Sox Sign Drew

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Albeit, the As did benefit from a ton of " out of nowhere" career years and non repeatable over performances.  A la Brandon Moss.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    OAK 2012 ERA+

    Milone 106    Parker   114     Colon  116    McCarthy  123    Griffin   130     Blackley  103

     

     


    Those ERA+ numbers are very heavily helped by ballpark.  Also, a lot of those kids overperformed.  Milone's K numbers do not match his ERA.  McCarthy missed 1/3 the year.

     

    Drew, ERA+ is a park- adjusted ERA.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the info.  Still, that staff overperformed/benefited from luck.  Bartolo COlon is Bartolo Colon.  McCarthy will always be a 10-15 starts/yr guy (bum shoulder).  Milone overperformed greatly. His peripheral stats (WHIP, K/9) suggest that he wasnt as good as his ERA indicates. Parker had control issues. 

    Staff wasnt great.  I credit the season to the leadership of Coco.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe-maybe not, but they have Brett Anderson returning. This guy is "Buttah"!

    [/QUOTE]


    Most talented pitcher on the staff for sure.  However, I was talking about the 2012 A's and using them as an example to show that the Sox have a realistic chance of making the playoffs in 2013.  Assist to the new 5 team format.

    [/QUOTE]

    Then every team has a legitimate chance.... well, at least 20 teams do by your logic.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Fair, but keep in mind that Vegas odds are based primarily on last year.  That number seems off to me.  In the old playoff format, sure.  But w 5 playoff teams, mediocre teams hang around for a LONG time.  Anyone can get in.  Especially a team w/ the prospects / payroll room to buy at the deadline.  All that matters is getting in. 

    Although, getting past the Angels and Tigers will be tough.  Darn powerhouses.

     

    Vegas does not give out odds without serious study. They know their stuff.

    They also have TB & Oak near 25:1 odds, and I think they have better chances than us as of right now.

    [/QUOTE]

    So Vegas is appreciating the talent of the Angels and Tigers and giving else poor odds of making the WS.  Hard to argue.  Still, we should focus on fielding the best possible team and not worrying about the powerhouses.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    OAK 2012 ERA+

    Milone 106    Parker   114     Colon  116    McCarthy  123    Griffin   130     Blackley  103

     

     


    Those ERA+ numbers are very heavily helped by ballpark.  Also, a lot of those kids overperformed.  Milone's K numbers do not match his ERA.  McCarthy missed 1/3 the year.

     

    Drew, ERA+ is a park- adjusted ERA.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the info.  Still, that staff overperformed/benefited from luck.  Bartolo COlon is Bartolo Colon.  McCarthy will always be a 10-15 starts/yr guy (bum shoulder).  Milone overperformed greatly. His peripheral stats (WHIP, K/9) suggest that he wasnt as good as his ERA indicates. Parker had control issues. 

    Staff wasnt great.  I credit the season to the leadership of Coco.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe-maybe not, but they have Brett Anderson returning. This guy is "Buttah"!

    [/QUOTE]


    Most talented pitcher on the staff for sure.  However, I was talking about the 2012 A's and using them as an example to show that the Sox have a realistic chance of making the playoffs in 2013.  Assist to the new 5 team format.

    [/QUOTE]

    Then every team has a legitimate chance.... well, at least 20 teams do by your logic.

    [/QUOTE]

    Moon, there were like 11 AL teams in the hunt through Aug last year!  There were practically no sellers at the deadline.

    Yes, out of 15 AL teams, something like 10 have a legitimate shot.  And I'd struggle to name 5 AL teams who have 0 chance.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    We had an epically awful year on practically every front, and were one hot streak away from climbing into contention in late aug.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Albeit, the As did benefit from a ton of " out of nowhere" career years and non repeatable over performances.  A la Brandon Moss.

