LF and backup 1B

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    Yes, but we let Kendrys Morales go elsewhere, we are trying to get out from under a 3 year $39M deal to a career PT player, and have done nothing this winter to set ourselves up with any players that will be in their prime for 2014-2015. What can one more aging, injury-prone stiff do to hurt us any more at this point?

    He's certainly a better gamble than a  Loney/Gomez platoon. Plus, he can stand in LF in Fenway and pick up the ball after it stops rolling when a RH'er is on the mound for the OPS.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    Excellent analysis Notin with some great one-liners.

    Did you consider Overbay or Huff?




    I probably should, as both are upgrades over the only 1Bmen on the current roster, Mauro Gomez and Mark Hamilton. However, I am not really a big fan of Overbay and Huff appears to have let the game pass him by. He missed a lot of 2012 with knee issues and anxiety issues, which could be real or could be a fictitious reason to DL him. He has dropped off a lot since 2010, his last season of offensive relevance, but I did dig a little deeper. I ran some numbers on his splits, and over the past 3 years, he has produced enough to hit the equivalent of .266 / .345 with 18HRs. I would take that level of production, but the main problem is that it is largely carried by his 2010 season, and probably a bit lofty. Still, Huff is not a complete washout, as he has maintained his ability to draw walks and hit line drives. He just hits fewer and fewer flyballs every season.

     

    Overbay has never really been known for offense and has not had an offensively relevant year since 2010 either, much like Huff. He is roughly the same age, 1 month younger, but a lot healthier. However, the same technique projects him to be the equivalent of a .250 / .327 hitter with 17HRs. He does maintain line drives, but he strikes out way too much for my liking.

     

    I would take Napoli over either of them, and have Morse as the fallback option. Although if Huff would be amenable to a bench role, it would not be the worst thing in the world…

     

     

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Yes, but we let Kendrys Morales go elsewhere, we are trying to get out from under a 3 year $39M deal to a career PT player, and have done nothing this winter to set ourselves up with any players that will be in their prime for 2014-2015. What can one more aging, injury-prone stiff do to hurt us any more at this point?

    He's certainly a better gamble than a  Loney/Gomez platoon. Plus, he can stand in LF in Fenway and pick up the ball after it stops rolling when a RH'er is on the mound for the OPS.



    Please explain how we let Morales go elsewhere? Last I checked we didn't have first right of refusal on any and all players traded by the Angels. Who traded a player that was a misfit with them and parlayed that into the aquisition of a veteren lefthanded starter in Vargas...a trade that on paper helped both teams...

    Regarding Napoli, you're assumption is that they're tryng to get out from under the deal. When in fact they're simply protecting thier best interest after seeing his medicals...something they're not privy to before signing him. If the guys hip is such that it's likely he'll need surgery in the short term to fix it...the deal would already have been torn up...

    As for the rest of the roster and the moves made by Cherington. I don't think you've given much thought to the contract status of the players that represent the nucleaus nor are you factoring into your projections the turnover of many of the players under contract and the expected timeline for our top prospects to arrive (Barnes, Bradley and Bogharts late 2014 or 2015). In the end it's clear to me that while they'll continue to try to field a competitive team. It's not going to be done in one offseason...None of the contracts signed wil prevent them from adding and subtracting while they remake the team in search of the commponants nessasary to compete for all the marbles...So if you actually took the time to take a step back and see the forest...It's failry clear to me that in the process of retooling the club that the aqusition of player like Victorino was made in an attempted to bridge the gap in center between the departing Ells and the arrival of Bradley Jr. with only 2015 a season where Victorino could be come expendable...As was the signing of Drew which allows them another season to continue to see if Iglesias can indeed make the jump and if the answer is no then they'll simply move on and keep manning the position on a year to year basis until another of our SS prospects prove worthy Bogharts timeline looks to be sometime in 2015 or 2016 based on league age...

    This year the two most important players on our roster are Middlebrooks and Lester..both hold the keys to future needs and or can be counted as part of the future...

