1019 replies to this topic

[Edelpeddle]

It's not a straw man.

You want to bring in another starter when we have five players committed to the rotation already. That means we have to A) stick them in the bullpen, B) send them to AAA, or C) go with a six man rotation.

NONE OF THESE ARE GOOD OPTIONS FOR THE KINDS OF GUYS YOU WANT TO ACQUIRE.

Anyone with options to go back to AAA is either not going to be good or not going to be available at a reasonable price.

Anyone we can put in the bullpen is going to be not an established starter.

If we go with a six man rotation it's going to take fifteen days to go through the rotation the first two times because there's two off days in the first three series.

We can't get Smyly because he's not going to be available for a reasonable package.

To reiterate, we all want at least two outstanding top of the rotation starters and at least five good but not necessarily great starters but two of those guys can't be in the rotation when we break camp. Yes, injuries, yes, all the fucking time injuries, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE A PLACE TO PUT THEM. You can't hide them in your sock drawer with your porn.

Now you've reverted to sweeping generalizations. Seriously, there's no available starters that would be suited to pitch out of the bullpen temporarily or would have minor league options remaining? What about Brett Myers? He may not be a perfect option for PR reasons, but he would quite easily fit the bill of someone who could be sent to the bullpen and unlike Aceves or Morales, he's been a quality starter. There's also the option of signing players to minor league deals.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Edit: Never mind. Ras has covered it.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 22 December 2012 - 12:44 AM.

[Rasputin]

Now you've reverted to sweeping generalizations. Seriously, there's no available starters that would be suited to pitch out of the bullpen temporarily or would have minor league options remaining?

We have four of them named Aceves, Morales, de la Rosa, and Webster.

What about Brett Myers? He may not be a perfect option for PR reasons, but he would quite easily fit the bill of someone who could be sent to the bullpen and unlike Aceves or Morales, he's been a quality starter. There's also the option of signing players to minor league deals.

What about Brett Myers? You said you wanted a good pitcher available at a reasonable price. Why is Myers going to be available at a reasonable price? And how is someone you sign to a minor league deal a good pitcher?

In order to do what you want, the Sox would have to hoodwink another team. Sometimes that happens. You can't count on it.

[bombdiggz]

There will be PLENTY of starts available for pitchers other than Lester, Buchholz, Dempster, Doubront and Lackey. Last time I did the math on 6-12 starters the Red Sox have used over the last decade, they accounted for on average 20% of the team's starts in any given year.

I am 100% in agreement with you that there will be more than five pitchers who make starts for the Sox this year. Not to be presumptuous, but I believe every last person on the board is also in agreement on that point. Fortunately, we are in a really good place as far as 6-9 starters go. We have two players likely to be on the ML roster in the bullpen who have demonstrated that they are capable of being a fill in major league starter. In case of a long term absence, we have two players who are in a position to step in and we can feel reasonably optimistic about their spots (For one, I'd certainly feel better about RDLR than BFnM).

Should we acquire another starting pitcher who could fill the back of the rotation. Maybe, but where would we put them? Okay, so now we got one, why stop there? How many teams have gone through a season only using six starters?

Let me again advocate for a seven man rotation... Maybe, if we think out of the box we could go 8 deep? Give Daniel Bard another try. Apologies, this thread brought me temporarily to another planet.

Lets take this conversation back to a reality in which there is a pretty well defined amount of roster spots and rotation spots and how they are used matters, shall we?

Edited by bombdiggz, 22 December 2012 - 01:15 AM.

[OttoC]

I am 100% in agreement with you that there will be more than five pitchers who make starts for the Sox this year. Not to be presumptuous, but I believe every last person on the board is also in agreement on that point....

In 2012 there were 4860 requirements for starters (162 x 30). If each team used just five starters, then 150 starters would be required. In actuality, 287 different pitchers made starts, or almost 9.6 per team on average.

[bosockboy]

We have four of them named Aceves, Morales, de la Rosa, and Webster.