    [/QUOTE]

    Drew, you might want to retract the Oak argument, it doesn't hold up or make sense: 

    Road Runs scored 2012:     Oak  371  4th in MLB

    Road ERA  Oak 5th in AL


    "This (Red Sox 2013) is much better team than Oak was last year".   Drewski

     

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    there's no disputing the fact that the third year in particular for victorino and napoli could come back to haunt them and that tying up this money could prevent them from making certain moves next year in free agency. in terms of "value" there is little doubt they are getting short-changed, though wrongly or rightly I think there's some level of consciousness on the part of the front office/owenership that this is the case.

    I guess my only response is that IF you buy the basic philosophy (and I know that's a big if for a lot of people) that this team needed some fiscal responsibility and had to stop with the horrible long term flyers, perhaps this is a better approach? one still has to acknowledge that if you sign mediocre players to shorter contracts you still have mediocre players however. in terms of free agency, I guess the opposite approach would have been to go after greinke, hamilton, and sanchez and forget stockpiling lesser talent to fill the gaps. they also theoretically could have traded some of their top young talent for quality players. they did have a lot of holes to fill though and not making moves was going to likely lead to another season like last year. this to me seems like an attempt to stay the course by putting a reasonably competitive team on the field for the next few years. I realize not everyone thinks they've done that. 

    now, they never should have been in this spot in the first place, because the leadership shouldn't have made bad, hueg money deals, but they're in the spot they're in. Ideally, they would have had an overiding philosohoy that would have prevented some of the horrendous moves that were made, but they didn't. the front office was in dissarray and maybe it still is.

    if the kids were ready to go now I'd say these latest moves would block young talent from getting into the line-up, but that isn't the case right now. perhaps beginning in 2014 some issues might start in that regard - i guess we'll see. there's no doubt that some of these decisions are based an fan appeasement, which is part of what got them in trouble before - making deals to create headlines and sell tickets/promote the "brand". perhaps these, in their own way, are no better than some of the longer deals they made before - at least then they were swinging for the fences... ?

    of the signings, only ueahara made absolute sense and the rest of the guys come with issues (injury/age/down years/fielding deficiencies, etc). year one and two they're probably overpaying about 12 million per or so to get out of the additional years. this is not totally insignificant, but don't know that this team was going to completely turn it around right away no matter what they did. As built, assuming decent seasons from bucholtz, lester, and Bailey I see this as about a .500 team (perhaps a little better/worse). 

    again, this is far from a dream and so I understand anyone really unhappy with this personnel, but these moves are also being influenced by the mistakes of the past that put them in a postition where they needed to acquire players to fill a roster riddled with holes. this fan base would definitely not stand still for them not spending 150 million or more and they'll likely climb to 170 at this rate. 

    the obvious better plan would have been to sign younger players and build in a real, organic way, but they'd never do that because they'd be too afraid the fan base wouldn't accept another season below .500 with them spending well below their capability. in order to do this you've got to take the hit for a few years with a roster that include players who are growing on the job, ala oakland and other small market teams. just not the way it works here and probably never will be. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow the poster formerly known as Pike, stays on topic!

    You missed the elephant in the room.  Keeping  Lester, Papi, and Ellsbury helps the 25 to 1 2013 Sox but hurts the team's future.  I called for Papi to be traded last year before he got hurt, and the insults flew my way.   Big market teams are not immune to rebuilds, especially after the new CBA.   The NYY haven't had to rebuild, but I think that was a unique situation.  They have signed one of the few FA who remained a stud in Sabathia, and he has been the difference maker.  Plus Jeter, Posada, Mariano, Pettite all had unusually long productive careers. I wouldn't bet on that happening twice.

    The Sox are less likely to be great from 2015 - 2020, at the cost of the 2013/14 Sox being at least mediocre.   

     




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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    I to wanted to trade Ortiz last summer..... you were not alone.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

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

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    there's no disputing the fact that the third year in particular for victorino and napoli could come back to haunt them and that tying up this money could prevent them from making certain moves next year in free agency. in terms of "value" there is little doubt they are getting short-changed, though wrongly or rightly I think there's some level of consciousness on the part of the front office/owenership that this is the case.

