Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But if the price was Betts, WMB, Ranaudo/or Johnson I would take that plunge....but like you said that is doubtful....but for entertainment purposes I'd make that trade at the deadline and hope Cecchini is ready to take over 3rd by then. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I think I'd give:

    WMB

    Ranaudo

    Barnes

    Betts or Margot

    Johnson, Webster or de la Rosa

    (Maybe try to get them to add Cishek by offering any 7 of the 8 listed above.)

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc1944. Show MadMc1944's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    We don't really need Cishek but if we had him to go with Ue, Mujica and Taz---Taz is the weakest but perhaps if we got Cishek we could move Taz eventually into the rotation for next year.

    I would be inclined to trade WMB and Workman for Cishek. I realize that's giving up a lot but Cishek would make the last three innings lights out.

    Ue, Mujica, Taz, Cishek, Miller, Britton, Capuano,  Layne (as of today).

    Pitching wins games--regular season--more importantly in the playoffs.

    Then bring up Cecchini for 3 B or sign Drew for SS or Izturis for 3 B or pick up someone on the cheap.

    Let Stanton stay in Miami.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Cordero---I forgot about the 39 year old with 9 scoreless innings; can't get much better than that. Would you keep him over trading for Cishek? I think I might.

    My concern is still BenC's unwillingness to move some of these assets.

    Webster maybe needs time in AA and work his way through the system instead of just breaking camp with him at AAA. How about a little healthy competition with Webster, Barnes and Owens in Portland. The kid seems to have no confidence. Moon, that would make me happy to see three top prospects in the Dogs rotation for a couple of months.

    Some moves have to be made soon. Layne, Cordero, Capuano seem to be having pretty good ST. Cap seems to be a lock. Layne and Cordero could make the club if Breslow and Miller are Dl'd.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to MadMc44's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cordero---I forgot about the 39 year old with 9 scoreless innings; can't get much better than that. Would you keep him over trading for Cishek? I think I might.

    My concern is still BenC's unwillingness to move some of these assets.

    Webster maybe needs time in AA and work his way through the system instead of just breaking camp with him at AAA. How about a little healthy competition with Webster, Barnes and Owens in Portland. The kid seems to have no confidence. Moon, that would make me happy to see three top prospects in the Dogs rotation for a couple of months.

    Some moves have to be made soon. Layne, Cordero, Capuano seem to be having pretty good ST. Cap seems to be a lock. Layne and Cordero could make the club if Breslow and Miller are Dl'd.

    [/QUOTE]

    Barnes and Webster will be starting in Pawtucket. 

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to MadMc44's comment:

    Cordero---I forgot about the 39 year old with 9 scoreless innings; can't get much better than that. Would you keep him over trading for Cishek? I think I might.

    My concern is still BenC's unwillingness to move some of these assets.

    Webster maybe needs time in AA and work his way through the system instead of just breaking camp with him at AAA. How about a little healthy competition with Webster, Barnes and Owens in Portland. The kid seems to have no confidence. Moon, that would make me happy to see three top prospects in the Dogs rotation for a couple of months.

    Some moves have to be made soon. Layne, Cordero, Capuano seem to be having pretty good ST. Cap seems to be a lock. Layne and Cordero could make the club if Breslow and Miller are Dl'd.



    Last year, we used 26 pitchers. We used 18 pitchers for more than 20 innings while the bottom 8 combined for about 70 IP. We used 14 pitchers for more than 30 IP.

    We used 26 pitchers in 2012, including 18 with over 19 IP.

    We used 27 pitchers in 2011, including 17 with 20+ IP.

     

    There's no reason to trade ML ready pitchers, because we don't think we have enough room to play them all. They should only be traded, if it improves the team.

    It's a tight balance when it comes to trading youth, and I do not think any of us know to what extent Ben is willing to pull the trigger on the "right player".

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to lasitter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    " love many of our prospects as much as many here, but Stanton is for real."

    Everyone would love to have him, but I look at it another way: How many years of cheap team control would we be buying vs similar control given up in return. I would much rather have our prospects than Stanton.

    I wish these sorts of trades would allow a much larger cash consideration aspect, but apparently the Commissioner's office does not permit this.



    Again, I am against trading 5 good prospects for Stanton, unless it was something like WMB, Webster, de la Rosa, Margot and Johnson (not going to happen).

    My guess is we'd extend Stanton at a reasonable cost with an up front bonus.

