What is our real concern?

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Which top pitching studs were available and how could they had been signed without going 5 yrs / $100 mil. when ownership has decided not to go that route anymore. Marcum was considered to be damaged goods. Provide some options.The track record on FA starting pitching acquisitions has been poor over the last decade. Ask Cashman about that? If you wanted to trade then who would you had traded for who? Be specific.

     




    None. I was not advocating making the same mistakes this organization has made in the past by handcuffing themselves to long term questionable contracts. What I am saying is that if we are really in a bridge year (or two), then lets jettison, or try to jettison, any player who does not fit in our long range plans, within reason (we still have to field a team). Ellsbury should have been traded for a pitching PROSPECT; we have a plethora of catchers and I would think one of them could bring a decent pitching PROSPECT as well. Stockpiling young pitching prospects is a reasonable way to increase the chances of future success.

     



    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

     

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

     

    Where we difer is that I do think that Cherington has a plan...first and foremost is he needed to purge the lockeroom of the malcontents and begin constructing the team with players and managers that buy into the mission statement. He inhereted a team with a ton of bad contracts, one that lacked on field leaders. My guess is that if all goes well and Henry and Luccino don't cut his legs out from under him. That come 2015 or 2016 the makeup of the roster and the quality of the team's play will be of championship mettle.

     



    Bean, I completely agree with the fact we did some things to right the ship.  What I doubt is whether we have the right mix of prospects for future slotsand feel we could easily package a few prospects and guys off the 40 man roster to get the right fits without hurting our current chances in the next couple of years. 

     

    I also agree Ben will have an opportunity to grab a couple fA's at some point and the team isn't that far away from really being a contender but is our plan year to year, or more long term?  Also, will it hurt us defensively if our current prospects need to learn a new position at the last minute just to break into our lineup?

    At the moment only Bradley Jr. appears to be destined to play CF to replace Ells.  Nothing else besides possibly De La Rosa and Barnes seem to be clear.  Even Iggy doesn't appear to have a spot on this team with Drew, Bogy and Ciriaco now in the picture and Lav?  Salty should be traded at some point to allow Ryan and Ross to catch, otherwise trade Lav if we really want Salty's low OBP in the every day lineup.  Lav deserves the same chance we handed Salty, it's pretty obvious our DH spot is filled so where are these guys futures?

    I'm not sure we really have a plan at all moving forward.

     

     



    First of all, Drew is here for one year max. Do you really think that Iglesias should have been handed the starting job in Boston based on last year's performance? Or will he be better served by spending another year in Pawtucket developing his bat? Lavarnaway is still pretty young for a catcher and last year was his first year catching full time. It definitely showed in his offense as he had his worst year at the plate since becoming a professional. He's another guy who needs some development time in Pawtucket IMO. Bogaerts is a for sure major leaguer in the next year or two barring injury. Where he plays is going to depend a lot on how Iglesias' bat develops. Brentz is another guy who could have an impact in the next year or two provided he can remember to unload his guns before cleaning them. As far as DH being an open position, Papi is done in 2 years and Napoli is on a 1 year deal. So I would say that there is in fact a long term plan in place. You may not like it, but it's there.

     



    The fact we didn't sign anyone to a crazy 6 year contract has little bearing on what I'm saying other than proving this organization loves to use the term BRIDGE YEARS.  The fact is we have too many prospects that play the same positions.  Choosing the right drafts pick is difficult "no doubt" but having too many that play the same positions while our real needs get plugged each year is different.  

    We have done this for years which is why we haven't had another young crop of youngsters who have made a real impact on our club.  A few examples with our present same ownership ...

    1B, has been a complete debacle since pushing Youk to 3B.  Everyone in the organization thought Lars was going to be the future, then Rizzo before trading him for AGon only to trade him and end up with Gomez.  Gomez appears to be another victim of our ways, he played pretty well yet we felt the need to sign Napoli.  Do you really think it would have made a difference this season and where does Gomez now fit?  DH? possibly if Papi gets hurt

    SS, I could talk about for hours so let me keep it short by saying your statement about Drew has been repeated many times over the years with rotating players.  Our next superstar?  Iggy has a bat so bad Ciriaco, Drew and Bogy are all more talented.  Behind Iggy are two guys in Vinicio and Marrero who have the same makeup as Iggy.