    I guess my only response is that IF you buy the basic philosophy (and I know that's a big if for a lot of people) that this team needed some fiscal responsibility and had to stop with the horrible long term flyers, perhaps this is a better approach? one still has to acknowledge that if you sign mediocre players to shorter contracts you still have mediocre players however. in terms of free agency, I guess the opposite approach would have been to go after greinke, hamilton, and sanchez and forget stockpiling lesser talent to fill the gaps. they also theoretically could have traded some of their top young talent for quality players. they did have a lot of holes to fill though and not making moves was going to likely lead to another season like last year. this to me seems like an attempt to stay the course by putting a reasonably competitive team on the field for the next few years. I realize not everyone thinks they've done that. 

    now, they never should have been in this spot in the first place, because the leadership shouldn't have made bad, hueg money deals, but they're in the spot they're in. Ideally, they would have had an overiding philosohoy that would have prevented some of the horrendous moves that were made, but they didn't. the front office was in dissarray and maybe it still is.

    if the kids were ready to go now I'd say these latest moves would block young talent from getting into the line-up, but that isn't the case right now. perhaps beginning in 2014 some issues might start in that regard - i guess we'll see. there's no doubt that some of these decisions are based an fan appeasement, which is part of what got them in trouble before - making deals to create headlines and sell tickets/promote the "brand". perhaps these, in their own way, are no better than some of the longer deals they made before - at least then they were swinging for the fences... ?

    of the signings, only ueahara made absolute sense and the rest of the guys come with issues (injury/age/down years/fielding deficiencies, etc). year one and two they're probably overpaying about 12 million per or so to get out of the additional years. this is not totally insignificant, but don't know that this team was going to completely turn it around right away no matter what they did. As built, assuming decent seasons from bucholtz, lester, and Bailey I see this as about a .500 team (perhaps a little better/worse). 

    again, this is far from a dream and so I understand anyone really unhappy with this personnel, but these moves are also being influenced by the mistakes of the past that put them in a postition where they needed to acquire players to fill a roster riddled with holes. this fan base would definitely not stand still for them not spending 150 million or more and they'll likely climb to 170 at this rate. 

    the obvious better plan would have been to sign younger players and build in a real, organic way, but they'd never do that because they'd be too afraid the fan base wouldn't accept another season below .500 with them spending well below their capability. in order to do this you've got to take the hit for a few years with a roster that include players who are growing on the job, ala oakland and other small market teams. just not the way it works here and probably never will be. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow the poster formerly known as Pike, stays on topic!

    You missed the elephant in the room.  Keeping  Lester, Papi, and Ellsbury helps the 25 to 1 2013 Sox but hurts the team's future.  I called for Papi to be traded last year before he got hurt, and the insults flew my way.   Big market teams are not immune to rebuilds, especially after the new CBA.   The NYY haven't had to rebuild, but I think that was unique situation.  They have signed one of the few FA who remained a stud in Sabathia, and he has been the difference maker.  Plus Jeter, Posada, Mariano, Pettite all had unusually long productive careers. I wouldn't bet on that happening twice.

    The Sox are less likely to be great from 2015 - 2020, at the cost of the 2013/14 Sox being at least mediocre.   

     




    [/QUOTE]


    Actually I think that was bt33's post and pike just responded and didn't put anything in his response. At least it looks like bt33's style of writing to me.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

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

    You missed the elephant in the room.  Keeping  Lester, Papi, and Ellsbury helps the 25 to 1 2013 Sox but hurts the team's future.  I called for Papi to be traded last year before he got hurt, and the insults flew my way.   Big market teams are not immune to rebuilds, especially after the new CBA.   The NYY haven't had to rebuild, but I think that was a unique situation.  They have signed one of the few FA who remained a stud in Sabathia, and he has been the difference maker.  Plus Jeter, Posada, Mariano, Pettite all had unusually long productive careers. I wouldn't bet on that happening twice.

