Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Sellers?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
71 replies to this topic

#1 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 21,411 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:40 PM

After watching the execrable Red Sox defense undermine Jon Lester again while the offense flails at curves out of the strike zone, the blockbuster acquisition of Gonzalez or Halladay seems inadequate to plug the team's many holes -- especially if the cost involves mortgaging the team's future. This thread starts from the assumption that the 2009 team is not good enough to Go For It Now. I'm not convinced that the team won't pull out of its slump, but standing pat seems like the worst of all worlds. If the team isn't buying, who can be sold, and what might they bring?

Penny, Smoltz and Saito: none of them is pitching well to bring a significant return, but maybe some low-A prospects are out there.

Delcarmen: his value to the Red Sox, with an already deep bullpen and deteriorating playoff prospects, is probably lower than for another contender with a shallow bullpen.

Are there any other veterans with trade value?



#2 Gambler7

  • 3,085 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:43 PM

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.

QUOTE
After watching the execrable Red Sox defense undermine Jon Lester again while the offense flails at curves out of the strike zone, the blockbuster acquisition of Gonzalez or Halladay seems inadequate to plug the team's many holes -- especially if the cost involves mortgaging the team's future

Many holes? They have a great 1-2, a great bullpen, and a horribly slumping offense. The defense on the left side of the field is killing this team and is a "fatal flaw" that they need to fix. If they do nothing to fix it then they are throwing the season away. But is it really hard to fix these holes? You bring in a competent first/third basement (Gonzalez, Rolen, etc) and a decent SS (Scutaro) and you pretty much solve this team's biggest problem, or at least make them a contending team for the rest of the year.

Lowell should be DH for the remainder of the year, he shouldn't be in the field, and with those moves you would solve it.

#3 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,689 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:45 PM

The Red Sox are 17 games over .500 and in the Wild Card lead. They shouldn't, under any circumstances, "punt". I mean, who would they be punting to?

This is a terrible stretch for the team, exacerbated by the fact that the fatally flawed Yankees can't seem to lose. But, seriosuly, to suggest giving up?

Every year the team goes into a funk, and we read about how this team doesn't have what it takes. Some years, people are right. Some years, they are wrong.

If this team suddenly decided to give up and not even make a run, than I'd be pretty dissapointed. It's a bad few weeks, but there's still 60 games left, and I think that's enough time.

Although, I do wish the Yankees had packed it in when SOSH proclaimed them dead.

#4 Gunfighter 09


  • wants to be caribou ken


  • 4,386 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:46 PM

I didnt want to be the guy to start this...

Jason Bay probably has quite a bit of value as a rental. I could see a team like the Giants giving up a prospect for him, the price would be set by the two picks coming this winter.

Oki would get a good prospect back

Ortiz is now untradable

Lowell could get something small back but would have to be subsidized



#5 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14,417 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:48 PM

The blockbuster trade was never going to happen anyway. Now it definitely shouldn't -- ok, maybe Gonzalez since he's young and under control for a while.

We're past the selling point. They needed to move Saito and Penny a couple weeks back when they could have pointed to good performance. These guys were really lousy bets going forward, they held onto them, and now we are here getting to watch their inevitable falls in Red Sox uniforms rather than other ones. Oops.

Look, here's the deal, Boston's goal is to make money. The means to that end is to field a competitive team. For 2009, mission accomplished. This is and will be a competitive club.

#6 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,841 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:49 PM

Well, they have the very worst defense in the league according to Defensive Efficiency. As much as I'd like to blame that all on Lugo, it's simply not the case; the defensive problems on this team cut a huge swath through the entire team, notably C, LF, 3B and SS. Fixing that awful defense at the deadline will be pretty much impossible given the breadth of the problems.


#7 ctsoxfan5

  • 762 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:51 PM

QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ Jul 30 2009, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, they have the very worst defense in the league according to Defensive Efficiency. As much as I'd like to blame that all on Lugo, it's simply not the case; the defensive problems on this team cut a huge swath through the entire team, notably C, LF, 3B and SS. Fixing that awful defense at the deadline will be pretty much impossible given the breadth of the problems.


Even assuming that they lose today (and they're only down 2 in the 6th), they'd be on pace to win 93 games and win the wild card. Why would they be sellers?

#8 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,841 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:52 PM

QUOTE (ctsoxfan5 @ Jul 30 2009, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Even assuming that they lose today (and they're only down 2 in the 6th), they'd be on pace to win 93 games and win the wild card. Why would they be sellers?