    [/QUOTE]

    why would he take a "reasonable cost"  If he DID stay healthy he would be in line for a monster contract.

    I'd love to give him an upfront bonus to sign a more reasonable deal but the reality is that Boston has plenty of money and the only number that really matters is the AAV. 

    I'm starting to think more and more that trading for Stanton is a horrible ideal. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Stanton is not even that much of an AAV risk.  

     

    After 2015, how many big contracts do the Sox have on the books?  Pedroia and anyone else?  Lester coming soon I guess.  Buchholz and Ortiz do have optins in that timeframe.

     

    Let’s assume Stanton does come to Boston and is extended for $20mill per.  The AAV risk is very much mitigated by having minimum wage players like Cecchini, Vazquez, Bogaerts, and Bradley, not to mention anyone else who works their way to the top of the ladder.  Marrero?  Margot?

     

    C: Vazquez/Swihart

    1b: ???

    2b: Pedroia

    3b: Cecchini

    SS: Bogaerts

    LF:  Nava

    CF: Bradley

    RF:  Stanton

    DH: Ortiz?

     

    SP: Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Barnes? Webster? Ball?  Workman?  Britton and de la Rosa in pen.

     

    The lineup, counting Stanton’s $20mill, would cost $33mill plus all the min wage guys.  That leaves PLENTY of room for not only Papi’s $11mill option and get a platoon partner for Nava, but also to get a 1B.    (Or Stanton could go to 1B, with Bryce Brentz taking over RF.)   So for less than $50mill, the entire lineup is taken care of.  Even if players like Bogaerts sign to pre-arb extensions, it might reach $60mill.  (And Bogaerts is unlikely to sign one, being a Boras client and all.)   And even then, that still leaves a paltry $120 or so million dollars to fill the rotation, bullpen and bench.

     

    I don’t get the AAV concern at all.

     

    And here is the kicker, that lineup actually doesn’t look that bad at all.   I would actually consider it realistic AND competitive, although I would like to see an upgrade in RF instead of Brentz.  Heck, there is still room to sign a RF and let Brentz platoon with Nava.

     

    Now, let’s assume the Sox keep Betts, Owens, etc.   Does THAT lineup look any better?  It does look cheaper, but that is about it.  In fact, with no position for Betts, and all the other players and prospects easily replaced, the only actual loss might be Owens.

      

    [/QUOTE]

     

    As you said, that trade is unlikely.  I base my opinion on what trade scanerio would actually logically pry Stanton away; that....I do not belive is worth it in any way.

    Also WMB strained his back and leg, he's also very committed to a resistance training program that should mitigate those issues.  Admittedly I do not know if Stanton is as committed, but I do know Stanton has missed time over 3 seasons where WMB hasn't even played in 3 seasons so it is a bit of a stretch to say his injury history is "significantly more" than that of Stantons.  Stanton has had leg, knee and eye problems.

    For some of those proposed trades, the weaker ones suggested...I would make, but like you said they will never happen.

    Also in terms of being paid, Stanton is entering his arbitration years, and I think you are underestimating how costly that can get.  Remember power numbers go a LONG way into computation arbitration for players.  Some power hitters make north of $15 million by their last year of arbitration.  

    Also keep in mind that every player it would realistically take to pry Stanton away would come with 6 years of team control....so we are trading potentially 18 + years of team control for 3 years.  We already added an impact player who is likely of Stantons caliber in Bogaerts and we got to the WS without him.  With over 100 million coming off the books the next couple years (factoring in Ortiz and the possible Lester extension)  I'd rather see the Sox go after a hitter in FA and hold onto their chips.

    This is just my opinion, if you like Stanton fine but if we all were 100% certain we should trade away a bunch of chips for a premium player I'd rather go after a true bona fide #1 starter. 

    [/QUOTE]

    That is because you, sir, are a Prospect Miser.  You know it.  I know it.  I think even a few of the prospects know it.

     

    In no way do I think Miami trades Stanton for the proposed package.  I agree there.  I’d be surprised if Stanton could be had without giving up Bogaerts.  BUT… the thread was built around that lesser package.  It would be insane IMO not to accept it.   

     

    You are incorrect with the number of seasons Stanton has missed time over.  He played 150 games in 2011.  That’s full time enough for me.  I also think stating giving up 18 years of control, while mathematically correct, is also an overstatement.  It is extremely unlikely that three prospects in question all play 6 years of MLB, let alone give up 6 years each worth holding on to.

