More realistic 2013 roster

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

    Re: More realistic 2013 roster

    In response to rightymclefty's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Not worreid. Inglesias will never hit. Next point!

    I guess in your Sloman mind, Will Middlebrooks is the ONLY guy to include in any proposed trade. I think Moon and Notin covered the Tulo rade subject very well, and I agree with their lists. I only chime in if I think an idea is moronic,. like constantly wanting to trade Middlebrooks, at age 23, for your percieved lack of plate discipline, despite all that he brings to the table.Not the least of which, is his instant adaptability to playing in Boston.

    So, who on this team except Ortiz grinds out at bats? Pedroia is second among regulars at .349, which isn't exactly world beating.

    As for Tulo, Moon and Notin covered the trade possibilities very well. I'll chime in when I see something I disagree with, and I fully agree with their prosposals.

    !B? Tons of people to think about, without trading our best home grown position player since Pedroia,

    [/QUOTE]

    This is my point - I look to the OBP vs AVG differential to determine how good a player is at grinding out at-bats.  This team is still fourth in the league at runs scored, but compare it to the 2007 team, for example, and you can see how important plate discipline factors in.  We had 5 guys in that lineup with an OBP more than 90 points higher than their BA.

    Goldschmidt's OBP is 75 points higher (career) than his AVG.  It was 90 points higher in the minors - he's a guy who can grind out at-bats.  Lavarnway is the same way - very similar numbers.  Ryan Kalish could be this kind of bat.  This used to be our team philosophy, and it was very successful for us.  We seem to have gotten away from it this year, which obviously has not worked out in our favor.

    You're not going to get Tulo for Allen Webster and Jackie Bradley.  It's a nice thought, but it's not going to happen - throw in Barnes, and you might start the conversation, but then you have to ask yourself if Barnes, Bradley & Webster is maybe worth a little more than Middlebrooks?

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

    Re: More realistic 2013 roster

     ...ask yourself if Barnes, Bradley & Webster is maybe worth a little more than Middlebrooks?

     

    I wouldn't trade those 3 or even B & B for Middlebrooks.

     

     

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

    Re: More realistic 2013 roster

    Middlebrooks has shown he can play at the major league level. The others are just prospects.

    Just like Bowden, Hagadone Blosser,  and Anderson were can't miss future MLB players.

    I'll take Middlebrooks over any prospect, except perhaps, Bogaerts.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: More realistic 2013 roster

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:

    Obama believes in Karl Marxism tenet of redistribution. Too bad MLB doesn't work that way in the standings. Time to end the taxes that Obama has redistributed to his first part-time job, when not hob nobbing with Hollywood.

    I understand the roots of TrotterNixon's rage ... the Red Sox have not won a postseason game during the Obama presidency.

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

    Re: More realistic 2013 roster

    Middlebrooks has shown he can play at the major league level. The others are just prospects.

     

    "Shown" but not really proven, but I agree with your point.

    Just like Bowden, Hagadone Blosser,  and Anderson were can't miss future MLB players.

     

    And Kelly.

     

    I'll take Middlebrooks over any prospect, except perhaps, Bogaerts.

     

    I agree, but not over 2 or 3 of them combined.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share