Sox Sign Drew

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    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.



    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?

    6 is too many questions, but here are my answers to some of them.

    -I don't think comparing Ortiz to any of these Mets players is very useful.  Ortiz is one of the most productive and popular players in Red Sox history.  For proper comparisons you need to use guys like Derek Jeter and Chipper Jones IMO.

    -Baltimore traded 2 prospects at last year's deadline for Jim Thome, a reasonable comp to Ortiz's deadline value last year.  They acquired Gabriel Lino and Kyle Simon.  One was a 4th round pick in 2011 and one was an international free agent.  I honestly don't know enough about them but it looks to me like second tier prospects.

    -As to 'having it both ways', I don't think that describes my position, but if you want to elaborate please do.

    -As to the whiners/Vegas thing.  I don't consider you a whiner.  But I think what you've done is fall in love with your own personal scheme of what the team should do, as though you've thought of something they haven't, and you need to be a bit more objective and realistic.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

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

    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

     



    Fluke.  Reddick spent most of the year as their #3 hitter and had plummeted all the way down to 8 by year end.  They overachieved

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

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



    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.



    I strongly believe that anything can happen once you get into the playoffs.  I also believe that the new playoff format increases everyone's odds of getting in and therefore greatly increases everyone's odds of winning it all.

    However, I am aware that a 1 game playoff is a borderline coin flip.

    That being said, I'd say the teams that look like locks to run away their division have great chances (because they wont have to deal with this one game playoff coin flip).  In that category: Angels / Tigers.

    I feel that teams who have the resources to make a mid season buy have the next best chances.  In this category: Texas/ Red Sox.

    I would say that pratcially everyone in the league, save Minnesota , Cle and KC has at least a somewhat realistic chance.   I submit last year as evidence.

     

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

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



    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.



    I strongly believe that anything can happen once you get into the playoffs.  I also believe that the new playoff format increases everyone's odds of getting in and therefore greatly increases everyone's odds of winning it all.

    However, I am aware that a 1 game playoff is a borderline coin flip.

    That being said, I'd say the teams that look like locks to run away their division have great chances (because they wont have to deal with this one game playoff coin flip).  In that category: Angels / Tigers.

    I feel that teams who have the resources to make a mid season buy have the next best chances.  In this category: Texas/ Red Sox.

    I would say that pratcially everyone in the league, save Minnesota , Cle and KC has at least a somewhat realistic chance.   I submit last year as evidence.

     



    Being "in it" in August should not be the true meaning of serious contender.

    Yes, once in the playoffs everyone has a chance, but it is far from even chancves all around. (It's not 1 out fo 10 just because 10 teams make it. If a team does squeek into the playoffs, they probably have more like a 20:1 chance. Then, there is the chance we dont make the playoffs. I think 25:1 is being generous. Maybe I was a bit harsh to say 100:1, but I will say I think we are no better than 30:1 favorites to win it all, and probably more like 50:1.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Vegas odds are not really a 'power ranking'.  Currently they have the following odds:

    Boston 25-1

    San Fran 16-1

    Tampa Bay 22-1

    St Louis 25-1

    Baltimore 40-1

    So they have us as not that much worse than San Fran, about the same as the Rays and St Louis, and better than Baltimore.  Does anybody really think this is a true reflection of team strength?

    The Vegas guys know their stuff, I'm not suggesting otherwise.  But their primary concern is obviously making money, and they do that by spreading out the betting.  As money starts to fall they will recalibrate the odds to get people to bet on certain teams.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Fluke.  Reddick spent most of the year as their #3 hitter and had plummeted all the way down to 8 by year end.  They overachieved

    [/QUOTE]

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

    Whether they overachieved is pertinent to what they may do in 2013, but has nothing to do with your assertion that the 2013 Sox will be better than  Oak 2012.

    The 2012 had a great offense (4th best on the road MLB) and really good pitching (5th in AL on road).

    Does anyone really think the 2013 Sox would match those rankings?