    Moon, I get that we've all become somewhat spoiled by the successes of the the team circa 2003-2008 and we're all disapointed by the lackluster results if the last 5 years...I too think that Henry and the Red Sox leadership team deserves all of the second guessing and mistrust that is eminating from the fan base and the local mediots...

    That said, I think that we also have to place our faith that given the changes in leadership and that Henry, Werner and specifically Luccino have already demonstrated that they know who to build a model that works. Have to trust that the means will justify the ends and that Cherinton under the guidance of Luccino will in the end produce results that re-invigorate the fan base and within the next 3 to 5 years field a team worthy of the distiction of representing one of the most storied franchises in baseball history!

     

     

     

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    Last month the Boston Globe's Nick Cafardo mentioned Seattle's Mike Carp as a possibility.

    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2012/12/07/red-sox-like-their-moves-but-not-everyone-does/GrOCNpLLHI3pf7MXJt9OAI/story.html

    Whom could the Red Sox traded to the Mariners for Carp? Would two years of Franklin Morales be too much or too little for four years of Mike Carp?

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carpmi01.shtml

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to hill55's comment:

    Last month the Boston Globe's Nick Cafardo mentioned Seattle's Mike Carp as a possibility.

    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2012/12/07/red-sox-like-their-moves-but-not-everyone-does/GrOCNpLLHI3pf7MXJt9OAI/story.html

    Whom could the Red Sox traded to the Mariners for Carp? Would two years of Franklin Morales be too much or too little for four years of Mike Carp?

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carpmi01.shtml



    Too much...Carp's a solid player, not an impact player and likely never will be. Wouldn't trade a vlueable pitcher for him....end of the day every year there's a handful of Mike Carps on the free agent market that cost little (see Gomes).

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to hill55's comment:

    Last month the Boston Globe's Nick Cafardo mentioned Seattle's Mike Carp as a possibility.

    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2012/12/07/red-sox-like-their-moves-but-not-everyone-does/GrOCNpLLHI3pf7MXJt9OAI/story.html

    Whom could the Red Sox traded to the Mariners for Carp? Would two years of Franklin Morales be too much or too little for four years of Mike Carp?

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carpmi01.shtml



    Two years of Franklin Morales should be enough for 3 Mike Carps..

     

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to hill55's comment:

    Last month the Boston Globe's Nick Cafardo mentioned Seattle's Mike Carp as a possibility.

    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2012/12/07/red-sox-like-their-moves-but-not-everyone-does/GrOCNpLLHI3pf7MXJt9OAI/story.html

    Whom could the Red Sox traded to the Mariners for Carp? Would two years of Franklin Morales be too much or too little for four years of Mike Carp?

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carpmi01.shtml



    No chance.  He has a .740 career OPS, and a .654 last year.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    Please explain how we let Morales go elsewhere? Last I checked we didn't have first right of refusal on any and all players traded by the Angels. Who traded a player that was a misfit with them and parlayed that into the aquisition of a veteren lefthanded starter in Vargas...a trade that on paper helped both teams...

    I am not a Vargas fan, but before anyone could say we allowed Morales to play elsewhere, I'd like to see how they were going to top the Vargas offer.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    No chance.  He has a .740 career OPS, and a .654 last year.


    Much of that can be attributed to the harsh hitting environment at Seattle's Safeco Field.

    For what it's worth, Mike Carp has a park-adjusted career OPS+ of 110 while Franklin Morales has a career ERA+ of 105.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    hill,

    I have to admit, Carp seems like exactly the kind of player Ben would target if Napoli fell through.  Maybe even if Napoli signs, provided a pitcher like Mortensen could be traded for him.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Please explain how we let Morales go elsewhere? Last I checked we didn't have first right of refusal on any and all players traded by the Angels. Who traded a player that was a misfit with them and parlayed that into the aquisition of a veteren lefthanded starter in Vargas...a trade that on paper helped both teams...

    I am not a Vargas fan, but before anyone could say we allowed Morales to play elsewhere, I'd like to see how they were going to top the Vargas offer.