What about Brett Myers? You said you wanted a good pitcher available at a reasonable price. Why is Myers going to be available at a reasonable price? And how is someone you sign to a minor league deal a good pitcher?

In order to do what you want, the Sox would have to hoodwink another team. Sometimes that happens. You can't count on it.

Myers is a FA....I suspect he'd be pretty affordable on a one year deal.

[MikeM]

The 2013 and 2014 seasons will not be weighed so much less than the 2015 season that they will be completely ignored by this ownership. They will still attempt to field a competitive team every single season, and they have shown that since they have been here.

If you don't yet see the offseason strategy, which combines both the short-term and long-term plans for this organization, then I doubt anything I say at this point will enlighten you. As has been said ad nauseum in this thread already, the strategy is to:

I am not having a problem seeing or even understanding this offseason's strategy in itself, minus the isolated case with Victorino. It's with extending that logic beyond any chance of a one year reassessment, and the presented notion that the FO is really out there making absolute decisions or plans based on the assumed 2015-2016 contributions of guys in A/AA ball right now. Repeating what Pokey_Reese stated here, 3 years is simply too long of a time period there.

Ben seems to be making a calculated bet that he is indeed putting together a team that will be competitive in 2013. If it works great, he builds off that and goes from there. If it does not work though....things are just not as clear cut for me. I showed you in detail the rough math on what it's going to cost just to bring the same team back again (that just failed), and as Ras himself went on the indirectly support, the limited amount of upgrade opportunity Ben will then be looking to tinker with from within. I mean sure, you can let Ellsbury go, or watch Lester walk in free agency a year latter, ectt. But this isn't Lugo/Lowell/Renteria money we are talking about coming off the books anymore. Those financial steps forward are likely additional steps backwards on the field, and as we are seeing now sometimes simply having the money available isn't enough to create ideal replacement opportunity by itself.

I don't doubt for a second that we want/need to infuse this team with cost controlled talent going forward, or that we will do just that (on some level regardless) in the very near future. I just don't agree in the absolute "stay the non-Bogaerts course at all costs" manner in which it's being presented, especially if/when this FO goes into next winter looking at no real ETA on when we are going to be competitive again. For me, and coming off a 4th straight year of missing the playoffs, one year reassessments still rule the day.

Ok, so your proof against the logic is that they were "reportedly" interested in free agents who would have required draft pick compensation to sign, and yet you are weighing that evidence more heavily than the fact that they actually did not sign any players with draft pick compensation attached to them yet? (I say "yet" because it is still possible that the Napoli deal falls through and they may end up deciding to sign Swisher or LaRoche.)

It was actually you earlier in this same thread who asked for supporting evidence based on what has actually happened versus what the front office has been saying. I think you need to take a step back and look at the big picture that has unfolded this offseason.

C'mon man, that would be like claiming based on the fact that Ben didn't make a trade for Lee or pony up for Greinke this winter, one should reasonably conclude that he's not interested in getting us a legitimate front line pitcher.

I see a good chance of things playing out differently there had Swisher been available earlier and on a more agreeable set of terms. But if you want to get back to what we did see the Sox do, I saw them go out and get a guy (Napoli) who was one of the few legitimate power hitters the market had to offer. At a free agent price tag i'm probably going to prefer over what Swisher ends up getting when all is said and done, regardless of any draft pick consideration.

So again, for me personally there's no hard "prioritizing the pick" proof to be found in any of that.

[OnWisc]

I am not having a problem seeing or even understanding this offseason's strategy in itself, minus the isolated case with Victorino. It's with extending that logic beyond any chance of a one year reassessment, and the presented notion that the FO is really out there making absolute decisions or plans based on the assumed 2015-2016 contributions of guys in A/AA ball right now. Repeating what Pokey_Reese stated here, 3 years is simply too long of a time period there.