    The Sox are less likely to be great from 2015 - 2020, at the cost of the 2013/14 Sox being at least mediocre.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Trading Ortiz would have yielded what - probably a couple of second-tier prospects who might help in a couple of years or might never make the bigs.  Nothing to get excited about, that's for sure.

    Plus you have to make a concession to the fact that major league baseball is not just sport, it's entertainment.  Re-signing Ortiz this year was a PR move, to make the team more enjoyable for the fans.  Absolutely right. 

    You have to be more realistic in every way when you assess some of these moves.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Trading Ortiz would have yielded what - probably a couple of second-tier prospects who might help in a couple of years or might never make the bigs.  Nothing to get excited about, that's for sure.

    Plus you have to make a concession to the fact that major league baseball is not just sport, it's entertainment.  Re-signing Ortiz this year was a PR move, to make the team more enjoyable for the fans.  Absolutely right. 

    You have to be more realistic in every way when you assess some of these moves.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok Hfx please answer a few questions.

    1.  Were the Mets realistic in holding on to Reyes, Pagan, Beltran, Rodriguez,...as long as they did?

    2. Have the last four poor Mets' seasons provided entertainment?

    3. Why do you think half a season of a DH with an OPS over 1.000 is only worth second rate prospects?  or Why isn't the pick the Sox passed up valueable?

    4. Why are posters ok with Ben's expectation that the current Sox prospects will provide a solid core in two years or so, if prospects like the ones Lester, Papi, and Ells would have yielded are not valued?  You can't have it both ways, prospects are either valuable or not!

    5. Why no mention of the new CBA and the increased importance of prospects by the supporter's of Ben's moves?

    6. Why are posters called whiners who are in lock step with Vegas odds?

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Vegas does not give out odds without serious study. They know their stuff.

    They also have TB & Oak near 25:1 odds, and I think they have better chances than us as of right now.

    [/QUOTE]

    So Vegas is appreciating the talent of the Angels and Tigers and giving else poor odds of making the WS.  Hard to argue.  Still, we should focus on fielding the best possible team and not worrying about the powerhouses.

    This hits my point right on the head: unless we were going to go nearly all out to build a SERIOUS CONTENDER in 2013, we should have adopted plan B. Build a team through FA signings and trades that make us better in 2014 and beyond. Most of these trades and signings would have also made us better in 2013, but without getting into semantics- not true top contender status.

    In fact, if my plan had occured (and I realize it might not have been possible), I think my team that was geared towards 2014 and beyond would have actually been better in 2013 than this team we have now.

    (Recap of my planA: trade Ells, Salty, Breslow, Aceves and one of Morales, Doubie or Tazawa along with prospects for J Upton, K Morales and B Anderson-possibly involving 3rd teams and signing B McCarthy and A Sanchez and a couple role players.)

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Then every team has a legitimate chance.... well, at least 20 teams do by your logic.

    [/QUOTE]

    Moon, there were like 11 AL teams in the hunt through Aug last year!  There were practically no sellers at the deadline.

    Yes, out of 15 AL teams, something like 10 have a legitimate shot.  And I'd struggle to name 5 AL teams who have 0 chance.

    What do you consider a serious contender? (I say about 5: 1 odds or a top 4 team on paper)

    What do you consider a legitimate chance? (I say about 10:1 odds)

    What do you consider a reasonable chance? (I say about 15:1 odds)

    Any slight (but somewhat reasonable chance with everything going right)? (25:1 odds)

    Here is where I think we are.

    Maybe we are just arguing semantics here.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Wow the poster formerly known as Pike, stays on topic!

    You missed the elephant in the room.  Keeping  Lester, Papi, and Ellsbury helps the 25 to 1 2013 Sox but hurts the team's future. 

     

    B-I-N-G-O!