Because they have such large flaws on the club that it's reasonable to think that they cannot make a strong run at the WS this season.

Given the strength of Texas and TB this year, it's very possible 93 or 94 wins won't be enough to make the playoffs.

#9 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14,417 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:53 PM

QUOTE (Rudy Pemberton @ Jul 30 2009, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is a terrible stretch for the team, exacerbated by the fact that the fatally flawed Yankees can't seem to lose.


The Yankees are fatally flawed, but the Red Sox are.......?


#10 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,689 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:53 PM

QUOTE
Well, they have the very worst defense in the league according to Defensive Efficiency. As much as I'd like to blame that all on Lugo, it's simply not the case; the defensive problems on this team cut a huge swath through the entire team, notably C, LF, 3B and SS. Fixing that awful defense at the deadline will be pretty much impossible given the breadth of the problems.


The Red Sox defense sucks. The Red Sox pitching sucks.

The Red Sox have given up the least amount of runs in the American League.

Crazy, huh?

QUOTE
The Yankees are fatally flawed, but the Red Sox are.......?


I take it you don't read Ricardo's columns? It was a joke.

QUOTE
Given the strength of Texas and TB this year, it's very possible 93 or 94 wins won't be enough to make the playoffs.


The Red Sox giving up on the season because of the Rays would be like the Yankees punting on the season because they fear the Red Sox.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 30 July 2009 - 02:55 PM.


#11 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,841 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:55 PM

QUOTE (Rudy Pemberton @ Jul 30 2009, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Red Sox defense sucks. The Red Sox pitching sucks.

The Red Sox have given up the least amount of runs in the American League.

Crazy, huh?

And currently in the rotation is their 5th starter, the corpse of John Smoltz, and a nervous rookie once again trying to stick in the major league rotation. They have suffered injuries and their rotation is currently very, very thin.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the defense DOESN'T suck?

#12 Gambler7

  • 3,085 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:55 PM

QUOTE
As much as I'd like to blame that all on Lugo, it's simply not the case; the defensive problems on this team cut a huge swath through the entire team, notably C, LF, 3B and SS. Fixing that awful defense at the deadline will be pretty much impossible given the breadth of the problems

You aren't going to be perfect defensively, hell they weren't in 04 or 07. But if you can solidify the left side of the infield this is a very good team. If they do nothing I don't see them going anywhere. But it's not something that is impossible to fix. You have to deal with Bay in LF, but you can fix SS/3B (And I think Lowrie already helps with that.)

#13 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,203 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:56 PM

Agreed, this is ridiculous over-reaction.

Using the proverbial "playoffs started today" method, this team is IN the post-season. Teams in such a position at the deadline don't pack it in and become sellers. The teams that sell off veteran for parts at the deadline are ones that are both behind in the standings and hurting for future reinforcements from within. This team is neither at the moment no matter how craptastic they look right now.

The LaRoche acquisition, IMO, is enough to say they didn't stand pat, even without a "blockbuster" trade. LaRoche goes directly to addressing the questionable defense on the left side by enabling them to confidently move Youkilis over there more often. I think playing Lowrie as the primary starter instead of this lets-take-turns-with-Green crap Tito's pulling will also help the infield D. At least he's competent.

They were 4-8 after the ASB last season...they're 4-8 after the ASB this season. It's just a funk, not indicative of their second half demise.

#14 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 17,189 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:56 PM

I don't think it's all that useful for these threads to all become discussions of the Red Sox chances. The grousing irritates me too but it happens every year around this time and particularly when the Sox are bad. Having a fight about the team's quality in every thread seems pointless, though.



#15 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 46,021 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:58 PM

QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ Jul 30 2009, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, they have the very worst defense in the league according to Defensive Efficiency. As much as I'd like to blame that all on Lugo, it's simply not the case; the defensive problems on this team cut a huge swath through the entire team, notably C, LF, 3B and SS. Fixing that awful defense at the deadline will be pretty much impossible given the breadth of the problems.


The SS and 3B fixes are already on the team, so the probelm isn't trading for anyone, it's for actually playing a lineup that includes Lowrie, Youkilis, and LaRoche. Tek can't throw anyone out, but our pitching seems as if they could give a shit about actually holding anyone on, and I do honestly believe that Tek's preparation and pitch-calling saves enough runs not to make him a negative. Unfortunately, Bay can't be fixed this year.

What the Sox need is hitting. The middle of the order has completely imploded. The talent is still there, though, so "blowing it up" really doesn't make much sense to me.