Ben seems to be making a calculated bet that he is indeed putting together a team that will be competitive in 2013. If it works great, he builds off that and goes from there. If it does not work though....things are just not as clear cut for me. I showed you in detail the rough math on what it's going to cost just to bring the same team back again (that just failed), and as Ras himself went on the indirectly support, the limited amount of upgrade opportunity Ben will then be looking to tinker with from within. I mean sure, you can let Ellsbury go, or watch Lester walk in free agency a year latter, ectt. But this isn't Lugo/Lowell/Renteria money we are talking about coming off the books anymore. Those financial steps forward are likely additional steps backwards on the field, and as we are seeing now sometimes simply having the money available isn't enough to create ideal replacement opportunity by itself.

I don't doubt for a second that we want/need to infuse this team with cost controlled talent going forward, or that we will do just that (on some level regardless) in the very near future. I just don't agree in the absolute "stay the non-Bogaerts course at all costs" manner in which it's being presented, especially if/when this FO goes into next winter looking at no real ETA on when we are going to be competitive again. For me, and coming off a 4th straight year of missing the playoffs, one year reassessments still rule the day.




C'mon man, that would be like claiming based on the fact that Ben didn't make a trade for Lee or pony up for Greinke this winter, one should reasonably conclude that he's not interested in getting us a legitimate front line pitcher.

I see a good chance of things playing out differently there had Swisher been available earlier and on a more agreeable set of terms. But if you want to get back to what we did see the Sox do, I saw them go out and get a guy (Napoli) who was one of the few legitimate power hitters the market had to offer. At a free agent price tag i'm probably going to prefer over what Swisher ends up getting when all is said and done, regardless of any draft pick consideration.

So again, for me personally there's no hard "prioritizing the pick" proof to be found in any of that.

I think most do acknowledge the possibility of a reassessment next offseason (such as in the case of the top prospects flaming out). They just don't believe that the contracts handed out in this offseason will in any way hinder its implementation. If the remaining cash due Victorino, Napoli and Dempster after this season somehow prevents the Sox from undertaking a new 2014 rebuilding plan the hinges upon signing McCann, Garza and Lincecum, then my concern will be more over the direction of our new rebuilding plan that our inability to implement it. Victorino at a remaining 2/$26 or Napoli at 2/$26 will likely be more attractive options than new contracts for 2014 FAs, which should also render those deals easily offloadable should the need arise.

Edited by OnWisc, 22 December 2012 - 09:15 AM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I am not having a problem seeing or even understanding this offseason's strategy in itself, minus the isolated case with Victorino. It's with extending that logic beyond any chance of a one year reassessment, and the presented notion that the FO is really out there making absolute decisions or plans based on the assumed 2015-2016 contributions of guys in A/AA ball right now. Repeating what Pokey_Reese stated here, 3 years is simply too long of a time period there.

Ben seems to be making a calculated bet that he is indeed putting together a team that will be competitive in 2013. If it works great, he builds off that and goes from there. If it does not work though....things are just not as clear cut for me. I showed you in detail the rough math on what it's going to cost just to bring the same team back again (that just failed), and as Ras himself went on the indirectly support, the limited amount of upgrade opportunity Ben will then be looking to tinker with from within. I mean sure, you can let Ellsbury go, or watch Lester walk in free agency a year latter, ectt. But this isn't Lugo/Lowell/Renteria money we are talking about coming off the books anymore. Those financial steps forward are likely additional steps backwards on the field, and as we are seeing now sometimes simply having the money available isn't enough to create ideal replacement opportunity by itself.

I don't doubt for a second that we want/need to infuse this team with cost controlled talent going forward, or that we will do just that (on some level regardless) in the very near future. I just don't agree in the absolute "stay the non-Bogaerts course at all costs" manner in which it's being presented, especially if/when this FO goes into next winter looking at no real ETA on when we are going to be competitive again. For me, and coming off a 4th straight year of missing the playoffs, one year reassessments still rule the day.

The same team that just failed? The team that they have assembled right now didn't exist last season, so how did they just fail? And what does "Stay the non-Bogaerts course at all costs" mean and who is making that argument?

C'mon man, that would be like claiming based on the fact that Ben didn't make a trade for Lee or pony up for Greinke this winter, one should reasonably conclude that he's not interested in getting us a legitimate front line pitcher.