     

    (I will say that Lester can help us in 2014, but I'd have tried hard to trade him and others for Myers.)

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from sundvl20. Show sundvl20's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bogaerts will be moved to 1b after 2013, unless Middlebrooks tumbles badly.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from sundvl20. Show sundvl20's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bogaerts will be moved to 1b after 2013, unless Middlebrooks tumbles badly.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from sundvl20. Show sundvl20's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bogaerts will be moved to 1b after 2013, unless Middlebrooks tumbles badly.

    [/QUOTE]
    agree

    [/QUOTE]


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bogaerts will be moved to 1b after 2013, unless Middlebrooks tumbles badly.

    [/QUOTE]

    especially if he keeps bulking up

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from sundvl20. Show sundvl20's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bogaerts will be moved to 1b after 2013, unless Middlebrooks tumbles badly.

    [/QUOTE]

    especially if he keeps bulking up

    [/QUOTE]

    middlebrooks, marrero, pedroia, boegarts. opening day 2014. would leave lot of money for pitching and of

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bogaerts will be moved to 1b after 2013, unless Middlebrooks tumbles badly.

    [/QUOTE]

    especially if he keeps bulking up

    [/QUOTE]

    middlebrooks, marrero, pedroia, boegarts. opening day 2014. would leave lot of money for pitching and of

    [/QUOTE]


    idk if Marrero will be ready by 2014... he just got drafted last season

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from sundvl20. Show sundvl20's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bogaerts will be moved to 1b after 2013, unless Middlebrooks tumbles badly.

    [/QUOTE]

    especially if he keeps bulking up

    [/QUOTE]

    middlebrooks, marrero, pedroia, boegarts. opening day 2014. would leave lot of money for pitching and of

    [/QUOTE]


    idk if Marrero will be ready by 2014... he just got drafted last season

    [/QUOTE]
    Im biased but asu prepares their kids as well as anyone to move thru the system rapidly. ie Pedroia, Ike Davis, Eithier, Mike Leake. Just wishful thinking but if Marrero gets off to a hot start, I think he will roll right thru.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bogaerts will be moved to 1b after 2013, unless Middlebrooks tumbles badly.

    [/QUOTE]

    especially if he keeps bulking up

    [/QUOTE]

    middlebrooks, marrero, pedroia, boegarts. opening day 2014. would leave lot of money for pitching and of

    [/QUOTE]


    idk if Marrero will be ready by 2014... he just got drafted last season

    [/QUOTE]
    Im biased but asu prepares their kids as well as anyone to move thru the system rapidly. ie Pedroia, Ike Davis, Eithier, Mike Leake. Just wishful thinking but if Marrero gets off to a hot start, I think he will roll right thru.

    [/QUOTE]


    He could be poised to rise through the system like Jackie Bradley Jr. Especially if he finds his hitting stroke again.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from sundvl20. Show sundvl20's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to carnie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sundvl20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew will man the position till Marrero is ready which wont be long. Boegarts will move to a corner. Iglesias moved in some package deal

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bogaerts will be moved to 1b after 2013, unless Middlebrooks tumbles badly.

    [/QUOTE]

    especially if he keeps bulking up

    [/QUOTE]

    middlebrooks, marrero, pedroia, boegarts. opening day 2014. would leave lot of money for pitching and of

    [/QUOTE]


    idk if Marrero will be ready by 2014... he just got drafted last season

    [/QUOTE]
    Im biased but asu prepares their kids as well as anyone to move thru the system rapidly. ie Pedroia, Ike Davis, Eithier, Mike Leake. Just wishful thinking but if Marrero gets off to a hot start, I think he will roll right thru.

    [/QUOTE]


    He could be poised to rise through the system like Jackie Bradley Jr. Especially if he finds his hitting stroke again.

    [/QUOTE]
    Ya, that would be a fun scenario if Bradley, Boegarts, and Marrero are ready od 2014. They could then spend big on whoever the flavor of the year is at sp and lf

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share