    2B, Pede and Ciriaco, then Brock Holt who is a singles hitting twin of Dustin at best

    3B, Hopefully Middy is the real deal and Cecchini may even be better so we look pretty good moving forward.  At this point I also see Bogy in the picture here "not SS" but hoping these guys can cover 1B, SS, and 3B respectively is something only the fans have discussed at this point.

    OF, Another complete debacle from year to year.  I am so happy we got Victorino in the mix because Linares has been lost in the shuffle, Reddick traded away and Kalish so far anyway just another hyped up prospect.  Brentz? maybe but that has yet to be proved.  So our best bet appears to be Bradley "again" in a position we already had but will most likely lose as a FA in Ells.

    C, Another complete debacle since 2006/07 when Tek began to decline.  Then after a few youngsters came and went we trade Masterson for Victors one plus year of service to help our lineup.  Since 07 in a nutshell?  Our staff ERA has declined along with our OBP, other than Victors short term bat.

    P, We can list anyone we want in our top 20 but at this point only De La Rosa and Barnes have the tools in my opinion to be very good starters at some point

    See a pattern here?

    It's time the Sox make a couple creative trades within the system so maybe instead of guessing if any of our youngsters might be ready and when or at what position, we actually have a few come up and help the lineup together again like years ago.  We knew where Youk, Pede, Ells, Pap, Clay, Lester and company fit in.  All we know right now is we are back to using the term BRIDGE YEARS. 

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to Polly-'s comment:

    In response to Triumph-'s comment:

     

    You will find water in the Sahara before u get Pumpsiegreen to state an actual fact.

     



    Good one DOG. You are red hot today with those quips. Contrary to forum opinion you is smaht fella. You wichad pizzar you.

     




    No  need to quote that CHUKKA. He is on ignore, being unable to offer any semblence  of intelligence here. Still waiting to see how you think Cherington improved the pitching this offseason.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Which top pitching studs were available and how could they had been signed without going 5 yrs / $100 mil. when ownership has decided not to go that route anymore. Marcum was considered to be damaged goods. Provide some options.The track record on FA starting pitching acquisitions has been poor over the last decade. Ask Cashman about that? If you wanted to trade then who would you had traded for who? Be specific.

     




    None. I was not advocating making the same mistakes this organization has made in the past by handcuffing themselves to long term questionable contracts. What I am saying is that if we are really in a bridge year (or two), then lets jettison, or try to jettison, any player who does not fit in our long range plans, within reason (we still have to field a team). Ellsbury should have been traded for a pitching PROSPECT; we have a plethora of catchers and I would think one of them could bring a decent pitching PROSPECT as well. Stockpiling young pitching prospects is a reasonable way to increase the chances of future success.

     

     



    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     



    Yes, those two were good moves, but they happened in August. I did give Cherington credit for that entire move. Getting rid of the three contracts alone was good; getting pitching prospects in return was gravy. Its unclear what kind of prospect Ellsbury would have garnered and its still possible to move him by the trade deadline if we are out of the race by then. So all is not lost. We also had other chips that could have been traded for our future.

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Which top pitching studs were available and how could they had been signed without going 5 yrs / $100 mil. when ownership has decided not to go that route anymore. Marcum was considered to be damaged goods. Provide some options.The track record on FA starting pitching acquisitions has been poor over the last decade. Ask Cashman about that? If you wanted to trade then who would you had traded for who? Be specific.

     




    None. I was not advocating making the same mistakes this organization has made in the past by handcuffing themselves to long term questionable contracts. What I am saying is that if we are really in a bridge year (or two), then lets jettison, or try to jettison, any player who does not fit in our long range plans, within reason (we still have to field a team). Ellsbury should have been traded for a pitching PROSPECT; we have a plethora of catchers and I would think one of them could bring a decent pitching PROSPECT as well. Stockpiling young pitching prospects is a reasonable way to increase the chances of future success.

     

     



    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     

     



    Yes, those two were good moves, but they happened in August. I did give Cherington credit for that entire move. Getting rid of the three contracts alone was good; getting pitching prospects in return was gravy. Its unclear what kind of prospect Ellsbury would have garnered and its still possible to move him by the trade deadline if we are out of the race by then. So all is not lost. We also had other chips that could have been traded for our future.