I see a good chance of things playing out differently there had Swisher been available earlier and on a more agreeable set of terms. But if you want to get back to what we did see the Sox do, I saw them go out and get a guy (Napoli) who was one of the few legitimate power hitters the market had to offer. At a free agent price tag i'm probably going to prefer over what Swisher ends up getting when all is said and done, regardless of any draft pick consideration.

So again, for me personally there's no hard "prioritizing the pick" proof to be found in any of that.

The proof for prioritizing the pick is in the fact that every free agent move they've made is for a player that doesn't cost them a pick. Dismissing that idea because you can cite one example of one contract that you'd prefer over another potential contract, regardless of draft pick compensation is asinine.

[someoneanywhere]

This may be elsewhere on the board, but if it's upthread I missed it: Bill James bullish on 2013:

http://espn.go.com/b...-red-sox-future

Edited by someoneanywhere, 22 December 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[redsoxstiff]

Could those of you that have expressed your copious
opinions on the topic and seem to have developed a soupcon of personal emity ,leave it be or continue privately?

Can Bogearts come up this year with clear support on the field for his apparrent five tool potential?

Imvho.. W shjould leave Napoli and move toward Swisher...Paying Napoli is reminescent of Mr Drew...Both had/have the goods but couldn't deliver often enough...I fear that the acquisition of Napoli has more down than up...

[OttoC]

...
Can Bogearts come up this year with clear support on the field for his apparrent five tool potential?
...

Five-tool potential? Average speed, slightly above-average arm.

[The Boomer]

This is news:


Mark Feinsand of the New York Daily News reports that the Diamondbacks have signed Cody Ross to a three-year contract.
Financial terms aren't yet available, but the Diamondbacks seemingly came out of nowhere to land Ross, who will join a crowded outfield that already includes Justin Upton, Jason Kubel and Gerardo Parra. His signing likely precludes a trade of either Upton or Kubel, as the D-Backs appear set to let Adam Eaton open the season as their starting center fielder. Ross, 31, had been holding out for a three-year deal after batting .267/.326/.481 with 22 home runs, 81 RBI and an .807 OPS in 130 games this past season.


There were rumors earlier that the Sox were interested in Gerardo Parra who would be worth sacrificing somebody like Bard who could benefit from a change of scenery as much as Parra. He is a good hitting lefty defender who could play any outfield position. He looks to be the 2013 version of Josh Reddick to the lucky acquiring team.

Edited by The Boomer, 22 December 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

There were rumors earlier that the Sox were interested in Gerardo Parra who would be worth sacrificing somebody like Bard who could benefit from a change of scenery as much as Parra. He is a good hitting lefty defender who could play any outfield position. He looks to be the 2013 version of Josh Reddick to the lucky acquiring team.

I'm not sure if these are your words or a quote from somewhere else, but either way, I think most of us would swap Bard for Parra in a heartbeat. The question is, would the Diamondbacks have any reason to want Bard in the first place, never mind as the centerpiece of a deal for Parra? I can't see any reason they would. Bard has approximately zero value as a trade chip right now. He wasn't just bad last year, he was actually dangerous.

Maybe Parra may actually be the 2013 version of Josh Reddick, maybe not. Even if not, he'd be worth a lot more than Daniel Bard.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 22 December 2012 - 12:39 PM.

[Edelpeddle]

We have four of them named Aceves, Morales, de la Rosa, and Webster.

Aceves and Morales made a combined nine major league starts last year. De La Rosa has 10 major league starts and he's coming off an injury. Webster's never made a major league start.

What about Brett Myers? You said you wanted a good pitcher available at a reasonable price. Why is Myers going to be available at a reasonable price? And how is someone you sign to a minor league deal a good pitcher?

In order to do what you want, the Sox would have to hoodwink another team. Sometimes that happens. You can't count on it.

Brett Myers is a free agent who has yet to be signed in late December. No hoodwinking necessary.

Edited by Edelpeddle, 22 December 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Aceves and Morales made a combined nine major league starts last year. De La Rosa has 10 major league starts and he's coming off an injury. Webster's never made a major league start.