     

    And while a bonafide #1 starter is and will always be the priority, obviously it will cost even more for one if he has 3 years of control left.  MAYBE you can give up the proposed package for Max Scherzer this coming July 31 and have him for 3 months, but you won’t get, say, Chris Sale for that same package. 

     

    I disagree that going after a FA hitter is a good idea.  I’d rather give up the prospects.   At some point, the way this farm system is turning them out, we have to think of the farm system as a fountain that is readily replenished, rather than a well with a limited capacity.  The prospects we have now ARE more of a statement about the quality and developing policies of the Red Sox team and management, and  have been for several years now.  They are not lucky draft picks we need to cling to, knowing the future rides on the progress of each and every one.   Gone are the days of fawning over the Steve Lomasneys and Dernell Stensons of the world as they stand out as the rare players in the Sox farm system who look like they might actually have borderline MLB talent.   We will get more of them; we are getting really good at it.  Keep a few out of necessity, but be prepared to spend some of them as well.

     

    Free Agency is nice for supplemental pieces, like how the Sox used it prior to the 2013 season.  But to get an impact core player, the standard practice has become to overpay in both dollars and years, and hope there is enough production early on to justify the pending albatross.   Free agent contracts given to premium hitters almost NEVER turn out like Manny Ramirez, an extremely rare example of a hitter who managed to stay a productive hitter for the entire length of his long-term contract.  Free agency is only for supplementing existing talent, or for making a PR splash to sell tickets if you happen to be one of the teams that has not won 3 World Series in the last 10 years…

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc1944. Show MadMc1944's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    My proposal has been an even up trade Xander for Giancarlo and bring back Drew. If you can get Stanton for Bogaerts today do it.

    Xander, if he works out, will be talking money with the Sox. Like Trout is looking for an early payday from the Angels. We take a hit this year but we also have one maybe two shots with Nap, Ortiz and Stanton.

    This should be a good year for our pitching both the rotation and the pen.

    I love Xander and yes I do believe he can be the next Jeter. I like Stanton and he can make our lineup more whole. It's a good trade for both teams.

    No added Prospects--no more Chips departing. If Miami closes the door on 1 for 1--so be it...we know it wasn't to be.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to crazy-world-of-troybrown's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Fastest way to turn around a Franchise is Pitching, not Positional Players. I'll take 3 of your best Pitching Prospects, you can keep the other 2.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree.  If I empty the farm, I want another Pedro or another Schilling.

    Last year, we needed a RF, so we simply purchased on for $13M, and he had a far better season than Stanton.

    If I were trading with Miami, I'd be looking for Fernandez.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Han Ram is the best available FA hitter next winter, and he's not really a fit for us. I just don't see us overpaying for him at his age and position played (not too well, I might add). Guys like Myers last year and Stanton this year do not come along every year. If we don't try and get Stanton soo, there may not be another opportunity to acquire a top young controlled player for quite sometime.

    I'm not for giving up the world for Stanton, but I would not be surprised if that within a year and a half, some of the posters here saying "hold onto the kids" will be writing about how we need a big bat so badly that we might need to do something even more extreme to get one due to the lack of available big sluggers.

    I doubt this package lands Stanton, but I'd kick the tires and see if we can at least open a dialogue with it:

    WMB

    Ranaudo

    Barnes

    2 or 3 out of Betts, Margot, Johnson, Webster and de la Rosa

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to lasitter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    " love many of our prospects as much as many here, but Stanton is for real."

    Everyone would love to have him, but I look at it another way: How many years of cheap team control would we be buying vs similar control given up in return. I would much rather have our prospects than Stanton.

    I wish these sorts of trades would allow a much larger cash consideration aspect, but apparently the Commissioner's office does not permit this.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, I am against trading 5 good prospects for Stanton, unless it was something like WMB, Webster, de la Rosa, Margot and Johnson (not going to happen).

     

    My guess is we'd extend Stanton at a reasonable cost with an up front bonus.

    [/QUOTE]

    why would he take a "reasonable cost"  If he DID stay healthy he would be in line for a monster contract.

    I'd love to give him an upfront bonus to sign a more reasonable deal but the reality is that Boston has plenty of money and the only number that really matters is the AAV. 

    I'm starting to think more and more that trading for Stanton is a horrible ideal. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Stanton is not even that much of an AAV risk.  