The question for me is whether trading Buchholz and getting that kick in the offense (A-Gon) is worth the dive our pitching will take. The Halladay trade would make perfect sense if this is a playoff team, but I just don't know if I trust the middle of the lineup. Ugh, this team really could have used Teixeira.

#16 BosRedSox5


  • Stuart Smalley devotee


  • 1,260 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:59 PM

If this was a baseball video game where your roster moves happened in a vacuum then yeah, why not trade JBay, Penny, Saito etc. with no replacements in the minors... but you know and I know that if Jason Bay was traded there would be a freaking riot.

Theo might be able to argue that we would have been unable to sign Bay but if he was traded the PR backlash would be huge... for that reason alone it's not practical. Secondly, who would we get for 2 months of a slumping, defensively challenged OF? Someone worth two draft picks? That's pretty doubtful.

The Sox may or may not be able to contend for the World Series this season but dealing off pieces that throw in the towel would not be acceptable to all but the biggest prospect lovers.

#17 RingoOSU


  • okie misanthrope


  • 13,498 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:00 PM

If the Sox had scored 4 runs this inning instead of Oakland, would this discussion exist?

#18 Stitch01


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,700 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:08 PM

Even if selling was the answer, the deadline is 24 hours away. All the groundwork done to date has, almost certainly, revolved around adding players. There's no way that the organization can suddenly just go sell off players and get value.

If they end up selling this year it will be some sort of Saito/Penny type player moved late next month like Wells in '06 with a similar modest return. The idea that, one day before the deadline, the FO can choose to sell off the vets is absurd.

#19 Remagellan

  • 4,561 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:10 PM

This whole week might be a blessing. Our flaws have been on display, which makes them easy to identify at a time when the front office can move to correct some of them. The MFYs on the other hand, have been so hot that it's easy for them to think they have a team that doesn't need any fine tuning.

There's still a lot of games to be played. It's still possible that in the end we'll be raising a different flag other than a white one.

#20 Montana Fan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,776 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:14 PM

I still think that if the Sox can get a corner infielder like Gonzalez, some of their problems will be diminished.

An infield of Gonzalez, Pedroia, Lowrie and Youk would be solid though not great. A good defensive backup shortstop would be nice to have and IMO would tighten up the infield nicely.

Lowell and Papi would platoon at DH.

The new lineup would be;
Drew
Pedroia
Gonzales
Youk
Bay
Papi/Lowell
Lowrie
Tek/Kot
Elsbury


#21 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 21,411 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:16 PM

QUOTE (Stitch01 @ Jul 30 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Even if selling was the answer, the deadline is 24 hours away. All the groundwork done to date has, almost certainly, revolved around adding players. There's no way that the organization can suddenly just go sell off players and get value.

If they end up selling this year it will be some sort of Saito/Penny type player moved late next month like Wells in '06 with a similar modest return. The idea that, one day before the deadline, the FO can choose to sell off the vets is absurd.

Acquiring an impact player or pitcher needs to be done by the trading deadline. Shedding complementary pieces can be done for another month and a day. They can still get some value from Saito, Penny, Smoltz, Kottaras and other marginal backups or underperforming veterans if they make it through waivers in August. I'm thinking that they probably will make it through, given how badly they've played lately.


#22 Stitch01


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,700 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:21 PM

QUOTE (Sprowl @ Jul 30 2009, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Acquiring an impact player or pitcher needs to be done by the trading deadline. Shedding complementary pieces can be done for another month and a day. They can still get some value from Saito, Penny, Smoltz, Kottaras and other marginal backups or underperforming veterans if they make it through waivers in August. I'm thinking that they probably will make it through, given how badly they've played lately.


Of course they can, but at this point is it really worth punting a season with two months left to go where the team is within 5 of first and leading the wild card race for the return we're going to get from moving those players? David Wells netted us a backup catcher prospect, and he had more value than any of those guys mentioned.

#23 SaveBooFerriss


  • twenty foreskins


  • 6,138 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:23 PM

Did Papi's homerun change anything?

Seriously, you can't sell (except Saito if you get a good offer), when you lead in the wildcard race. I, however, don't think one player (unless you get Joe Mauer) is going to transform this team. I would stand pat, hope for the best, and build in the offseason.

#24 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,841 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:25 PM

QUOTE (Skins24 @ Jul 30 2009, 04:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Did Papi's homerun change anything?

Seriously, you can't sell (except Saito if you get a good offer), when you lead in the wildcard race. I, however, don't think one player (unless you get Joe Mauer) is going to transform this team. I would stand pat, hope for the best, and build in the offseason.