Aceves was the closer last year. That he didn't start games is irrelevant. Morales started all of those games, so your point is either intentionally misleading or extremely clumsy. I'll assume the latter. Looking at Morales as a starter, though, he had a better k/bb ratio as a starter, and maintained his peripherals across the board. He seems extremely well suited for the role of a bullpen arm that spot starts as necessary.

Aceves, in 2011, had 4 starts at a 5.14 ERA. In those four starts he went 5 IP 4 ER, 5 IP 6 ER, 6 IP 1 ER and 5 IP 1 ER. Two good starts, one awful start and one poor one. On top of that, he performed as a very good low leverage reliever. He also seems well suited for that kind of role. I'm failing to see what you are basing your objection to them in the role of long man/spot starter on.

They're both perfectly viable options for what they're supposed to be. Should the Sox be looking to upgrade? Yeah, of course. They should always be trying to improve the roster. Is it a dire need? Not even close.

As for your points on DLR and Webster, the same logic could be used to say that no team should ever rely on prospects to fill out their depth since young pitchers don't have major league experience. The concern about DLR's injury isn't unfounded, but he's recovering from TJ surgery, which has a very high rate of success. No one is expecting him to be shoved into a rotation spot early on which gives him plenty of time to work out finding his command again before he has to start carrying a significant role for the club. I think you're blowing that out of proportion a bit.

Brett Myers is a free agent who has yet to be signed in late December. No hoodwinking necessary.

If the Sox can sign Myers for a reasonable deal, no one here would object. The apparent deal for Hanrahan makes that less likely, unless that trade includes sending someone like Aceves out or another trade is in the works.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 22 December 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Edelpeddle]

I wonder if the Red Sox realize that their rotation is a major weakness, and since it would be difficult to fit an additional starter on the roster they're attempting to upgrade their bullpen to make up for it. I'm concerned about what the "significant return" is going to be for Hanrahan though.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I wouldn't call the rotation a major weakness, though. I realize similar arguments were made last off season and the worst case scenario managed to play out anyway, but the chances they aren't at least an average rotation seem pretty low to me. Buchholz, once he finished his late spring training (his first six starts), was mostly very good. Not much reason to assume he'll be anything but a well above average starter next year. Lester had a really bad year. Maybe it was a drop off the cliff decline in his age 28 season. I have a hard time accepting that, though and expect he'll be at least a solid option in the rotation. There is the potential for him recapture the stuff he had prior to 2012 as well, so there's significant upside there. Lackey was decent but not really good in 2010, then awful in 2011 with a shredded elbow. Why are people so down on the possibility that he's decent in 2013, as he was in 2010?

Then we have Doubront who had a really encouraging 2012. He's exactly what you want to see in a young pitcher breaking into a major league rotation. Great stuff, needs to build endurance and work on command. He could repeat his 2012 and still be a valuable pitcher. If he improves, he could be very valuable. And finally Dempster. No one expects him to be a front of the rotation starter, but there is every reason to expect him to eat innings at about a league average ERA.

I don't see any obvious weak spots in that rotation and while each individual has a chance to fall short of what we're hoping for, the chances that all of our starters fall short (some significantly so) for a second straight year are very low. Add in the depth they have in Webster, DLR, Morales and Aceves, and the rotation looks like it could actually be a strength in 2013. Sure, the worst case scenario could play out again, but the fact that it did so in 2012 means they don't have far to go to be an improvement over what we got last year and could easily be the biggest improvement the team has this year.

[MikeM]

The same team that just failed? The team that they have assembled right now didn't exist last season, so how did they just fail? And what does "Stay the non-Bogaerts course at all costs" mean and who is making that argument

The team that just failed is in reference to next winter, which was the scenario i was asked to project out. Stay the non-Bogaets course at all costs means that under such a scenario, prospects A/B/C/D under him all remain untouchable beyond this season. In the search for potential upgrades next winter, and in the grander scheme of overall roster construction going forward, i just don't believe you can automatically rule out the possibility we see this FO try and get creative on the trade front.