     



    Not being obtuse, but,  who?  Ellsbury, prior, to injury was the most viable chip the Sox had.  But I am at a loss to come up with who else could have been moved for future pitching?  Youk had no value by the time he was jettisoned.  Reddick was used to get a needed closer.  I can't think of anyone else who was really moveable.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Which top pitching studs were available and how could they had been signed without going 5 yrs / $100 mil. when ownership has decided not to go that route anymore. Marcum was considered to be damaged goods. Provide some options.The track record on FA starting pitching acquisitions has been poor over the last decade. Ask Cashman about that? If you wanted to trade then who would you had traded for who? Be specific.

     




    None. I was not advocating making the same mistakes this organization has made in the past by handcuffing themselves to long term questionable contracts. What I am saying is that if we are really in a bridge year (or two), then lets jettison, or try to jettison, any player who does not fit in our long range plans, within reason (we still have to field a team). Ellsbury should have been traded for a pitching PROSPECT; we have a plethora of catchers and I would think one of them could bring a decent pitching PROSPECT as well. Stockpiling young pitching prospects is a reasonable way to increase the chances of future success.

     

     



    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     

     



    Yes, those two were good moves, but they happened in August. I did give Cherington credit for that entire move. Getting rid of the three contracts alone was good; getting pitching prospects in return was gravy. Its unclear what kind of prospect Ellsbury would have garnered and its still possible to move him by the trade deadline if we are out of the race by then. So all is not lost. We also had other chips that could have been traded for our future.

     

     



    Not being obtuse, but,  who?  Ellsbury, prior, to injury was the most viable chip the Sox had.  But I am at a loss to come up with who else could have been moved for future pitching?  Youk had no value by the time he was jettisoned.  Reddick was used to get a needed closer.  I can't think of anyone else who was really moveable.

     



    We have three viable catchers right now and more in the minors. One of those guys could have been moved. And while I admit that I am not as familiar with the bevy of position players in our farms system, some of them could likely have been traded for additional pitching prospect depth. And I wonder if some GM out there might have been willing to take a chance on Daniel Bard in return for another SP prospect. Just for starters.

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Which top pitching studs were available and how could they had been signed without going 5 yrs / $100 mil. when ownership has decided not to go that route anymore. Marcum was considered to be damaged goods. Provide some options.The track record on FA starting pitching acquisitions has been poor over the last decade. Ask Cashman about that? If you wanted to trade then who would you had traded for who? Be specific.

     




    None. I was not advocating making the same mistakes this organization has made in the past by handcuffing themselves to long term questionable contracts. What I am saying is that if we are really in a bridge year (or two), then lets jettison, or try to jettison, any player who does not fit in our long range plans, within reason (we still have to field a team). Ellsbury should have been traded for a pitching PROSPECT; we have a plethora of catchers and I would think one of them could bring a decent pitching PROSPECT as well. Stockpiling young pitching prospects is a reasonable way to increase the chances of future success.

     

     



    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     

     



    Yes, those two were good moves, but they happened in August. I did give Cherington credit for that entire move. Getting rid of the three contracts alone was good; getting pitching prospects in return was gravy. Its unclear what kind of prospect Ellsbury would have garnered and its still possible to move him by the trade deadline if we are out of the race by then. So all is not lost. We also had other chips that could have been traded for our future.

     

     



    Not being obtuse, but,  who?  Ellsbury, prior, to injury was the most viable chip the Sox had.  But I am at a loss to come up with who else could have been moved for future pitching?  Youk had no value by the time he was jettisoned.  Reddick was used to get a needed closer.  I can't think of anyone else who was really moveable.

     

     



    We have three viable catchers right now and more in the minors. One of those guys could have been moved. And while I admit that I am not as familiar with the bevy of position players in our farms system, some of them could likely have been traded for additional pitching prospect depth. And I wonder if some GM out there might have been willing to take a chance on Daniel Bard in return for another SP prospect. Just for starters.

     



    Yes, though Napoli is no longer a viable catcher, so we actually only have 2 on the roster.  If Lavarnway gets up to speed, then, ye, definitely one of these Cs will be a good chip.

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    Anybody who is not in the Sox longterm plans is essentially a "chip".

    Some would not bring much in return, but perhaps packaged together could bring a useful player under team control for 3+ years or a prospect with some high upside.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?