No; the concerns about the team do not change on a daily or even hourly basis. Papi's HR doesn't change the fact that the defense is an abomination, or that the starting pitching is very thin. And one game usually doesn't affect the longer view of the team's postseason chances.

#25 Stitch01


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,700 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:33 PM

QUOTE (Skins24 @ Jul 30 2009, 04:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Did Papi's homerun change anything?

Seriously, you can't sell (except Saito if you get a good offer), when you lead in the wildcard race. I, however, don't think one player (unless you get Joe Mauer) is going to transform this team. I would stand pat, hope for the best, and build in the offseason.


Saito is the one exception. I dont think you need much of an offer to move him. He has basically no role on this team with Bard, MDC, and Ramirez ahead of him in the RH reliever pecking order and the best move when Wake comes back (or if we trade for a starter) might be to throw Smoltz to the pen to see if he's more effective in short bursts. Basically any reasonable offer should get Saito.

#26 Buzzkill Pauley


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,280 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:33 PM

This club seems very reminiscent of the 2005 squad -- good enough to probably make the playoffs but inconsistent enough to need a lot of luck to get through one, much less three, championship series. That year the question mark was pitching, but now it's the offense that's questionable.

I don't believe that punting the season is at all the way to go, though. In the offseason before 2007, the FO clearly had put together a plan to build a stable roster of veterans that would contend for a title through 2010, when major roster overhaul would be necessary. The 2006 and 2007 drafts reinforce this view, as the timeline for developing players to plug in gaps would be roughly 4-5 years over that span, and many more high-risk HS prospects were taken with high draft picks and over-slot bonuses than had been taken in previous years.

With one more year remaining in that window, it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to be sellers in 2009, when -- simply by relying on a healthy Lester, Beckett, and bullpen -- this team could. go. all. the. way! Of course, they could get swept in the ALDS. Or not make it entirely. I've been waiting for a Jim Mora "Playoffs?!?" moment from Francona for two weeks.

It's better to let these guys play out the string than not, though, because the team's potential is WS caliber, but also because right now Theo would be selling low on most of the players he'd probably be most interested in clearing out -- the high-priced veterans. Since all those guys are collectively shitting a brick right now, Theo's stuck.

And as for buying, I'm not convinced that either a VMart or Halladay deal is worthwhile unless it's for a general discount or a package of "tweeners" like Buchholz and Masterson who're getting squeezed by the veterans until 2010, but whose overall contract value might crest just before the "next wave" of talent hits afterward.

OTOH, I would L-O-V-E to get Adrian Gonzalez either right now or in the coming offseason.



#27 Philip Jeff Frye


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,410 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:43 PM

Somebody needs to do a Belushi Animal House rant here. This thread is pathetic.

Did the 2004 team look like world beaters the entire season? The current team has a better record than that team did through 100 games (58-42 versus 55-45).

#28 sachilles


  • Rudy-in-training


  • 630 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:53 PM

This thread has a bit of the sky is falling mentality that is running rampant on this board during this stretch of AWFUL game play.

As to the original post, I don't see the Red Sox becoming sellers. They will remain competitive enough that they won't sell veteran assets to any contender. Most of our veteran assets would have little value to a non contender as most of the names mentioned would be one year rentals.

This team is still in contention despite playing below the standards we expect of them. We should not lose track of that. The doom and gloom on this board is not necessarily in the clubhouse. The RS have a .580 winning percentage going into today. They were at .560 on this date last year. I'm not saying they have nothing to worry about, but they are far from a collapse yet.

#29 Tudor Fever

  • 3,412 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Kevin Mortons Ghost @ Jul 30 2009, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Did the 2004 team look like world beaters the entire season? The current team has a better record than that team did through 100 games (58-42 versus 55-45).
And the 2006 juggernaut was 61-39.


#30 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22,217 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:58 PM

I actually think that a trade for Adrian Gonzalez at the expense of Buchholz and other prospects could be both going for it and starting the retool. Especially if they extend Gonzalez this winter and use him as the offensive core along with Youks and Pedroia.

Trading for Halladay is less so since the guy is definitely going to make it to free agency after 2010.

(of course AGonzalez could go to free agency as well, but his youth and the vacuum of power in our system make him a bigger piece for the long term than Roy would be)

#31 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,326 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 04:08 PM

QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ Jul 30 2009, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No; the concerns about the team do not change on a daily or even hourly basis. Papi's HR doesn't change the fact that the defense is an abomination, or that the starting pitching is very thin. And one game usually doesn't affect the longer view of the team's postseason chances.