    Vargas is a solid vet who pitched well in Safeco and should do well in Anahiem. 30 starts 200 innings with a sub 4.25 ish era. In order for us to match that offer we'd have had to send them Doubront or Buccholz....neither of whom is exactly expendable....certainly not for a player that profiles as a DH...

    I too am amused by those that assume that we missed on the guy because someone else got him And he was on a list of players that could've helped us to fill their personal checklist...

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    No chance.  He has a .740 career OPS, and a .654 last year.



    Much of that can be attributed to the harsh hitting environment at Seattle's Safeco Field.

     

    For what it's worth, Mike Carp has a park-adjusted career OPS+ of 110 while Franklin Morales has a career ERA+ of 105.



    Except that his career OPS is .740, and his Safeco OPS is .758.

    IRT Morales, his OPS+ over the past two years is 117.

    I canot imagine anyone wanting Carp over Morales.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    IRT Morales, his OPS+ over the past two years is 117. I canot imagine anyone wanting Carp over Morales.

    You're probably correct, but Franklin Morales might be one of the few Red Sox players of interest to Seattle. And it's two years of Morales versus four years of Carp.

    Morales' ERA+ over the past two years includes 64 relief appearances that ERA+ does not measure with great certainty. With lefthanders Charlie Furbush, Oliver Perez and Lucas Luetge, the Mariners would not want Morales as a reliever. With the departure of Jason Vargas, Seattle may be looking for a lefthanded starter to bridge to top prospects Danny Hultzen and James Paxton.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    IRT Morales, his OPS+ over the past two years is 117. I canot imagine anyone wanting Carp over Morales.


    You're probably correct, but Franklin Morales might be one of the few Red Sox players of interest to Seattle. And it's two years of Morales versus four years of Carp.

     

    Morales' ERA+ over the past two years includes 64 relief appearances that ERA+ does not measure with great certainty. With lefthanders Charlie Furbush, Oliver Perez and Lucas Luetge, the Mariners would not want Morales as a reliever. With the departure of Jason Vargas, Seattle may be looking for a lefthanded starter to bridge to top prospects Danny Hultzen and James Paxton.



    He's more valuable as a starter, but there is a huge reservoir of value for a guy that provides BP help, .490 as a LOOGY, and 9 starts with solid results. I would expect Morales to have a better ERA+ in his starts than Vargas.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    He's more valuable as a starter, but there is a huge reservoir of value for a guy that provides BP help, .490 as a LOOGY, and 9 starts with solid results. I would expect Morales to have a better ERA+ in his starts than Vargas.


    I don't doubt that, but Franklin Morales would be highly unlikely to pitch the 200+ innings Jason Vargas has averaged the past three seasons. Vargas derived his worth largely from the "innings pitched" stat that is no longer undervalued.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    He's more valuable as a starter, but there is a huge reservoir of value for a guy that provides BP help, .490 as a LOOGY, and 9 starts with solid results. I would expect Morales to have a better ERA+ in his starts than Vargas.



    I don't doubt that, but Franklin Morales would be highly unlikely to pitch the 200+ innings Jason Vargas has averaged the past three seasons. Vargas derived his worth largely from the "innings pitched" stat that is no longer undervalued.

     



    I guess we'll have to see what this will be like outside Safeco. He has a road ERA of 5.23. I'm not sure the patience will be there if those are more in line with his results.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    Please explain how we let Morales go elsewhere? Last I checked we didn't have first right of refusal on any and all players traded by the Angels. Who traded a player that was a misfit with them and parlayed that into the aquisition of a veteren lefthanded starter in Vargas...a trade that on paper helped both teams...

    I think you may be overvaluing Vargas: his numbers were helped enormously by playign so many games in Seattle as well as a good share in ANA(5th most IP) and Oak (4th most IP). I think we could have offered Morales and Jacobs or Tazawa and got him.

    Regarding Napoli, you're assumption is that they're tryng to get out from under the deal. When in fact they're simply protecting thier best interest after seeing his medicals...something they're not privy to before signing him. If the guys hip is such that it's likely he'll need surgery in the short term to fix it...the deal would already have been torn up...