    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     

     

    At the moment Ellsbury and Victorino, which was a good move may be our best two OF's.  Ells needs to prove he can stay healthy and productive.  If he can do that it will probably help our cause a lot more than trying to trade him after last season and all the time spent on the DL.

    If Victorino and Ells both play well and stay healthy we may only need to worry about "one" OF position this season and a late season trade is always possible if needed. 

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Which top pitching studs were available and how could they had been signed without going 5 yrs / $100 mil. when ownership has decided not to go that route anymore. Marcum was considered to be damaged goods. Provide some options.The track record on FA starting pitching acquisitions has been poor over the last decade. Ask Cashman about that? If you wanted to trade then who would you had traded for who? Be specific.

     




    None. I was not advocating making the same mistakes this organization has made in the past by handcuffing themselves to long term questionable contracts. What I am saying is that if we are really in a bridge year (or two), then lets jettison, or try to jettison, any player who does not fit in our long range plans, within reason (we still have to field a team). Ellsbury should have been traded for a pitching PROSPECT; we have a plethora of catchers and I would think one of them could bring a decent pitching PROSPECT as well. Stockpiling young pitching prospects is a reasonable way to increase the chances of future success.

     

     



    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     

     



    Yes, those two were good moves, but they happened in August. I did give Cherington credit for that entire move. Getting rid of the three contracts alone was good; getting pitching prospects in return was gravy. Its unclear what kind of prospect Ellsbury would have garnered and its still possible to move him by the trade deadline if we are out of the race by then. So all is not lost. We also had other chips that could have been traded for our future.

     

     



    Not being obtuse, but,  who?  Ellsbury, prior, to injury was the most viable chip the Sox had.  But I am at a loss to come up with who else could have been moved for future pitching?  Youk had no value by the time he was jettisoned.  Reddick was used to get a needed closer.  I can't think of anyone else who was really moveable.

     

     



    We have three viable catchers right now and more in the minors. One of those guys could have been moved. And while I admit that I am not as familiar with the bevy of position players in our farms system, some of them could likely have been traded for additional pitching prospect depth. And I wonder if some GM out there might have been willing to take a chance on Daniel Bard in return for another SP prospect. Just for starters.

     

     



    Yes, though Napoli is no longer a viable catcher, so we actually only have 2 on the roster.  If Lavarnway gets up to speed, then, ye, definitely one of these Cs will be a good chip.

     




    My guess is that Lavarnway would also have brought a decent upside SP prospect. I was not considering Napoli as a catcher. As I recall there is a catching prospect in AA or thereabouts who also has a high upside. I don't follow the minor league guys as closely as others here.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Which top pitching studs were available and how could they had been signed without going 5 yrs / $100 mil. when ownership has decided not to go that route anymore. Marcum was considered to be damaged goods. Provide some options.The track record on FA starting pitching acquisitions has been poor over the last decade. Ask Cashman about that? If you wanted to trade then who would you had traded for who? Be specific.

     




    None. I was not advocating making the same mistakes this organization has made in the past by handcuffing themselves to long term questionable contracts. What I am saying is that if we are really in a bridge year (or two), then lets jettison, or try to jettison, any player who does not fit in our long range plans, within reason (we still have to field a team). Ellsbury should have been traded for a pitching PROSPECT; we have a plethora of catchers and I would think one of them could bring a decent pitching PROSPECT as well. Stockpiling young pitching prospects is a reasonable way to increase the chances of future success.

     

     



    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     

     



    Yes, those two were good moves, but they happened in August. I did give Cherington credit for that entire move. Getting rid of the three contracts alone was good; getting pitching prospects in return was gravy. Its unclear what kind of prospect Ellsbury would have garnered and its still possible to move him by the trade deadline if we are out of the race by then. So all is not lost. We also had other chips that could have been traded for our future.

     

     



    Not being obtuse, but,  who?  Ellsbury, prior, to injury was the most viable chip the Sox had.  But I am at a loss to come up with who else could have been moved for future pitching?  Youk had no value by the time he was jettisoned.  Reddick was used to get a needed closer.  I can't think of anyone else who was really moveable.

     

     



    We have three viable catchers right now and more in the minors. One of those guys could have been moved. And while I admit that I am not as familiar with the bevy of position players in our farms system, some of them could likely have been traded for additional pitching prospect depth. And I wonder if some GM out there might have been willing to take a chance on Daniel Bard in return for another SP prospect. Just for starters.