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    Fluke.  Reddick spent most of the year as their #3 hitter and had plummeted all the way down to 8 by year end.  They overachieved



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

    Whether they overachieved is pertinent to what they may do in 2013, but has nothing to do with your assertion that the 2013 Sox than Oak 2012.

    The 2012 had a great offense (4th best on the road MLB) and really good pitching (5th in AL on road).

    Does anyone really think the 2013 Sox would match those rankings?

     

     



    It's all a matter of opinion, but as of right now, I'd take the Sox 25 man roster over Oakland & Baltimore's twice on Sunday.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Does anybody really think this is a true reflection of team strength?

    Yes, I do. This is their job. If they get it wrong, they pay out. I'd say this is pretty accurate, although I'd put us and Baltimore at about 30:1... just my opinion.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    Fluke.  Reddick spent most of the year as their #3 hitter and had plummeted all the way down to 8 by year end.  They overachieved



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

    Whether they overachieved is pertinent to what they may do in 2013, but has nothing to do with your assertion that the 2013 Sox than Oak 2012.

    The 2012 had a great offense (4th best on the road MLB) and really good pitching (5th in AL on road).

    Does anyone really think the 2013 Sox would match those rankings?

     

     



    It's all a matter of opinion, but as of right now, I'd take the Sox 25 man roster over Oakland & Baltimore's twice on Sunday.



    I'd take Oakland's 25 man roster over ours, and that's not even counting the salary we could add to it.

    Their offense is better than the numbers show due to park adjustments. Their ERA was something like 4th or5th on the road and they will be adding Brett Anderson to a rotation that is just coming inot it's prime years.

                    Age (in 2012)  ERA+ (ERA adjusted for park factor)

    Anderson 24  137

    Parker 23  114

    Milone 25   106

    Griffin 24    130

    Blackley 29  103

      Sox

    Lester 28  90

    Buch    27  95

    Dempster 35 124

    Doub    24  89

    Morales 26  115

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    Fluke.  Reddick spent most of the year as their #3 hitter and had plummeted all the way down to 8 by year end.  They overachieved



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

    Whether they overachieved is pertinent to what they may do in 2013, but has nothing to do with your assertion that the 2013 Sox than Oak 2012.

    The 2012 had a great offense (4th best on the road MLB) and really good pitching (5th in AL on road).

    Does anyone really think the 2013 Sox would match those rankings?

     

     



    My point is that we have more talented hitters than Oak.  So if they can finish fourth in the AL so can we.  My main point is that we have a realistic shot at a WC berth in 2013.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Does anybody really think this is a true reflection of team strength?

    Yes, I do. This is their job. If they get it wrong, they pay out. I'd say this is pretty accurate, although I'd put us and Baltimore at about 30:1... just my opinion.



    So you think we're just about even with Tampa Bay and St. Louis then.  We can't be that bad then.  Vegas also has us at a respectable 11-2 to win the AL East.  Everybody should cheer up.

     

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    The A's nearly had the best record in MLB last season without their best SP, Brett Anderson. 

    Yeah, we might pass them this year, but I'll take their staff anyday of the week over ours.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Does anybody really think this is a true reflection of team strength?

    Yes, I do. This is their job. If they get it wrong, they pay out. I'd say this is pretty accurate, although I'd put us and Baltimore at about 30:1... just my opinion.



    So you think we're just about even with Tampa Bay and St. Louis then.  We can't be that bad then.  Vegas also has us at a respectable 11-2 to win the AL East.  Everybody should cheer up.

     



    No, I actually think we are way behind TB and a little behind STL. 

    I'd take Price, Hellickson and Moore over any of our starters, so there you go.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

     

    It's all a matter of opinion, but as of right now, I'd take the Sox 25 man roster over Oakland & Baltimore's twice on Sunday.

    [/QUOTE]

    That is an interesting topic, but not what I was posting about.  Do you think the 2013 Sox wil be as good as the 2012 Athletics?  I doubt it. Oak won 94 games last year, they put up good numbers both hitting and pitching.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    Fluke.  Reddick spent most of the year as their #3 hitter and had plummeted all the way down to 8 by year end.  They overachieved



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

    Whether they overachieved is pertinent to what they may do in 2013, but has nothing to do with your assertion that the 2013 Sox than Oak 2012.

