Re: Rethinking 2013
posted at 1/8/2013 7:41 PM EST
In response to CTChris' comment:
In response to Beantowne's comment:
In response to CTChris's comment:
In response to Beantowne's comment:
Let's talk some ball and get this thread back on track...
Moon and I tried to start a discusion about the aquisition of Stanton. I framed the question to him of what he thought it would take to get the Marlins to listen. Obviously the cost of aquision in quality and quantity of prospect will be prohibitive. However if your serious about aquiring a young impact player with a proven ML resume that still under the teams control. You have to pay the piper. I'm thinkling along the lines of the deal made by the Braves to aquire Texiera total of 5
The basic framework of the deal would comprise of 2 pitchers and 3 position players...
Pick one:Barnes or Doubront
Pick one: Ranaundo or Britton
Pick one: Bogharts, Bradley, Iglesias
Pick Two: Then give them a list of all of our A ball players and give them the choice of two not named Swiihart or Marrero.
I'm probably a bad person to ask BT. Simply because I hate giving up pitching (even prospects) for position players. Granted, if the "position player" we're talking about is the missing piece that puts us over the top, then fine..........but I still kinda cringe at it :-).
As far as Stanton goes, I think once he has the track record that Mark Texiera had prior to his trade, then what you're talking about is most likely in line with what he would be worth. However, until he has that "pedigree" I wouldn't give up the amount you're offering.
Well said, I'm of the mindset that prospects are used to enhance the ability of the ML club to compete. Either by they themsleves making the jump and being productive or to used as assests to fill a void on the roster. End of the day given our current roster. Why I would be willing to morgage the future, is becasue it's the future that we're trying to retool this club for...Adding an impact bat like Stanton's at the cost of replaceable assets (prospects). Would give us a player along with Middlebrooks to build the lineup around. While Stanton might not have the track record of Texiera. He is a player that projects to be among the best in the near term with HOF potential....
The future is what I'm thinking about as well. However, there are different ways to view the future (which I assume is why there is so much disagreement about how to approach it). For instance, what you see as a guy to build a club around in exchange for 5 players, I can easily see as 5 guys that could all project to be ML players who we will have under control for 6 years once their ML clock starts ticking.......in exchange for one player who's clock started already.
Like I inferred earlier........that better be one heck of a player we're trading for and IMO he better be a guy to put us over the top. As constructed presently, IMO the Sox are more than 1 player away from being considered "favorites" of any kind. I also think that the type of players that will help get us to that status the quickest are going to be Pitchers, not position players.
So again, my bias comes into play when I'm asked if I would be interested in trading pitching for a position player. Maybe in the future if/when we have the rotation that sets us apart from the majority of other teams I'll be more receptive.....until then, not so much. That said, I admit that there is no right or wrong answer here.......only opinions. My current opinion is influenced by what I see as our need to get the rotation in order before we go looking for an OFer w/a bat. LOL but if there is a way to do both, I'm all for it.
I took a few years after we acquired Manny to surround him with a championship caliber lineup. Stanton represents that type of hitter. We're never going to have a roster with every player in his prime...the trick is to build the rosteri so your key guys are in their primes then surround them with complimentary players. that's what Epstein was trying to do with Gonzalez...adding him to a lineup with Ellsbury, Pedrioa and Crawford all in their primes with Youk and Ortiz the grey beards...where he erred was in his assumption that Beckett and Lester would both be top of the rotation guys similar to the Pedro/Schilling dynamic in 2004. To lead the staff in the post season.
Conversley the question tht begs to be answered is do we have a position player or pitcher current in our system who projects to be an impact bat or a big game pitcher...My feeling based on everything I've read is the answer is maybe Bogharts or Barnes...To me if's and might be, could be, falls short of definitely will be...Which is why I'm of the mind that we will need to acquire by trade or FA impact players and if we have to sell the farm...I'll help puof up the for sale sign on Yawkey way....