     

    After 2015, how many big contracts do the Sox have on the books?  Pedroia and anyone else?  Lester coming soon I guess.  Buchholz and Ortiz do have optins in that timeframe.

     

    Let’s assume Stanton does come to Boston and is extended for $20mill per.  The AAV risk is very much mitigated by having minimum wage players like Cecchini, Vazquez, Bogaerts, and Bradley, not to mention anyone else who works their way to the top of the ladder.  Marrero?  Margot?

     

    C: Vazquez/Swihart

    1b: ???

    2b: Pedroia

    3b: Cecchini

    SS: Bogaerts

    LF:  Nava

    CF: Bradley

    RF:  Stanton

    DH: Ortiz?

     

    SP: Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Barnes? Webster? Ball?  Workman?  Britton and de la Rosa in pen.

     

    The lineup, counting Stanton’s $20mill, would cost $33mill plus all the min wage guys.  That leaves PLENTY of room for not only Papi’s $11mill option and get a platoon partner for Nava, but also to get a 1B.    (Or Stanton could go to 1B, with Bryce Brentz taking over RF.)   So for less than $50mill, the entire lineup is taken care of.  Even if players like Bogaerts sign to pre-arb extensions, it might reach $60mill.  (And Bogaerts is unlikely to sign one, being a Boras client and all.)   And even then, that still leaves a paltry $120 or so million dollars to fill the rotation, bullpen and bench.

     

    I don’t get the AAV concern at all.

     

    And here is the kicker, that lineup actually doesn’t look that bad at all.   I would actually consider it realistic AND competitive, although I would like to see an upgrade in RF instead of Brentz.  Heck, there is still room to sign a RF and let Brentz platoon with Nava.

     

    Now, let’s assume the Sox keep Betts, Owens, etc.   Does THAT lineup look any better?  It does look cheaper, but that is about it.  In fact, with no position for Betts, and all the other players and prospects easily replaced, the only actual loss might be Owens.

      

    [/QUOTE]

     

    As you said, that trade is unlikely.  I base my opinion on what trade scanerio would actually logically pry Stanton away; that....I do not belive is worth it in any way.

    Also WMB strained his back and leg, he's also very committed to a resistance training program that should mitigate those issues.  Admittedly I do not know if Stanton is as committed, but I do know Stanton has missed time over 3 seasons where WMB hasn't even played in 3 seasons so it is a bit of a stretch to say his injury history is "significantly more" than that of Stantons.  Stanton has had leg, knee and eye problems.

    For some of those proposed trades, the weaker ones suggested...I would make, but like you said they will never happen.

    Also in terms of being paid, Stanton is entering his arbitration years, and I think you are underestimating how costly that can get.  Remember power numbers go a LONG way into computation arbitration for players.  Some power hitters make north of $15 million by their last year of arbitration.  

    Also keep in mind that every player it would realistically take to pry Stanton away would come with 6 years of team control....so we are trading potentially 18 + years of team control for 3 years.  We already added an impact player who is likely of Stantons caliber in Bogaerts and we got to the WS without him.  With over 100 million coming off the books the next couple years (factoring in Ortiz and the possible Lester extension)  I'd rather see the Sox go after a hitter in FA and hold onto their chips.

    This is just my opinion, if you like Stanton fine but if we all were 100% certain we should trade away a bunch of chips for a premium player I'd rather go after a true bona fide #1 starter. 

    [/QUOTE]

    That is because you, sir, are a Prospect Miser.  You know it.  I know it.  I think even a few of the prospects know it.

     

    In no way do I think Miami trades Stanton for the proposed package.  I agree there.  I’d be surprised if Stanton could be had without giving up Bogaerts.  BUT… the thread was built around that lesser package.  It would be insane IMO not to accept it.   

     

    You are incorrect with the number of seasons Stanton has missed time over.  He played 150 games in 2011.  That’s full time enough for me.  I also think stating giving up 18 years of control, while mathematically correct, is also an overstatement.  It is extremely unlikely that three prospects in question all play 6 years of MLB, let alone give up 6 years each worth holding on to.

     

    And while a bonafide #1 starter is and will always be the priority, obviously it will cost even more for one if he has 3 years of control left.  MAYBE you can give up the proposed package for Max Scherzer this coming July 31 and have him for 3 months, but you won’t get, say, Chris Sale for that same package. 