    The 2012 had a great offense (4th best on the road MLB) and really good pitching (5th in AL on road).

    Does anyone really think the 2013 Sox would match those rankings?

     

     



    It's all a matter of opinion, but as of right now, I'd take the Sox 25 man roster over Oakland & Baltimore's twice on Sunday.



    I'd take Oakland's 25 man roster over ours, and that's not even counting the salary we could add to it.

    Their offense is better than the numbers show due to park adjustments. Their ERA was something like 4th or5th on the road and they will be adding Brett Anderson to a rotation that is just coming inot it's prime years.



    Ok...agree to disagree...just an opinion obviously, but if all things were equal in the injury department, I dont think it's even close.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Vegas is constantly changing their odds based on the way people have been betting.  NFL point spreads sometimes change during the week.  It's not because the oddsmakers have reconsidered the spread they set.  It's because they want to even out the betting.  If the bets are perfectly even on both sides they can't lose.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    Fluke.  Reddick spent most of the year as their #3 hitter and had plummeted all the way down to 8 by year end.  They overachieved



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

    Whether they overachieved is pertinent to what they may do in 2013, but has nothing to do with your assertion that the 2013 Sox than Oak 2012.

    The 2012 had a great offense (4th best on the road MLB) and really good pitching (5th in AL on road).

    Does anyone really think the 2013 Sox would match those rankings?

     

     



    It's all a matter of opinion, but as of right now, I'd take the Sox 25 man roster over Oakland & Baltimore's twice on Sunday.



    I'd take Oakland's 25 man roster over ours, and that's not even counting the salary we could add to it.

    Their offense is better than the numbers show due to park adjustments. Their ERA was something like 4th or5th on the road and they will be adding Brett Anderson to a rotation that is just coming inot it's prime years.



    Ok...agree to disagree...just an opinion obviously, but if all things were equal in the injury department, I dont think it's even close.



    I don't see us winning 94 games last year with a healthy Ells, CC and whoever.

    Also, maybe the A's win a 100 if Anderson and McCarthy and others are healthy last year.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    So you think we're just about even with Tampa Bay and St. Louis then.  We can't be that bad then.  Vegas also has us at a respectable 11-2 to win the AL East.  Everybody should cheer up.

     



    No, I actually think we are way behind TB and a little behind STL. 

    I'd take Price, Hellickson and Moore over any of our starters, so there you go.



    Of course we're way behind TB.  That just illustrates what I'm saying about Vegas odds not being true power rankings.

     

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    So you think we're just about even with Tampa Bay and St. Louis then.  We can't be that bad then.  Vegas also has us at a respectable 11-2 to win the AL East.  Everybody should cheer up.

     



    No, I actually think we are way behind TB and a little behind STL. 

    I'd take Price, Hellickson and Moore over any of our starters, so there you go.



    Of course we're way behind TB.  That just illustrates what I'm saying about Vegas odds not being true power rankings.

     



    My point is that the odds are probably a better representation of our chances of winning than any power ratings.

    They probably saw the loss of Shields as enough to lower their odds beyond what my opinion has them at.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

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



    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.



    I strongly believe that anything can happen once you get into the playoffs.  I also believe that the new playoff format increases everyone's odds of getting in and therefore greatly increases everyone's odds of winning it all.

    However, I am aware that a 1 game playoff is a borderline coin flip.

    That being said, I'd say the teams that look like locks to run away their division have great chances (because they wont have to deal with this one game playoff coin flip).  In that category: Angels / Tigers.

    I feel that teams who have the resources to make a mid season buy have the next best chances.  In this category: Texas/ Red Sox.

    I would say that pratcially everyone in the league, save Minnesota , Cle and KC has at least a somewhat realistic chance.   I submit last year as evidence.

     



    Being "in it" in August should not be the true meaning of serious contender.