Most here seem to disagree with me on the above, which i am fine with at this point. Time will tell, and we can all agree to disagree until then.

The proof for prioritizing the pick is in the fact that every free agent move they've made is for a player that doesn't cost them a pick. Dismissing that idea because you can cite one example of one contract that you'd prefer over another potential contract, regardless of draft pick compensation is asinine.

I'm dismissing that idea as proof because i am failing to see one instance where you would or could point to the pick consideration as the primary reason it didn't happen. Hamilton and Greinke? Too many years, too much money. LaRoche? Napoli was arguably the better value and fit to begin with. Swisher? Likely a mixture both.

Again though, agree to disagree.


On a different note, i'm finding this Hanrahan trade fairly puzzling. Not that i ultimately care about the return going back, but it is making me wonder what kind of tinkering type deals Ben may be working on behind closed doors.

[MHead81]

I am not having a problem seeing or even understanding this offseason's strategy in itself, minus the isolated case with Victorino. It's with extending that logic beyond any chance of a one year reassessment, and the presented notion that the FO is really out there making absolute decisions or plans based on the assumed 2015-2016 contributions of guys in A/AA ball right now. Repeating what Pokey_Reese stated here, 3 years is simply too long of a time period there.

Ben seems to be making a calculated bet that he is indeed putting together a team that will be competitive in 2013. If it works great, he builds off that and goes from there. If it does not work though....things are just not as clear cut for me. I showed you in detail the rough math on what it's going to cost just to bring the same team back again (that just failed), and as Ras himself went on the indirectly support, the limited amount of upgrade opportunity Ben will then be looking to tinker with from within. I mean sure, you can let Ellsbury go, or watch Lester walk in free agency a year latter, ectt. But this isn't Lugo/Lowell/Renteria money we are talking about coming off the books anymore. Those financial steps forward are likely additional steps backwards on the field, and as we are seeing now sometimes simply having the money available isn't enough to create ideal replacement opportunity by itself.

I don't doubt for a second that we want/need to infuse this team with cost controlled talent going forward, or that we will do just that (on some level regardless) in the very near future. I just don't agree in the absolute "stay the non-Bogaerts course at all costs" manner in which it's being presented, especially if/when this FO goes into next winter looking at no real ETA on when we are going to be competitive again. For me, and coming off a 4th straight year of missing the playoffs, one year reassessments still rule the day.

There are way too many thoughts that are not directly related to each other crammed into these paragraphs so I honestly do not know what you are trying to say. I have no idea what the relevance is of "this isn't Lugo/Lowell/Renteria money we are talking about coming off the books anymore." Your "rough math" did not provide any insight to anything in my opinion. And as for it not being "clear cut" for you if Ben's plan doesn't work, (a) why do you need to know the answer to this at this point in time, and (b) can't that be said about basically every team in any professional sport if the plan they attempt to employ fails?

C'mon man, that would be like claiming based on the fact that Ben didn't make a trade for Lee or pony up for Greinke this winter, one should reasonably conclude that he's not interested in getting us a legitimate front line pitcher.

I see a good chance of things playing out differently there had Swisher been available earlier and on a more agreeable set of terms. But if you want to get back to what we did see the Sox do, I saw them go out and get a guy (Napoli) who was one of the few legitimate power hitters the market had to offer. At a free agent price tag i'm probably going to prefer over what Swisher ends up getting when all is said and done, regardless of any draft pick consideration.

So again, for me personally there's no hard "prioritizing the pick" proof to be found in any of that.

Just... stop. No, it would not be like saying Ben isn't interested in getting a legitmate front line pitcher-- there's a little piece missing that you conveniently left out: acquisition cost. No GM in the league would turn down getting an ace if the pitcher was dumped in his lap for free. The actions speak for themselves and should be taken as harder evidence than rumored reports. Plain and simple, the Red Sox have forfeited exactly zero draft picks this offseason due to free agent signings, despite the fact that in some cases, players who had draft pick compensation attached to them would have been better choices/fits than the player they did decide to sign.