124 replies to this topic

[Red(s)HawksFan]

He can be great, up until the time he gets a hang nail and goes on the DL for 3 months. I'm down for moving him for a decent arm.

Really? People are doing the old "DL Drew" routine with Ellsbury now? The guy has had two significant, DL-worthy injuries in his major league career and they both involved full grown men colliding violently with his body. But yeah, the guy's a fragile little china doll.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The 69 win total is completely irrelevant. The players who led to that win total mostly aren't going to be on the team and the ones who are on the team won't be in the same roles.

Shouldn't we wait until they have actual replacements to those players before declaring the team likely to be much better? The 69 win total included contributions by Gonzalez, Beckett, Ortiz, and Ross, too, and all those guys could be gone next year. I know the Sox have cash to spend, but so do a lot of teams. Projecting 80-85 wins before they actually have players seems kind of silly.

[gammoseditor]

Shouldn't we wait until they have actual replacements to those players before declaring the team likely to be much better? The 69 win total included contributions by Gonzalez, Beckett, Ortiz, and Ross, too, and all those guys could be gone next year. I know the Sox have cash to spend, but so do a lot of teams. Projecting 80-85 wins before they actually have players seems kind of silly.

The Red Sox might be more under budget than any baseball team going into the offseason ever, and certainly more than any non yankee team.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The Red Sox might be more under budget than any baseball team going into the offseason ever, and certainly more than any non yankee team.

Sure, but having money to spend, even with a willingness to spend it can only take you as far as the talent that's available. The free agent crop isn't terribly good this year so we're looking at likely having to spend more than money to field a playoff caliber team in 2013. That's where it gets tricky.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The Red Sox might be more under budget than any baseball team going into the offseason ever, and certainly more than any non yankee team.

Well that all depends, is their budget the $175M they entered last year with, or the $120M they were at in '09? Nevertheless, until they actually spend it and make some moves, why assume they'll make the right ones?

[Paul M]

Let's use that 82-win team as the baseline, which I will just assume they have a full year of productive Ellsbury and the good Jon Lester. They still need a closer, RF, LF, and 1B. They have re-signed Ortiz of course in this example. I'll also assume Lackey can be an adequate 2012 Beckett. How do they get those 2 OF, closer, and 1B? Well, I guess Ross is maybe 60% of one spot, so you need a LF let's say. Of course, 95 wins is the only worthwhiile goal, so you need to get a 4-win 1B and a 4-win OF and a closer. It's debatable if this can be done without trading some premium future assets. And since part of that .500 Sox team included positive contributions from Gonzalez, Nava, and a few others, it's even more than what's listed here.

[gammoseditor]

Sure, but having money to spend, even with a willingness to spend it can only take you as far as the talent that's available. The free agent crop isn't terribly good this year so we're looking at likely having to spend more than money to field a playoff caliber team in 2013. That's where it gets tricky.

Agree with your first point. I was just responding to a post that said everyone has money to spend.

Your second point has been mentioned a lot and I'm not sure I agree. There isn't one mvp caliber player out there but the free agent class isn't really that bad. Especially when you add in Peavy and Haren who are likely to have their options declined.

[gammoseditor]

Well that all depends, is their budget the $175M they entered last year with, or the $120M they were at in '09? Nevertheless, until they actually spend it and make some moves, why assume they'll make the right ones?

09 was the only year they weren't right up to or over the luxury tax number. It's an outlier. And the owner already came out and said the goal is to win the AL East in 2013. I'm not ruling out them cutting payroll some. But if they do I don't think it's going to be a directive from ownership. They might lower payroll because they don't want to commit long term dollars to fill every hole they have.

[Rasputin]

...and then hope for a couple of breaks to get them a 50/50 shot at playing in the Division Series?

The goal here has to be 95-win talent that makes the WC a disappointment, not a patchwork team/lottery ticket. Holland probably can't be a rotation-topper on a 95-win team, but we know can be an innings-eater on a 98-win Pythag team. Ellsbury will never be on another 95-win team in Boston, because he'll be somewhere else in 2014.

Actually, the goal is to win the World Series. That's certainly a lot more likely when you have a 95 win team than say an 89 win team but it's not entirely clear that it's worth giving up a chance at an 89 win team for a slightly larger but not precisely measurable chance at having a 95 win team.