But a couple weeks of bad play do?

Lowrie is a solid SS and is much better defensively than what we have played with to date. Lowell shouldn't be starting everyday the rest of the way, and Youks is a solid 3b, results this season notwithstanding.

The starting pitching is thin? We still have Bowden in AAA, Wake isn't too far away from being back, and Tazawa is no Jason Johnson. Smoltz has incredible peripherals. Buchholz' stuff hasn't changed in the past 2 weeks. The starting pitching is still absurdly deep.

If the offense can play up to their ability, this team will have a very good offense and dominant pitching. The defense isn't good, but a bad defense is not enough to override all the things this team does/is capable of doing well.

#32 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,203 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE (Tudor Fever @ Jul 30 2009, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And the 2006 juggernaut was 61-39.

Would it make a difference to point out that the 2006 team was +6 on their Pyth W-L at that point as well? This year...they're dead on it. In other words, they were playing over their heads in the first half of 2006. This year, they're right where they should be...perhaps you could argue under-achieving based on the last two weeks. But they still didn't sell at the deadline in 2006. They stood pat. 2006 is not a good argument for this year's team blowing it up.

QUOTE (86spike @ Jul 30 2009, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I actually think that a trade for Adrian Gonzalez at the expense of Buchholz and other prospects could be both going for it and starting the retool. Especially if they extend Gonzalez this winter and use him as the offensive core along with Youks and Pedroia.

Trading for Halladay is less so since the guy is definitely going to make it to free agency after 2010.

(of course AGonzalez could go to free agency as well, but his youth and the vacuum of power in our system make him a bigger piece for the long term than Roy would be)

Adrian Gonzalez is affordably signed through 2011. Which is one of the primary reasons it will cost a fortune and a half to pry him from the Padres. He is a pipe dream and the cost to get him would likely strip the system of usable prospects through next season at minimum, if not 2011 forcing the re-tooling to be largely through free agency, IMO.

#33 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 21,357 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE (JakeRae @ Jul 30 2009, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The starting pitching is thin? We still have Bowden in AAA, Wake isn't too far away from being back, and Tazawa is no Jason Johnson. Smoltz has incredible peripherals. Buchholz' stuff hasn't changed in the past 2 weeks. The starting pitching is still absurdly deep.


Not to mention, it's also buffered by a fantastic bullpen. That's a very important factor.

#34 John DiFool

  • 1,097 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 04:15 PM

QUOTE (Kevin Mortons Ghost @ Jul 30 2009, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Somebody needs to do a Belushi Animal House rant here. This thread is pathetic.

Did the 2004 team look like world beaters the entire season? The current team has a better record than that team did through 100 games (58-42 versus 55-45).


I'll just point out one significant difference between the '04 and '07 squads and this year's: even at their nadirs ('04: 52-44. '07: 56-39) both of those teams had outwalked, outhomered, AND outhit the opposition, AND then they turned on the afterburners. There was significant evidence that both teams were quite a bit better than their records as of those dates. So far this year while they have indeed outwalked and outhomered the enemy, they've been outhit by 11 (before today), and BBPro has them as 1.2 games worse than their actual record.

Not an argument in favor of the OP, but the defense HAS hurt them, as has some of the deep slumps by their hitters; there aren't minor concerns.

#35 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 17,189 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 04:32 PM

QUOTE (Tudor Fever @ Jul 30 2009, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And the 2006 juggernaut was 61-39.


I will agree that if this team loses its catcher, both corner outfielders, and two starting pitchers to injury over the next three weeks (and another SP during the fourth week), then they should be sellers.



#36 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4,880 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 05:10 PM

QUOTE (Sprowl @ Jul 30 2009, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This thread starts from the assumption that the 2009 team is not good enough to Go For It Now.

And therein, methinks, lies the problem. Good assumptions often lead to faulty conclusions. Faulty assumptions are very likely to lead to faulty conclusions.

Yes this team has holes, and yes they could be playing better, and yes AGon would be an awesome addition to this team for 2009 and beyond. That said, the Sox, overall on the season, are playing pretty much luck-neutral baseball (Pythag-wise) and are still a contender. The only team with most stats looking better than the Sox? LAD. As we all know.

Here's the upshot: There are only two teams in the majors with a better run diff than the Red Sox (MFY & LAD), and only one clearly ahead (LAD). Only two teams in the AL with fewer runs against (DET & SEA), and both only by a hair. In essence, evaluating the numbers leads to a simple conclusion. The pitching/defense side of the ball is pretty solid. The offense/batting side of the ball could use some help, and it's not an absolute necessity either.