    I never assumed we were trying to get out of the deal. I was hoping we were. I am assuming we are trying to protect ourselves by shortening the deal or putting in a pre-existing injury clause.

    As for the rest of the roster and the moves made by Cherington. I don't think you've given much thought to the contract status of the players that represent the nucleaus nor are you factoring into your projections the turnover of many of the players under contract and the expected timeline for our top prospects to arrive (Barnes, Bradley and Bogharts late 2014 or 2015).

     

    I have put too much thought into it already. I totally understand why these guys were signed for 1-2-3 years and not 5. Just because I disagree with the plan does not mean I don't understand it.

     

    In the end it's clear to me that while they'll continue to try to field a competitive team. It's not going to be done in one offseason...None of the contracts signed wil prevent them from adding and subtracting while they remake the team in search of the commponants nessasary to compete for all the marbles...So if you actually took the time to take a step back and see the forest...It's failry clear to me that in the process of retooling the club that the aqusition of player like Victorino was made in an attempted to bridge the gap in center between the departing Ells and the arrival of Bradley Jr. with only 2015 a season where Victorino could be come expendable...As was the signing of Drew which allows them another season to continue to see if Iglesias can indeed make the jump and if the answer is no then they'll simply move on and keep manning the position on a year to year basis until another of our SS prospects prove worthy Bogharts timeline looks to be sometime in 2015 or 2016 based on league age...

    Again, I understand teh timing, but am certain this plan is wrong. Ben played it halfway and there is really no way of not seeing this forest before us. We will not come close to winning in 2013, and we will have a budget close to the luxury limit. 

    We spent a huge amount of money on more FAs than I have ever seen us sign-- all during the weakest FA class winter in memory. That is the forest you are refusing to see. Who cares if these gusy are signed for no longer than 3 years. They were signed. Limited money was wasted, and we are no better off for 2014 or 2015 than we were before this winter began, with the possible slight contributions by Victorino and Naps at the end of their prime at $26M combined per year. Even in today's inflated market, $26M a year is a superstar player- not 2 aging role players with serious flaws.

    This year the two most important players on our roster are Middlebrooks and Lester..both hold the keys to future needs and or can be counted as part of the future...

    Lester is a FA after 2014. 

    Moon, I get that we've all become somewhat spoiled by the successes of the the team circa 2003-2008 and we're all disapointed by the lackluster results if the last 5 years...I too think that Henry and the Red Sox leadership team deserves all of the second guessing and mistrust that is eminating from the fan base and the local mediots...

    I am not acting like a spoiled fan. I was willing to sacrifice some of our competitiveness in 2013 and maybe even 2014 for a strong run at future rings.

    That said, I think that we also have to place our faith that given the changes in leadership and that Henry, Werner and specifically Luccino have already demonstrated that they know who to build a model that works. Have to trust that the means will justify the ends and that Cherinton under the guidance of Luccino will in the end produce results that re-invigorate the fan base and within the next 3 to 5 years field a team worthy of the distiction of representing one of the most storied franchises in baseball history!

    I think it is a pretty sad state of Sox management to have to say that the best move we have made since the Nomar trade was the salary dump deal with the Dodgers (well, maybe the Schilling trade sneaks in there). That's about 8 years in between.

    Resting on your laurels is a dangerous thing.

    I was not very critical of Ben last year. I knew his hands were tied. I knew the budget restricted him greatly. 

    The Dodger trade broke the paradigm and nearly wiped the slate clean. Now, we are back to square one, but with shorter term deals. When we lose again next year, the mirage will be exposed, and we can talk about the vigor of the fan base at that time. 

    I hope to God I am wrong. I will gladly apologize to each and everyone of you if that champagne is flowing in the next couple years. I just don't see it, but that is not what upsets me at all, since I didn't expect a ring until maybe 2015 (2014 if lots went right). What upsets me is that with all the money spent this winter, I do not see one move that provides us with a bonafide player who rates to be highly productive in 2014 or 2015. None.

