had shown his power had returned after slumping badly in Seattle. If it wasn't broke you don't fix it..Youkilis was fine at the time at 1b and Beltre at 3b was perfect. I don't recall Middlebrooks being a great defensive 3b and Youkilis was far from strong at 3b due to his lack of range. The Sox are still looking for a 3rd baseman...

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

    Re: Beltre

    If the Sox had Beltre, Crawford never would have been signed, not they would have had both. Beckett was a longterm Red Sox already at the time.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: Beltre

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    I have to laugh at how many people poo-poo the notion that Beltre was not going to be a longterm Sox, so therefore it was okaythe Sox did what they did---overpay Crawford badly, overpay AGON, and assume that Youkilis would transition to third even though he had turned into a quality 1b....People talk 20-20 hindsight, but this was an all-time no brainer. He had proven he was a terrific Red Sox, a terrific fielder, and had shown his power had returned after slumping badly in Seattle. If it wasn't broke you don't fix it..Youkilis was fine at the time at 1b and Beltre at 3b was perfect. I don't recall Middlebrooks being a great defensive 3b and Youkilis was far from strong at 3b due to his lack of range. The Sox are still looking for a 3rd baseman...




    I have to laugh at how you poo-poo the fact that the Sox GM, at the time, COVETED Adrian Gonzalez, and he knew that signing him meant he would not pay for afford Beltre as well when Youk was still an apple in the team's eye.  The fact that Youkilis was a THIRD BASEMAN prior to moving to 1B to allow Beltre to play there also is poo-poo'd by the OP.

    The facts you raise about Beltre are all true, but had no impact on the direction the Sox front office wanted to take back in 2010.

    Lastly, the defensive skills of Middlebrooks had no bearing on his ascention as the regular 3B on the major league team. The Sox were focused on his bat and his ability to hit for power AND be under Sox control for a number of years before reaching free agency.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: Beltre

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    If the Sox had Beltre, Crawford never would have been signed, not they would have had both. Beckett was a longterm Red Sox already at the time.



    If the Sox signed Crawford after paying for Gonzalez why wouldn't they have signed him if Beltre was here instead?? Actually it would have made more sense to sign Crawford with Beltre's RH bat in the line-up instead of Gonzalez's LH bat.

    Beckett would likely have been moved in a different deal if he didn't go to LA, since his attitude and drop in performance was a big part of the team's problems in 2011 & 12.

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

    Re: Beltre

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    If the Sox had Beltre, Crawford never would have been signed, not they would have had both. Beckett was a longterm Red Sox already at the time.



    I'm not sure how that connects.  CC plays the outfield.

    I didn't like any of the setup. I didn't think the idea of moving Youk to 3rd was going to work at his age and lack of athleticism.  I'd have preferred they trade for Headley.

    Having said that, we aren't exactly short on 3Bs.  We had Youk, Middlebrooks, Cecchini, and possibly Bogaerts.  It doesn't make sense to spend money on a position that you are well stocked in.

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

    Re: Beltre

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    If the Sox had Beltre, Crawford never would have been signed, not they would have had both. Beckett was a longterm Red Sox already at the time.

     



    I'm not sure how that connects.  CC plays the outfield.

     

    I didn't like any of the setup. I didn't think the idea of moving Youk to 3rd was going to work at his age and lack of athleticism.  I'd have preferred they trade for Headley.

    Having said that, we aren't exactly short on 3Bs.  We had Youk, Middlebrooks, Cecchini, and possibly Bogaerts.  It doesn't make sense to spend money on a position that you are well stocked in.

    [/QUOTE]
    One would think our infield should be set for a very long time given the depth we have in our system

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

    Re: Beltre

    In hindsight:

    We could have traded Youkilis "in the nick of time".

    We could have signed Beltre and traded for AGon.

    We should never have re-signed VMart to catch or play 1B. As it turned out, he won't have outhit Papi as a DH either.

    We could have even traded Middlebrooks "in the nick of time".

    It would be nice to have this now (yes, no Swihart or JBJ either):

    1) Ellsbury

    2) Victorino

    3) Pedroia

    4) Ortiz

    5) Beltre

    6) Napoli

    7) Nava/Gomes

    8) Salty

    9) Drew

     

    Isn't hinsight wonderful?

     

     

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Beltre

    In response to TheMaskedAvenger's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to dannycater's comment:

     

     

    If the Sox had Beltre, Crawford never would have been signed, not they would have had both. Beckett was a longterm Red Sox already at the time.

     

     

     



    I'm not sure how that connects.  CC plays the outfield.

     

     

     

    I didn't like any of the setup. I didn't think the idea of moving Youk to 3rd was going to work at his age and lack of athleticism.  I'd have preferred they trade for Headley.

    Having said that, we aren't exactly short on 3Bs.  We had Youk, Middlebrooks, Cecchini, and possibly Bogaerts.  It doesn't make sense to spend money on a position that you are well stocked in.

     

     


    One would think our infield should be set for a very long time given the depth we have in our system

     

     

     

    I have a lot of faith in our IF prospects, but counting eggs before they hatch can be a dangerous thing.


     

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

    Re: Beltre

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    If the Sox had Beltre, Crawford never would have been signed, not they would have had both. Beckett was a longterm Red Sox already at the time.




    Ah, what a way to wish him out of existence.  Francona's book, however, disagrees with you.

     

    I wanted Beltre back and the Sox to not bother with AGon, but I was alone.  Until Beltre kept it up, apparently, and AGon did not live up to expectations.  But had the Sox re-signed Beltre, we would WITHOUT A DOUBT still have Crawford, Beckett, Rizzo, and Kelly and would not have Jackie Bradley and Blake Swihart.   We also probably would not have Victorino and Mike Napoli, as they would not have been needed as badly...

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Beltre

    Hindsight is 20/20 but it'a obvious we should have kept Beltre and Victor Martinez and kept Youk at first(for a while) instead of making the Gonzales, Crawford deals. The 2010 team broke a record for most days on the disabled list for players(What was it like 240?) and they still finished 89-73. I liked the off season moves for 2010-Lackey, Beltre, Hermida etc...I thought we would be better then 2009 but injuries just killed them. And we would have still had Rizzo and Casey Kelly.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share