Sox Sign Drew

  1. 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.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

     

    I believe that the 2012 Oakland A's were not a fluke. 

    Their rookie starting pitchers handled pressure very well.  All they did was win the AL West and push the Tigers to a decisive game five. 

    Their pitchers will have more experience under their belt, Chris Young is an upgrade in their OF, and Cespedes and Reddick will carry the offense. 

    So they are a well-balanced team with speed, defense and power.

    Can anyone guess which team hit the most HRs in the second half in 2012? 

    Watch out for Oakland in 2013. 

     
  • 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:

    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.



    If the Giants are 15:1 and the Sox are 30:1.  To throw away 2013 for 2014 is a 0 sum game*

    *Assuming that it will only take one season to get the 2014 sox as good as the 2013 giants, which is a reach.

    30:1 is only 1:1 to better than 15:1.   15:1 are good odds. 1:1 is a coin flip.

    My point: it takes a lot to outweigh the cost of a thrown away season.  Especially in the new format when anyone can get in.  I also dont think that a lot is gained by throwing away a season.  Major league playing time, to me, is overrated.  I dont think that you can take any prospect, give him adequate service time, and he'll become an MLB regular.  I think that all prospects are individuals and the one's with elite talent will beome MLB regulars sooner or later.  I think prospect success is far more correlated w/ prospect talent than MLB playing time.

    I also think that the prospects are better off in the minors where they can exclusively focus on getting better.  I dont think that gutting everything for prospects is the solution either.  1 thrown away year is a large cost.  To trade everything of value for the future is throwing away 3 years and a cost that is going to be nearly impossible to recoup over the prime years of the prospects you are trading for.

    I think that you're better off doing what the sox did.  If they fall out of contention, they can always sell at the deadline.  The chance that one of: Napoli, Vic reverts to their career averages is pretty good.  if that happens, the player will have deadline trade value.  Teams are desperate at the deadline.

    Even S.Drew.  If he's batting .260 , 9 HR w/avg D at the deadline, he will have trade value.

    If we fall out of contention, then I am all for selling because this is probably the last year where we can expect Papi to mash.  Our last year w/ Ells.  Lester becomes much more expensive in 2014.  So if it comes time to concede 2013, Im all for selling and planning to 2015.  However, this is a huge cost.  And I dont think the 2013 team is awful enough to go with this option w/out even giving 2013 a shot.  Vic , Naps, and Dempster were all all-stars in their last healthy seasons.  Ells in a walk year.  De La Rosa, Webster, Lackey, Dempster have all been added as pitching options.  Team isnt terrible.

    And if they prove me wrong, probably one of Naps, Vic, Drew will have trade valu at the deadline.  So will Ells.  SO will Ortiz.  Can always retool then.  WIN/WIN

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share