     

    I disagree that going after a FA hitter is a good idea.  I’d rather give up the prospects.   At some point, the way this farm system is turning them out, we have to think of the farm system as a fountain that is readily replenished, rather than a well with a limited capacity.  The prospects we have now ARE more of a statement about the quality and developing policies of the Red Sox team and management, and  have been for several years now.  They are not lucky draft picks we need to cling to, knowing the future rides on the progress of each and every one.   Gone are the days of fawning over the Steve Lomasneys and Dernell Stensons of the world as they stand out as the rare players in the Sox farm system who look like they might actually have borderline MLB talent.   We will get more of them; we are getting really good at it.  Keep a few out of necessity, but be prepared to spend some of them as well.

     

    Free Agency is nice for supplemental pieces, like how the Sox used it prior to the 2013 season.  But to get an impact core player, the standard practice has become to overpay in both dollars and years, and hope there is enough production early on to justify the pending albatross.   Free agent contracts given to premium hitters almost NEVER turn out like Manny Ramirez, an extremely rare example of a hitter who managed to stay a productive hitter for the entire length of his long-term contract.  Free agency is only for supplementing existing talent, or for making a PR splash to sell tickets if you happen to be one of the teams that has not won 3 World Series in the last 10 years…

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok so I just wrote a nice well though out elaborate response then my computer froze so seeing how I need to get back to work I'm just going to summarize this.

    You are correct I'm overzealous on our prospects.  In my defense I'm arguing based on a perceived larger package and we do have a higher hit rate and these prospects come from a top ten that is perceived as one of our strongest over the past decade.  Still I assume too much.

    I like Bostons balance between FA/drafting/ and trades.  Despite the blunders I'd say we do this better than most teams. 

    I completely agree that you have to overpay for a superstar.  I don't mind overpaying for a superstar when the rest of the team is built well.  

    I would just prefer Pedro Martinez to Manny Ramirez if you will. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We don't really need Cishek but if we had him to go with Ue, Mujica and Taz---Taz is the weakest but perhaps if we got Cishek we could move Taz eventually into the rotation for next year.

    I would be inclined to trade WMB and Workman for Cishek. I realize that's giving up a lot but Cishek would make the last three innings lights out.

    Ue, Mujica, Taz, Cishek, Miller, Britton, Capuano,  Layne (as of today).

    Pitching wins games--regular season--more importantly in the playoffs.

    Then bring up Cecchini for 3 B or sign Drew for SS or Izturis for 3 B or pick up someone on the cheap.

    Let Stanton stay in Miami.

    [/QUOTE]


    you dont give up that much for a BP arm unless his name is Mo. Besides, our pen is more than all set, with BU waiting in AAA.

    I agree with your last statement though.

    Let Stanton stay in Miami for what it will cost.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Ok so I just wrote a nice well though out elaborate response then my computer froze so seeing how I need to get back to work I'm just going to summarize this.

    You are correct I'm overzealous on our prospects.  In my defense I'm arguing based on a perceived larger package and we do have a higher hit rate and these prospects come from a top ten that is perceived as one of our strongest over the past decade.  Still I assume too much.

    I like Bostons balance between FA/drafting/ and trades.  Despite the blunders I'd say we do this better than most teams. 

    I completely agree that you have to overpay for a superstar.  I don't mind overpaying for a superstar when the rest of the team is built well.  

    I would just prefer Pedro Martinez to Manny Ramirez if you will. 

     

    I really like our top 10-12 prospects too. I'd love to hold them all in hopes that 3-5 make it big and provide cheap and high production that would allow us to overspend on a big splash FA and still stay under the limit. I will say that although I share your enthusiasm for our top 10, we have had some spectacular top 10's before now (see below).

    However, I do think notin is right, we can trade 4-5 very good prospects and still have a very decent far,. especially with this upcoming draft back-filling the losses.

     

    Some previous soxprospects.com top 10's:

    11/03 Jorge de la Rosa, Lester, Youk, Shoppach, Spann, HanRam, D Murphy, Delcarmen, A martinez, J West

    06/04 Youk, HanRam, A Alvarez, Lester, Papelbon, J West, B Moss, Shopp, Spann, Murton

    2005 Paps, Lester, A Sanchez, HanRam, Hansen, Delcarmen, Pedey, Shopp, Moss, Pauley (11-20 included D Murphy, Ellsbury, lowrie, Alvarez & Buch!)  WOW!!! and DOUBLE WOW !!!!!!