    Yes, once in the playoffs everyone has a chance, but it is far from even chancves all around. (It's not 1 out fo 10 just because 10 teams make it. If a team does squeek into the playoffs, they probably have more like a 20:1 chance. Then, there is the chance we dont make the playoffs. I think 25:1 is being generous. Maybe I was a bit harsh to say 100:1, but I will say I think we are no better than 30:1 favorites to win it all, and probably more like 50:1.



    Im not a championship or bust guy.  A playoff appearance is a good season.  And playoff revenue goes a long way towards breaking even on the recent adds.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

     

    It's all a matter of opinion, but as of right now, I'd take the Sox 25 man roster over Oakland & Baltimore's twice on Sunday.



    That is an interesting topic, but not what I was posting about.  Do you think the 2013 Sox wil be as good as the 2012 Athletics?  I doubt it. Oak won 94 games last year, they put up good numbers both hitting and pitching.



    I think the sox have as good of a chance at winning 94 games in 2013 as Oak did at the start of 2012.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    So you think we're just about even with Tampa Bay and St. Louis then.  We can't be that bad then.  Vegas also has us at a respectable 11-2 to win the AL East.  Everybody should cheer up.

     



    No, I actually think we are way behind TB and a little behind STL. 

    I'd take Price, Hellickson and Moore over any of our starters, so there you go.



    Of course we're way behind TB.  That just illustrates what I'm saying about Vegas odds not being true power rankings.

     



    My point is that the odds are probably a better representation of our chances of winning than any power ratings.

    They probably saw the loss of Shields as enough to lower their odds beyond what my opinion has them at.



    Addition by subtraction.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    My point is that we have more talented hitters than Oak.  So if they can finish fourth in the AL so can we.  My main point is that we have a realistic shot at a WC berth in 2013.

    You say the A's overachieved. I disagree. I think their offense is much better than many think they were (are), perhaps based on their overall stats.

    The A's play in a huge park with a huge foul territory. If you look at their offense on the road, they finished 4th in MLB. FOURTH! This was done playing many more games than most teams in Seattle and LAA. That's over 50 more runs than the Sox did on the road. That's 10 more than the Rangers and Cards.

    Yes, the A's have lost Gomes, Suzuki, Inge, Pennington and Drew, but they have added Nakajima (SS), Chris Young (OF), and Cespedes may grow into a bust-out year.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    My point is that we have more talented hitters than Oak.  So if they can finish fourth in the AL so can we.  My main point is that we have a realistic shot at a WC berth in 2013.

    You say the A's overachieved. I disagree. I think their offense is much better than many think they were (are), perhaps based on their overall stats.

    The A's play in a huge park with a huge foul territory. If you look at their offense on the road, they finished 4th in MLB. FOURTH! This was done playing many more games than most teams in Seattle and LAA. That's over 50 more runs than the Sox did on the road. That's 10 more than the Rangers and Cards.

    Yes, the A's have lost Gomes, Suzuki, Inge, Pennington and Drew, but they have added Nakajima (SS), Chris Young (OF), and Cespedes may grow into a bust-out year.




    Well sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend , to my death, your right to say it.

    Cespedes is a stud.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    My point is that we have more talented hitters than Oak.  So if they can finish fourth in the AL so can we.  My main point is that we have a realistic shot at a WC berth in 2013.

    You say the A's overachieved. I disagree. I think their offense is much better than many think they were (are), perhaps based on their overall stats.

    The A's play in a huge park with a huge foul territory. If you look at their offense on the road, they finished 4th in MLB. FOURTH! This was done playing many more games than most teams in Seattle and LAA. That's over 50 more runs than the Sox did on the road. That's 10 more than the Rangers and Cards.

    Yes, the A's have lost Gomes, Suzuki, Inge, Pennington and Drew, but they have added Nakajima (SS), Chris Young (OF), and Cespedes may grow into a bust-out year.




    Well sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend , to my death, your right to say it.

    Cespedes is a stud.



    I nthink we have agreed more than disagreed over the years.

    I am not so sure we even disagree so much on how good the Sox will be, but it is more about what we define as a legitimate chance at making or winning the playoffs.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share