What is our real concern?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. 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:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    The Cherrington plan has been explained by him and the media many times. Keep the team competitive for two years by bridging with short term contracts that required overpayment that filled in the holes left after the blockbuster trade and other pressing needs. Competitive for two years in order to maintain fan interest and revenue, don't lose draft picks, don't trade away top prospects, and give the prospects time to develop. The forum has also referred to this PLAN at least two hundred times.

     




     

     

     

    It's called bridge year pike.

     



    LOL DOG. Only STUPID PIKE would think that bridging could be two years.

     



    It may very well take us TWO YEARS to compete for a ring again-and only then if Cherington begins to make the right moves to put us in position to do so. To date he has been disappointing.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. 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 pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Polly-'s comment:

     

    In response to Triumph-'s comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    The Cherrington plan has been explained by him and the media many times. Keep the team competitive for two years by bridging with short term contracts that required overpayment that filled in the holes left after the blockbuster trade and other pressing needs. Competitive for two years in order to maintain fan interest and revenue, don't lose draft picks, don't trade away top prospects, and give the prospects time to develop. The forum has also referred to this PLAN at least two hundred times.

     




     

     

     

    It's called bridge year pike.

     



    LOL DOG. Only STUPID PIKE would think that bridging could be two years.

     

     



    It may very well take us TWO YEARS to compete for a ring again-and only then if Cherington begins to make the right moves to put us in position to do so. To date he has been disappointing.

     

     



    IMO Ben should retire tomorrow. Nothing but failure since he became GM. He needs to go.

     



    He has done some good things, but overall his performance has been disappointing. Getting rid of the albatross contracts of Beckett, Gonzalez, and Crawford was a good thing; so was preserving our prospects during the offseason. But I don't see how he has adequately addressed our pitching going forward-the major weakness for the team. Perhaps you could enlighten everyone here about the specific moves Cherington made this offseason to improve our pitching going forward and thereby make us relevant in the upcoming years.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What is our real concern?

    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.

     
  9. 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?

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. 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. 

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. 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.

     

     
  15. 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.

     
  16. 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.

     
  17. 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.

     
  18. 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.

     
  19. 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.

     
  20. 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. 

     

     
  21. 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.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. 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...

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share