    04/07 Paps, Lester, hansen, Pedey, Delcarmen, Ells, Lowrie, Buch, D Murphey, B Moss - Hard to top this one!

    09/08 Buch, Ells, Bowden, Masterson, Lowrie, Lars, Hagadone, Moss, kalish, Tejada (11-13 had Reddick & Middy) Nice top 13!

    It dropped off after spring 2009 as our players lost their prospect status, but those were some awesome top 10-12 lists back then.

     

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ok so I just wrote a nice well though out elaborate response then my computer froze so seeing how I need to get back to work I'm just going to summarize this.

    You are correct I'm overzealous on our prospects.  In my defense I'm arguing based on a perceived larger package and we do have a higher hit rate and these prospects come from a top ten that is perceived as one of our strongest over the past decade.  Still I assume too much.

    I like Bostons balance between FA/drafting/ and trades.  Despite the blunders I'd say we do this better than most teams. 

    I completely agree that you have to overpay for a superstar.  I don't mind overpaying for a superstar when the rest of the team is built well.  

    I would just prefer Pedro Martinez to Manny Ramirez if you will. 

     

    I really like our top 10-12 prospects too. I'd love to hold them all in hopes that 3-5 make it big and provide cheap and high production that would allow us to overspend on a big splash FA and still stay under the limit. I will say that although I share your enthusiasm for our top 10, we have had some spectacular top 10's before now (see below).

    However, I do think notin is right, we can trade 4-5 very good prospects and still have a very decent far,. especially with this upcoming draft back-filling the losses.

     

    Some previous soxprospects.com top 10's:

    11/03 Jorge de la Rosa, Lester, Youk, Shoppach, Spann, HanRam, D Murphy, Delcarmen, A martinez, J West

    06/04 Youk, HanRam, A Alvarez, Lester, Papelbon, J West, B Moss, Shopp, Spann, Murton

    2005 Paps, Lester, A Sanchez, HanRam, Hansen, Delcarmen, Pedey, Shopp, Moss, Pauley (11-20 included D Murphy, Ellsbury, lowrie, Alvarez & Buch!)  WOW!!! and DOUBLE WOW !!!!!!

    04/07 Paps, Lester, hansen, Pedey, Delcarmen, Ells, Lowrie, Buch, D Murphey, B Moss - Hard to top this one!

    09/08 Buch, Ells, Bowden, Masterson, Lowrie, Lars, Hagadone, Moss, kalish, Tejada (11-13 had Reddick & Middy) Nice top 13!

    It dropped off after spring 2009 as our players lost their prospect status, but those were some awesome top 10-12 lists back then.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's been said that this crop is better than the 07 crop.  Now remember this is saying they are better prospects, that doesn't mean they will pan out as good as the 07 crop.  Not in hindsight but even when all those guys were still in the minors that system was talking about as being one of the Sox strongest in years.  That doesn't gurantee that the future big league careers of this systems top ten will be anybetter, but in terms of rankings, consensus and expectations.....they are. 

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ok so I just wrote a nice well though out elaborate response then my computer froze so seeing how I need to get back to work I'm just going to summarize this.

    You are correct I'm overzealous on our prospects.  In my defense I'm arguing based on a perceived larger package and we do have a higher hit rate and these prospects come from a top ten that is perceived as one of our strongest over the past decade.  Still I assume too much.

    I like Bostons balance between FA/drafting/ and trades.  Despite the blunders I'd say we do this better than most teams. 

    I completely agree that you have to overpay for a superstar.  I don't mind overpaying for a superstar when the rest of the team is built well.  

    I would just prefer Pedro Martinez to Manny Ramirez if you will. 

     

    I really like our top 10-12 prospects too. I'd love to hold them all in hopes that 3-5 make it big and provide cheap and high production that would allow us to overspend on a big splash FA and still stay under the limit. I will say that although I share your enthusiasm for our top 10, we have had some spectacular top 10's before now (see below).

    However, I do think notin is right, we can trade 4-5 very good prospects and still have a very decent far,. especially with this upcoming draft back-filling the losses.