And most importantly... Baseball is statistically noisy, and the 2004 team taught us that all that matters is getting to the playoffs. I still like the idea of giving the Sox five years before freaking out over every down and getting elated over every up. I think this new management team has proved that measured action is better (2 WS) than emotional REaction (0 WS under Yawkey + trust). If they don't make the playoffs 4-5 years in a row, then it's an endemic problem, not simply statistical noise.

So... Let's not dismantle the car if all we've got is a bad sparkplug.

#37 pk1627

  • 1,339 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 06:20 PM

QUOTE (smastroyin @ Jul 30 2009, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I will agree that if this team loses its catcher, both corner outfielders, and two starting pitchers to injury over the next three weeks (and another SP during the fourth week), then they should be sellers.


Well said.

This thread starts when Lester gives up 4 in, gasp!, the 6th inning. Game over. Thank you for the laugh and the good karma.

#38 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,112 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 06:37 PM

QUOTE (pk1627 @ Jul 30 2009, 07:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well said.

This thread starts when Lester gives up 4 in, gasp!, the 6th inning. Game over. Thank you for the laugh and the good karma.


Right. Because we all know Sprowl to be a highly reactionary, data phobic poster who seldom thinks about what he says and never takes the long view on anything.

Thanks for the valuable comment.

#39 Laschelle Tarver

  • 103 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 06:51 PM

QUOTE (Buzzkill Pauley @ Jul 30 2009, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This club seems very reminiscent of the 2005 squad -- good enough to probably make the playoffs but inconsistent enough to need a lot of luck to get through one, much less three, championship series. That year the question mark was pitching, but now it's the offense that's questionable.

I don't believe that punting the season is at all the way to go, though. In the offseason before 2007, the FO clearly had put together a plan to build a stable roster of veterans that would contend for a title through 2010, when major roster overhaul would be necessary. The 2006 and 2007 drafts reinforce this view, as the timeline for developing players to plug in gaps would be roughly 4-5 years over that span, and many more high-risk HS prospects were taken with high draft picks and over-slot bonuses than had been taken in previous years.

With one more year remaining in that window, it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to be sellers in 2009, when -- simply by relying on a healthy Lester, Beckett, and bullpen -- this team could. go. all. the. way! Of course, they could get swept in the ALDS. Or not make it entirely. I've been waiting for a Jim Mora "Playoffs?!?" moment from Francona for two weeks.

It's better to let these guys play out the string than not, though, because the team's potential is WS caliber, but also because right now Theo would be selling low on most of the players he'd probably be most interested in clearing out -- the high-priced veterans. Since all those guys are collectively shitting a brick right now, Theo's stuck.

And as for buying, I'm not convinced that either a VMart or Halladay deal is worthwhile unless it's for a general discount or a package of "tweeners" like Buchholz and Masterson who're getting squeezed by the veterans until 2010, but whose overall contract value might crest just before the "next wave" of talent hits afterward.

OTOH, I would L-O-V-E to get Adrian Gonzalez either right now or in the coming offseason.

An exception between this squad and the '05 team is that Matt Clement and David Wells started to first two games of the ALDS that year, while now it would be Beckett and Lester. Even with some of the offensive struggles, I would still like our chances much better this time around.


#40 pk1627

  • 1,339 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 06:59 PM

QUOTE (P'tucket, rhymes with... @ Jul 30 2009, 05:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Right. Because we all know Sprowl to be a highly reactionary, data phobic poster who seldom thinks about what he says and never takes the long view on anything.

Thanks for the valuable comment.


I don't know Sprowl whatsoever. Am sure he's a great guy. It's the timing of his post I question. He set it for us:

QUOTE
After watching the execrable Red Sox defense undermine Jon Lester again...


6th inning. In my opinion a bit early to give up.

#41 Gunfighter 09


  • wants to be caribou ken


  • 4,386 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:11 PM

I think if the Sox are going to look at emptying the farm system or taking on 10s of millions of dollars in salary to get a Gonzalez or Hallady to "win it all in 2009," it is only due diligence to look at the opposite approach- selling.


I think this team, as constructed, can make the playoffs or at least get edged out in the 3 team race with Tampa & NY . I also think this team, with the liabilities it has, specifically on defense, will have trouble advancing out of the American league half of the bracket. Sprowl is correct, if this team wins between 1-3 games on the upcoming 9 game road trip against 3 AL East teams they will be playing catchup in the wild card race and will be ~7 games out of the division race. At that point, I dont see the value of Brad Penny starting over Bowden/Masterson or Saito taking bullpen innings. Theo would also be obligated to see if they can get more than the value of 2 picks for Bay.