     

     



    Yes, though Napoli is no longer a viable catcher, so we actually only have 2 on the roster.  If Lavarnway gets up to speed, then, ye, definitely one of these Cs will be a good chip.

     

     




    My guess is that Lavarnway would also have brought a decent upside SP prospect. I was not considering Napoli as a catcher. As I recall there is a catching prospect in AA or thereabouts who also has a high upside. I don't follow the minor league guys as closely as others here.

     



    I don't think the Sox were in any hurry to trade Lavarnway for a pitching prospect with "decent upside."  I'm pretty sure the Sox organization values him a lot more than the people on this board.  He made significant strides defensively last year, he's hit at every level in the minors & the Yale grad is clearly intelligent enough to handle the mental aspect of the game.  I don't think that the Sox put a ton of stock in 150 late season at bats.  He very likely hit a wall after catching more games for Pawtucket than any other season and the September Sox atmosphere wasn't exactly condusive to be overly successful.  I wouldn't sleep on this guy just yet...

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    There are few more meaningless trite phrases than "don't sleep on". It means nothing and it's on a junior high fantasy sports minded level.



    Does this harmless turn-of-phrase really require such vitriol?  You are the least Christian Christian I have ever cyber-met.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Which top pitching studs were available and how could they had been signed without going 5 yrs / $100 mil. when ownership has decided not to go that route anymore. Marcum was considered to be damaged goods. Provide some options.The track record on FA starting pitching acquisitions has been poor over the last decade. Ask Cashman about that? If you wanted to trade then who would you had traded for who? Be specific.

     




    None. I was not advocating making the same mistakes this organization has made in the past by handcuffing themselves to long term questionable contracts. What I am saying is that if we are really in a bridge year (or two), then lets jettison, or try to jettison, any player who does not fit in our long range plans, within reason (we still have to field a team). Ellsbury should have been traded for a pitching PROSPECT; we have a plethora of catchers and I would think one of them could bring a decent pitching PROSPECT as well. Stockpiling young pitching prospects is a reasonable way to increase the chances of future success.

     

     



    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     

     



    Yes, those two were good moves, but they happened in August. I did give Cherington credit for that entire move. Getting rid of the three contracts alone was good; getting pitching prospects in return was gravy. Its unclear what kind of prospect Ellsbury would have garnered and its still possible to move him by the trade deadline if we are out of the race by then. So all is not lost. We also had other chips that could have been traded for our future.

     

     



    Not being obtuse, but,  who?  Ellsbury, prior, to injury was the most viable chip the Sox had.  But I am at a loss to come up with who else could have been moved for future pitching?  Youk had no value by the time he was jettisoned.  Reddick was used to get a needed closer.  I can't think of anyone else who was really moveable.

     

     



    We have three viable catchers right now and more in the minors. One of those guys could have been moved. And while I admit that I am not as familiar with the bevy of position players in our farms system, some of them could likely have been traded for additional pitching prospect depth. And I wonder if some GM out there might have been willing to take a chance on Daniel Bard in return for another SP prospect. Just for starters.

     

     



    Yes, though Napoli is no longer a viable catcher, so we actually only have 2 on the roster.  If Lavarnway gets up to speed, then, ye, definitely one of these Cs will be a good chip.

     

     




    My guess is that Lavarnway would also have brought a decent upside SP prospect. I was not considering Napoli as a catcher. As I recall there is a catching prospect in AA or thereabouts who also has a high upside. I don't follow the minor league guys as closely as others here.

     

     



    I don't think the Sox were in any hurry to trade Lavarnway for a pitching prospect with "decent upside."  I'm pretty sure the Sox organization values him a lot more than the people on this board.  He made significant strides defensively last year, he's hit at every level in the minors & the Yale grad is clearly intelligent enough to handle the mental aspect of the game.  I don't think that the Sox put a ton of stock in 150 late season at bats.  He very likely hit a wall after catching more games for Pawtucket than any other season and the September Sox atmosphere wasn't exactly condusive to be overly successful.  I wouldn't sleep on this guy just yet...

     



    Lav is under team control which makes him a luxury.  I would only consider packaging him if we could really upgrade another position.  Trading him alone wouldn't get us the pitching prospect we need "like a Hultzen or Walker" until he proves himself a bit more and probably not even then. 