     

    Some previous soxprospects.com top 10's:

    11/03 Jorge de la Rosa, Lester, Youk, Shoppach, Spann, HanRam, D Murphy, Delcarmen, A martinez, J West

    06/04 Youk, HanRam, A Alvarez, Lester, Papelbon, J West, B Moss, Shopp, Spann, Murton

    2005 Paps, Lester, A Sanchez, HanRam, Hansen, Delcarmen, Pedey, Shopp, Moss, Pauley (11-20 included D Murphy, Ellsbury, lowrie, Alvarez & Buch!)  WOW!!! and DOUBLE WOW !!!!!!

    04/07 Paps, Lester, hansen, Pedey, Delcarmen, Ells, Lowrie, Buch, D Murphey, B Moss - Hard to top this one!

    09/08 Buch, Ells, Bowden, Masterson, Lowrie, Lars, Hagadone, Moss, kalish, Tejada (11-13 had Reddick & Middy) Nice top 13!

    It dropped off after spring 2009 as our players lost their prospect status, but those were some awesome top 10-12 lists back then.

     



    It's been said that this crop is better than the 07 crop.  Now remember this is saying they are better prospects, that doesn't mean they will pan out as good as the 07 crop.  Not in hindsight but even when all those guys were still in the minors that system was talking about as being one of the Sox strongest in years.  That doesn't gurantee that the future big league careers of this systems top ten will be anybetter, but in terms of rankings, consensus and expectations.....they are. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I rememeber the talk being pretty high back in 2007, but in terms of top 100 lists by national services, you are right. This crop is regarded higher as prospects. We can only hope the results come out close to what those 2003 to 2008 crops gave to MLB.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ok so I just wrote a nice well though out elaborate response then my computer froze so seeing how I need to get back to work I'm just going to summarize this.

    You are correct I'm overzealous on our prospects.  In my defense I'm arguing based on a perceived larger package and we do have a higher hit rate and these prospects come from a top ten that is perceived as one of our strongest over the past decade.  Still I assume too much.

    I like Bostons balance between FA/drafting/ and trades.  Despite the blunders I'd say we do this better than most teams. 

    I completely agree that you have to overpay for a superstar.  I don't mind overpaying for a superstar when the rest of the team is built well.  

    I would just prefer Pedro Martinez to Manny Ramirez if you will. 

     

    I really like our top 10-12 prospects too. I'd love to hold them all in hopes that 3-5 make it big and provide cheap and high production that would allow us to overspend on a big splash FA and still stay under the limit. I will say that although I share your enthusiasm for our top 10, we have had some spectacular top 10's before now (see below).

    However, I do think notin is right, we can trade 4-5 very good prospects and still have a very decent far,. especially with this upcoming draft back-filling the losses.

     

    Some previous soxprospects.com top 10's:

    11/03 Jorge de la Rosa, Lester, Youk, Shoppach, Spann, HanRam, D Murphy, Delcarmen, A martinez, J West

    06/04 Youk, HanRam, A Alvarez, Lester, Papelbon, J West, B Moss, Shopp, Spann, Murton

    2005 Paps, Lester, A Sanchez, HanRam, Hansen, Delcarmen, Pedey, Shopp, Moss, Pauley (11-20 included D Murphy, Ellsbury, lowrie, Alvarez & Buch!)  WOW!!! and DOUBLE WOW !!!!!!

    04/07 Paps, Lester, hansen, Pedey, Delcarmen, Ells, Lowrie, Buch, D Murphey, B Moss - Hard to top this one!

    09/08 Buch, Ells, Bowden, Masterson, Lowrie, Lars, Hagadone, Moss, kalish, Tejada (11-13 had Reddick & Middy) Nice top 13!

    It dropped off after spring 2009 as our players lost their prospect status, but those were some awesome top 10-12 lists back then.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's been said that this crop is better than the 07 crop.  Now remember this is saying they are better prospects, that doesn't mean they will pan out as good as the 07 crop.  Not in hindsight but even when all those guys were still in the minors that system was talking about as being one of the Sox strongest in years.  That doesn't gurantee that the future big league careers of this systems top ten will be anybetter, but in terms of rankings, consensus and expectations.....they are. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I rememeber the talk being pretty high back in 2007, but in terms of top 100 lists by national services, you are right. This crop is regarded higher as prospects. We can only hope the results come out close to what those 2003 to 2008 crops gave to MLB.

    [/QUOTE]

    The fact that this crop is regarded as high or higher as past crops that provided a bunch of above average regulars doesn't gurantee it this time....but it does bode well.

    Still for the right price I'd be willing to trade for a superstar...even Stanton. 

     

Share