    I can't see why this doesn't bother that many posters here.

     

     

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    This year the two most important players on our roster are Middlebrooks and Lester..both hold the keys to future needs and or can be counted as part of the future...

    Lester is a FA after 2014. 

    Exactly...that's two seasons for Lester to show that he's worth re-investing in and signing to a long term extension. It's also two years for Lester to show the rest of the league that he's worth signing..If his new norm is that of a plus 4.25 ERA guy they'll cut bait and next winter when there's a handful of quality starters on the market. They'll have a pretty good feel for what they'll need begining in 2015 and beyond.

    Make no mistake about it Cherington and Luccino both understand that the path to the championship is far less daunting when you have a legit top of the rotation starter leading the staff...

    I think it is a pretty sad state of Sox management to have to say that the best move we have made since the Nomar trade was the salary dump deal with the Dodgers (well, maybe the Schilling trade sneaks in there). That's about 8 years in between.

    From 2003 to 2008 the Red Sox played in 4 ALCS and won two World Series they did so with vastly different teams....

    As for trades that worked. I'd have to say the Mike Lowell and Josh Beckett deal worked out pretty well (by the way that was made by Luccino and Cherington). Not to mention the Gonzalez deal with San Diego, for 3 of our "top prospects", players that everyone around here IMHO place far to much value on...Looking back on that deal, each of those can't miss guy today are AAAA players. So when we're evaluating speaking about "prospects" none of them are can't miss and it's from that perspective that while I am excited about guys like Bogharts and Barnes and hope both fulfill the promise of more...However Lars Anderson, once a top ten prospect in all of baseball was basically given away. Who today is toiling in the A's system trying to make thier roster...

    Like it or not since 2008 with Esptein leading the way and Luccino's role being lessoned. The Sox IMHO placed too much value on the unknown and didn't do a very good job of evaluating players under their employ...By that I'm speaking about the cost benefit and value they placed on draft compensation with little regard to the makeup of the players on the roster. Which is why we're where we are today...Epstein was and still is facinated by the accolades he gets for being the architect of building deep farm systems by taking advantage of the draft compensation rules of the previous CBA. However he and Henry lost sight of the cause and effect that the turnover on the roster would have on the chemistry of the team. So if we look back at some of the personell decisions that were made during the the winter of 2008 through the winter of 2010, both in the aquisition of FA, Trades and extensions given to others. What becomes clear is that Espstein and the Red Sox ownership group began to deviate from the very disiplines of player aquisition that spurred them to success after purchasing the team.

    The examples that I'll use to illistrate this point was the FA signing of Lackey who came with a pre-exsiting elbow condition and the extension given to Josh Beckett Who since 2007 has been a shadow of his former self and failed to finish a season strong since. Leading us to the 2007 Championship. Both of those deals flew in the face on the stance they took with Pedro after the 2004 season when they rightfully held the line and didn't break the bank to keep him becasue though he was still an effective ML starter he was due to his rotarcuff a shadow of his former HOF self.

    Therein lyes the root problem and the fix will take time. I trust that Luccino and Cherinton regardless of how you view thier current aquistions and or the short and long term plan will both in the interest of thier own legeseys and career advancment. Work dilligently on behalf of their employer John Henry and "The Boston Red Sox Baseball Club of the American League" to field a team that delivers on the goals set forth by the board of directors...

    Resting on your laurels is a dangerous thing...

    I concur,,,

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    Please explain how we let Morales go elsewhere? Last I checked we didn't have first right of refusal on any and all players traded by the Angels. Who traded a player that was a misfit with them and parlayed that into the aquisition of a veteren lefthanded starter in Vargas...a trade that on paper helped both teams...

    I think you may be overvaluing Vargas: his numbers were helped enormously by playign so many games in Seattle as well as a good share in ANA(5th most IP) and Oak (4th most IP). I think we could have offered Morales and Jacobs or Tazawa and got him.

    Did you call the Angels to see if they would have taken that deal?