     

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    There are few more meaningless trite phrases than "don't sleep on". It means nothing and it's on a junior high fantasy sports minded level.



    You complete me.

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    This thread is a little silly. Is the point to question the "plan" because no one is penciled in for LF in 2015? Do people really think it works that way?

     

    The future will sort itself out and one of the goals this offseason was to hold on to as much potential as possible. .

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    This thread is a little silly. Is the point to question the "plan" because no one is penciled in for LF in 2015? Do people really think it works that way?

     

    The future will sort itself out and one of the goals this offseason was to hold on to as much potential as possible. .

     

     



    notin, my point is we have had two plans under present management since our last good crop of youngsters came up.

     

    #1 Lets bridge our way and see what happens

    #2 Lets spend like the Yankees on big name talent to see if we can buy a championship. 

    There are many ways of building the farm and we don't seem to have what others did in the past to make that happen.  Yes it could and should work that way, you don't just draft the best possible talent and hope for the best.  You try to address each position on a yearly basis.  At the moment we lack the correct talent in many areas, while having too many prospects in others.

     

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    This thread is a little silly. Is the point to question the "plan" because no one is penciled in for LF in 2015? Do people really think it works that way?

     

    The future will sort itself out and one of the goals this offseason was to hold on to as much potential as possible. .

     

     



    notin, my point is we have had two plans under present management since our last good crop of youngsters came up.

     

    #1 Lets bridge our way and see what happens

    #2 Lets spend like the Yankees on big name talent to see if we can buy a championship. 

    There are many ways of building the farm and we don't seem to have what others did in the past to make that happen.  Yes it could and should work that way, you don't just draft kids and hope for the best.  You try to address each position on a yearly basis and at the moment we lack the correct talent in many, while having too many prospects in others.

     



    Baseball teams almost always take the best available "talent."  Drafting the "best available 1st baseman" in the first round because the organization "lacks depth" at that position is crazy.  What if the best 1st baseman is a consensus 3rd round pick, do you still take him in the first round?  I have no idea how this team will look THIS SEPTEMBER, and as Notin mentioned, why would you ever try to figure out what this team will look like in 2016? It's literally impossible.  The Sox seem to have as much talent in their farm system as they've ever had.  You can't ask for much more than that.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Which top pitching studs were available and how could they had been signed without going 5 yrs / $100 mil. when ownership has decided not to go that route anymore. Marcum was considered to be damaged goods. Provide some options.The track record on FA starting pitching acquisitions has been poor over the last decade. Ask Cashman about that? If you wanted to trade then who would you had traded for who? Be specific.

     




    None. I was not advocating making the same mistakes this organization has made in the past by handcuffing themselves to long term questionable contracts. What I am saying is that if we are really in a bridge year (or two), then lets jettison, or try to jettison, any player who does not fit in our long range plans, within reason (we still have to field a team). Ellsbury should have been traded for a pitching PROSPECT; we have a plethora of catchers and I would think one of them could bring a decent pitching PROSPECT as well. Stockpiling young pitching prospects is a reasonable way to increase the chances of future success.

     

     



    Ellsbury's trade value made it unwise to move him after another wasted year on the DL.  Probably would not have garnered much in return.  And, Webster and De La Rose are pretty good pitching prospects, no?

     

     



    Yes, those two were good moves, but they happened in August. I did give Cherington credit for that entire move. Getting rid of the three contracts alone was good; getting pitching prospects in return was gravy. Its unclear what kind of prospect Ellsbury would have garnered and its still possible to move him by the trade deadline if we are out of the race by then. So all is not lost. We also had other chips that could have been traded for our future.

     

     



    Not being obtuse, but,  who?  Ellsbury, prior, to injury was the most viable chip the Sox had.  But I am at a loss to come up with who else could have been moved for future pitching?  Youk had no value by the time he was jettisoned.  Reddick was used to get a needed closer.  I can't think of anyone else who was really moveable.

     

     



    We have three viable catchers right now and more in the minors. One of those guys could have been moved. And while I admit that I am not as familiar with the bevy of position players in our farms system, some of them could likely have been traded for additional pitching prospect depth. And I wonder if some GM out there might have been willing to take a chance on Daniel Bard in return for another SP prospect. Just for starters.

     

     



    Yes, though Napoli is no longer a viable catcher, so we actually only have 2 on the roster.  If Lavarnway gets up to speed, then, ye, definitely one of these Cs will be a good chip.