#42 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,112 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:16 PM

QUOTE (pk1627 @ Jul 30 2009, 07:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't know Sprowl whatsoever. Am sure he's a great guy. It's the timing of his post I question. He set it for us:



6th inning. In my opinion a bit early to give up.


No, you obviously don't know Sprowl. He's been watching the defense all season, actually. Which was bad out of the gate and has shown no signs of improvement.

Edited by P'tucket, rhymes with..., 30 July 2009 - 07:19 PM.


#43 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,225 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:22 PM

If the FO punts, we may not even know it. At least for a month.

I'd define giving up as not making a significant addition in the next 20 hours because, like Sprowl maybe, I see the current roster being overtaken by the Rays, Rangers, or both. There are too many significant flaws to leave unaddressed and reasonably expect to make the postseason, especially if some of these teams make moves in the time left.

But the brass can always put up a brave front -- "We like the players we have, and if they can back to playing the way they were ..." This wouldn't be as obvious, in other words, as Reinsdorf bailing on the season at the All Star Break when the White Sox were within 5, announced they were giving up and, if I recall correctly, began selling major parts. The RS major parts tend to be either too young and valuable to flip if you're reloading, or too old, infirm or underperforming to be worth very much.

Edited by dcmissle, 30 July 2009 - 07:25 PM.


#44 Stitch01


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,700 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:26 PM

QUOTE (Gunfighter 09 @ Jul 30 2009, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Theo would also be obligated to see if they can get more than the value of 2 picks for Bay.


Penny or Saito for scraps after they fall out of the race (if they fall out of the race), sure, but how are they going to get value for Bay since the road trip is post deadline?

Given that the value if Bay walks is two picks, wouldn't a crappy team just claim Bay and force us to revoke waivers? The value of a supplemental pick and a first (or even second or third depending on where Bay signs) has to be worth more than the $3MM or whatever Bay is owed even with the small risk he accepts arb, doesn't it?

Edited by Stitch01, 30 July 2009 - 07:26 PM.


#45 Gunfighter 09


  • wants to be caribou ken


  • 4,386 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:41 PM

QUOTE (Stitch01 @ Jul 30 2009, 05:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Penny or Saito for scraps after they fall out of the race (if they fall out of the race), sure, but how are they going to get value for Bay since the road trip is post deadline?

Given that the value if Bay walks is two picks, wouldn't a crappy team just claim Bay and force us to revoke waivers? The value of a supplemental pick and a first (or even second or third depending on where Bay signs) has to be worth more than the $3MM or whatever Bay is owed even with the small risk he accepts arb, doesn't it?



That is the big question that Cashman has put out there for everyone. Who is going to get claimed in this economy? The question is also what type of team claims Bay, if it is a contender, Theo has the right to ask for compensation prior to pulling him back, and if the Sox are chasing at that point, and he gets a legitmate offer from the claiming team, perhaps Theo should take it.

Dont get me wrong though, I hope this thread is a very effective reverse jinx and that Bay remembers how to hit, Papi spends the rest of the year proving hit can hit without the juice like he did today and the Sox bullpen goes back to being awesome. Hell, in this economy, perhaps having a slightly worse record than the MFYs, and thus a claiming advantage, might help the Sox get a better player.


Here is a waiver primer from Jason Stark a few years ago, I needed it.
QUOTE
Virtually every player in the major leagues will be placed on waivers this month, whether a team intends to trade that player or not. If nothing else, the sheer volume of names can at least disguise players whom clubs do want to sneak through so they can be dealt.
If a player isn't claimed by any team in either league, he can be traded until the end of the month to anyone.
If a player is claimed, but only by one team, the player can be traded only to the team that claims him.
If a player is claimed by more than one team, the club with the worst record in that player's league gets priority -- and the player can be traded only to that team.
If a player is claimed only by teams in the other league, the club with the worst record in the other league gets priority -- and the player can be traded just to that team.
If a deal can't be worked out or the team doesn't want to trade that player, he can be pulled back off waivers once in August. If he is placed on waivers again before September, he can't be recalled a second time.
Or, if a team is just hoping to dump a player's salary, it can simply allow a team which claimed that player to have him for a small waiver fee. If that happens, the team that gets the player has to pay his entire salary. That's how the Yankees were stuck with Jose Canseco and the Padres were stuck with Randy Myers in recent years: They claimed those players, thinking they were just blocking other teams from getting them. Instead, their old clubs said: "You claimed him. You got him."
In the past, many teams claimed players just to keep them from being traded to contenders with a better record. This year, that isn't expected to happen as often, because most teams can't afford to get stuck with a big contract if they're awarded a player they really didn't want.


http://sports.espn.g...r...&id=1860265

#46 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,203 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:45 PM

QUOTE (dcmissle @ Jul 30 2009, 08:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If the FO punts, we may not even know it. At least for a month.