    As for Vargas, I'm not under or over valuing him...I had nothing to do with the trade...

    What I will say is that the Vargas is the type of starter that keeps his team in games, is a workhorse who'll give you 32 starts and 200 innings...Has no history of arm issues and unlike Morales who I do think is the better of the two "stuff wise". Will from day one be ready to take the ball every 5 days and be a part of the the rotation with out any limitations...For Vargas and the Angels when they evaluated this deal. My guess is that they came to the conclusion that the only difference for him is that he's changing uniforms. The reality is he's still in the AL west and instead of having to face a very stout Angels lineup he'll benefit from having to face a not so stout mariners lineup while having to make the adjustment of going from one pitchers park (where oh by the way, they're moving in the fences) to a nuetral pitchers park in Anahiem...

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    Notin, Have to believe RS will give every chance for Kalish to be the everyday guy in LF w/ Gomes getting the starts vs. LH's. He can also play all 3 OF spots which also plays well for depth and roster spots. He will finally have a full offseason to train and prepare for 1st time in years, not coming off injury. But really like the idea of Morse, was thinking same thing. He's an corner OF'er/ 1B / DH. Problem is he would need to play everyday [probably LF] and would make the Gomes signing not necessary and stunt growth of Kalish. But would hit 30+ HR's in Fenway. Maybe reason RS haven't finished Napoli and are waiting Nat's to sign LaRoche so RS could see what it takes[prospects] to make Morse their everyday 1B. I would prefer Morse over Napoli but not at the expense of a top prospect, if Nat's would take Bailey or Aceves and a lesser prospect I would do in a heartbeat. As for other guys on your list I would take a pass.

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

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    Notin, Have to believe RS will give every chance for Kalish to be the everyday guy in LF w/ Gomes getting the starts vs. LH's. He can also play all 3 OF spots which also plays well for depth and roster spots. He will finally have a full offseason to train and prepare for 1st time in years, not coming off injury. But really like the idea of Morse, was thinking same thing. He's an corner OF'er/ 1B / DH. Problem is he would need to play everyday [probably LF] and would make the Gomes signing not necessary and stunt growth of Kalish. But would hit 30+ HR's in Fenway. Maybe reason RS haven't finished Napoli and are waiting Nat's to sign LaRoche so RS could see what it takes[prospects] to make Morse their everyday 1B. I would prefer Morse over Napoli but not at the expense of a top prospect, if Nat's would take Bailey or Aceves and a lesser prospect I would do in a heartbeat. As for other guys on your list I would take a pass.




    I agree a Kalish / Nava option is probably going to be in LF. Presumably Nava to start the season since Kalish has options left and really, needs to get back in the swing of things.    Doubtful much happens on that front beyond discussion generated on message boards.

     

    And in that spirit, one name I did omit the Sox hopefully could consider is Will Venable. Venable has surprising power that is completely supressed by Petco.  Last year, his road OPS was .875.  For his career, it is a little lower, I think .800-ish.  He primarlily faces RHP, and this would likely continue in Boston.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Promise4you2. Show Promise4you2's posts

    Re: LF and backup 1B

    Quote from Moon

     

    The Dodger trade broke the paradigm and nearly wiped the slate clean. Now, we are back to square one, but with shorter term deals. When we lose again next year, the mirage will be exposed, and we can talk about the vigor of the fan base at that time.

    I hope to God I am wrong. I will gladly apologize to each and everyone of you if that champagne is flowing in the next couple years. I just don't see it, but that is not what upsets me at all, since I didn't expect a ring until maybe 2015 (2014 if lots went right). What upsets me is that with all the money spent this winter, I do not see one move that provides us with a bonafide player who rates to be highly productive in 2014 or 2015. None.

    I can't see why this doesn't bother that many posters here.

     I am in total agreement with your whole response. But i really believe you hit the key note here! We should have stuck to the kids and said screw it for two years. This team will not win a WS for the next three years with what they signed for all those dollars. I would have been working on saving them money to sign the kids long term!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share