     

     




    My guess is that Lavarnway would also have brought a decent upside SP prospect. I was not considering Napoli as a catcher. As I recall there is a catching prospect in AA or thereabouts who also has a high upside. I don't follow the minor league guys as closely as others here.

     

     



    I don't think the Sox were in any hurry to trade Lavarnway for a pitching prospect with "decent upside."  I'm pretty sure the Sox organization values him a lot more than the people on this board.  He made significant strides defensively last year, he's hit at every level in the minors & the Yale grad is clearly intelligent enough to handle the mental aspect of the game.  I don't think that the Sox put a ton of stock in 150 late season at bats.  He very likely hit a wall after catching more games for Pawtucket than any other season and the September Sox atmosphere wasn't exactly condusive to be overly successful.  I wouldn't sleep on this guy just yet...

     



    Then trade Salty or Swihart. No team is going to GIVE us a pitching prospect for nothing. We will need to give something up in return.

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    This thread is a little silly. Is the point to question the "plan" because no one is penciled in for LF in 2015? Do people really think it works that way?

     

    The future will sort itself out and one of the goals this offseason was to hold on to as much potential as possible. .

     

     



    notin, my point is we have had two plans under present management since our last good crop of youngsters came up.

     

    #1 Lets bridge our way and see what happens

    #2 Lets spend like the Yankees on big name talent to see if we can buy a championship. 

    There are many ways of building the farm and we don't seem to have what others did in the past to make that happen.  Yes it could and should work that way, you don't just draft the best possible talent and hope for the best.  You try to address each position on a yearly basis.  At the moment we lack the correct talent in many areas, while having too many prospects in others.

     



    The fsrm is one way to get players, and not ss common ss you think.

     

    Do you know how many AL teams arr likely to start more than 3 position players they drafted? 3.Minnesota and KC with 6 and the Angels with 5.  

     

    ThAngels shoould be good. How about the other two?

     

    Most teams have 3 or less. Small market Oakland has none...  

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: What is our real concern?

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    This thread is a little silly. Is the point to question the "plan" because no one is penciled in for LF in 2015? Do people really think it works that way?

     

    The future will sort itself out and one of the goals this offseason was to hold on to as much potential as possible. .

     

     



    notin, my point is we have had two plans under present management since our last good crop of youngsters came up.

     

    #1 Lets bridge our way and see what happens

    #2 Lets spend like the Yankees on big name talent to see if we can buy a championship. 

    There are many ways of building the farm and we don't seem to have what others did in the past to make that happen.  Yes it could and should work that way, you don't just draft kids and hope for the best.  You try to address each position on a yearly basis and at the moment we lack the correct talent in many, while having too many prospects in others.

     

     



    Baseball teams almost always take the best available "talent."  Drafting the "best available 1st baseman" in the first round because the organization "lacks depth" at that position is crazy.  What if the best 1st baseman is a consensus 3rd round pick, do you still take him in the first round?  I have no idea how this team will look THIS SEPTEMBER, and as Notin mentioned, why would you ever try to figure out what this team will look like in 2016? It's literally impossible.  The Sox seem to have as much talent in their farm system as they've ever had.  You can't ask for much more than that.

     




     

    Jasko, what great talent do we have on the farm?  I know you don't want to compare it with the last crop.  Other than two or three hopefuls at SP?  Lav, Bogy, Bradley and Brentz maybe?  How long has it been since a few kids really helped our lineup on a regular basis?      

    All I'm saying is there are trades/ways to build up weak areas without drafting the perfect player for our club.  Grabbing the best possible talent is a given, that doesn't necessarily get you anywhere if that talent ends up playing like positions.  In rare cases it may work out to move a player like we did with Youk to IB.  Do we really need to bridge these same weak areas year after year with FA's? 

    I'm sure our FO knows best, but do feel they can do a better job addressing our issues.  Again I respectively ask... How long has it been since a few kids really helped our lineup on a regular basis?  I would also love to see draft and trades similar to the NBA allowed at some point.      

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    ...Your thoughts are quite parallel to those of Moonslav. You want to sacrifice having a competitive team entirely in 2013 and 2014 and let fans wait it out until the prospects are ready in 2015

     

    My plan had us being just as good in 2013 as we are now, but better in 2015 and beyond, so stop the propaganda.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share