I'd define giving up as not making a significant addition in the next 20 hours because, like Sprowl maybe, I see the current roster being overtaken by the Rays, Rangers, or both. There are too many significant flaws to leave unaddressed and reasonably expect to make the postseason, especially if some of these teams make moves in the time left.

But the brass can always put up a brave front -- "We like the players we have, and if they can back to playing the way they were ..." This wouldn't be as obvious, in other words, as Reinsdorf bailing on the season at the All Star Break when the White Sox were within 5, announced they were giving up and, if I recall correctly, began selling major parts. The RS major parts tend to be either too young and valuable to flip if you're reloading, or too old, infirm or underperforming to be worth very much.

Those 1997 White Sox were barely treading water at .500, 3 games behind the Indians (the Manny-Thome-WS contender Indians) and 11 games out of the wildcard when they traded off Harold Baines for a minor leaguer and Danny Darwin, Roberto Hernandez, and Wilson Alvarez for a bunch of prospects (among them Keith Foulke). Hardly comparable to a team that is 17 games over .500, 3 games out in the division and LEADING the wildcard at the deadline. Incidently, the White Sox finished a game under .500 that year, and the year after, before slipping to 7 games under, then winning the division three years after. You want to talk about a team that's situationally comparable to those White Sox, it just might be the Blue Jays at the point Ricciardi announced Halladay was up for grabs...not playing terribly but facing a near insurmountable task of catching the superior teams that happen to be in front of them.

Despite the struggles of late, I really don't think the Red Sox are in such a position.

#47 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,225 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:59 PM

I didn't mean to suggest that the teams or situations are comparable, only that the fold in this instance will be more subtle. I still think that standing pat would be folding given the challenges posed by Tampa and Texas. By mid-August, we should have a pretty good idea.

#48 OilCanShotTupac


  • Not Clowning Around


  • 8,675 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 08:17 PM

QUOTE (Kevin Mortons Ghost @ Jul 30 2009, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Did the 2004 team look like world beaters the entire season?


No.

No, they did not.

#49 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 17,189 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 08:24 PM

One of the problems is that the Yankees at least are playing at what I would call their entitlement - the best they can do with the level of talent. You can point to specific games (CC got shelled the other day, that's not his best), but overall, you look at those players, and over the last 30 games they are 23-7, that's a .766 WP. If you thought they were going to do that then the time to sell is opening day, because no team is going to catch them. Meanwhile, the terrible Red Sox have gone 15-15 over their last 30. If you think they are a .500 team then I guess you also sell on opening day.


#50 Stitch01


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,700 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 08:42 PM

QUOTE (Gunfighter 09 @ Jul 30 2009, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That is the big question that Cashman has put out there for everyone. Who is going to get claimed in this economy? The question is also what type of team claims Bay, if it is a contender, Theo has the right to ask for compensation prior to pulling him back, and if the Sox are chasing at that point, and he gets a legitmate offer from the claiming team, perhaps Theo should take it.

Dont get me wrong though, I hope this thread is a very effective reverse jinx and that Bay remembers how to hit, Papi spends the rest of the year proving hit can hit without the juice like he did today and the Sox bullpen goes back to being awesome. Hell, in this economy, perhaps having a slightly worse record than the MFYs, and thus a claiming advantage, might help the Sox get a better player.


Here is a waiver primer from Jason Stark a few years ago, I needed it.


http://sports.espn.g...r...&id=1860265


I know he can be pulled back once in August. I don't think he's ever going to get to a contender though, or at least he shouldnt. Bay will be 32 next year, made $7.5MM this year, and is still having a good (if streaky) season. I doubt he's taking arb on some crappy team. Why wouldnt a crappy team claim him even knowing with 99.999% probability he will be pulled back? Its mid August by the time the Sox would actually try and do this, Im sure some team could afford the sub $2MM he'd be owed. Its not a big contract at all.

Bay isnt going anywhere this season.

Edited by Stitch01, 30 July 2009 - 08:42 PM.