This is why trading for Andrus makes minimal sense. Sure, you get a good shortstop and we could use one, but then we end up going into the next off season talking about trading Andrus.

I think the way to maximize the likelihood of winning the World Series over the next 3-5 years is to re-sign Ortiz, bring in competent but not spectacular players at first, left, and right, keep Ellsbury and see what happens with 2013 and aggressively mix in Bogaerts, Brentz, Bradley, Barnes, de la Rosa, Lavarnway, Webster, and whoever else I am missing.

Hell, depending on how Buchholz, Doubront, Lackey, de la Rosa, and Webster are doing, the Sox could conceivably be in a position to offer Lester and Ellsbury as a package at the 2013 deadline and have it be a very attractive package.

[dynomite]

Your second point has been mentioned a lot and I'm not sure I agree. There isn't one mvp caliber player out there but the free agent class isn't really that bad. Especially when you add in Peavy and Haren who are likely to have their options declined.

Exactly.

The 2012 FA market was heavy on "top tier" FAs (Pujols, Fielder, Wilson) but REALLY light everywhere else.

The 2013 FA market is light on "top tier" FAs (Greinke?) but REALLY heavy everywhere else, especially on mid-level veterans (Napoli, Peavy, Lohse, Marcum, Sanchez, Liriano, Berkman, Bourn, Youk?, Victorino, Upton, Hunter, etc.)

[maufman]

Like I said, if they won't do it, then fine. They're rumored to be considering moving Andrus and Ellsbury was mentioned as a possibility, but we don't have to make a trade with them. We should be fine keeping Ellsbury for one more year, especially if all we could get by trading him is a guy that isn't any better than some of the guys we could acquire for just money. Again, one year of Ellsbury plus a decent starter is better to me than a decent starter plus more payroll room, which we already have loads of.

I thought the Punto trade had blessedly rid us of the canard that this player or that "only costs money."

It is never meaningful to discuss roster construction apart from financial considerations.

Do we really want a fly-ball lefty who has a fat platoon split in Fenway Park? I am not necessarily ruling it out but it's gonna require deeper analysis than just cooing over Holland being young and cost-controlled.

Andrus seems like a big ask, but with Profar almost ready Andrus is going to get dealt sooner or later. I would love to have shortstop locked up for the next several years. I'd like it even more than a new starting pitcher to play with,

The Sox have a mediocre but serviceable incumbent at shortstop, plus two of its top prospects play the position (for now). They have a thin rotation at the major-league level with little help in the high minors, and we know how frequently pitching prospects in the low minors fizzle. I have no earthly dea why you would prefer to trade for a shortstop than an SP of comparable value.

Obviously, Andrus is not "of comparable value" to Holland. We would have to gut the farm system to acquire Andrus. That's a deal that might make sense for a team in GFIN mode. For the Sox, it would be foolish -- not only because of the talent on the farm, but because Andrus is going to earn close to market value in 2015 and beyond, so his undervalued years would coincide with a time when the Sox don't need payroll flexibility and will probably be longshots to contend.

[curly2]

The other point to consider is the depth chart. For instance, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and Cecchini are all 3B men long-term. Iglesias and the first-round pick this year are exactly the same player. At some point, your best option is to trade at least one of each.

Thinking like this is PART of the reason for the Jeff Bagwell for Larry Andersen trade. Lou Gorman made a colossal blunder that could have been avoided if he'd listened to his people who had actually SEEN Bagwell play, but his thinking was, why do we need another third baseman with Wade Boggs in the majors and Scott Cooper at Pawtucket.

If a trade makes sense overall, then you can make it, or if you have a logjam at the major-league level, then you can look to move someone. You don't make deals because of minor-league bottlenecks, especially when one of the guys you mentioned (not by name), Deven Marrero, hasn't played at a level higher than short-season Class A.

[Plympton91]

I think there's room for balance between holding onto all the kids and GFIN in 2013. Sounds like you fall in this camp too, yecul. It's just a matter of where along that spectrum we each fall. The people like Plympton, who seem to be advocating for blowing a crater in the farm to try and win as many games as possible in 2013 don't fall into the "a lot of people" I mentioned above, and I would argue are probably in the minority.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of what I've written in this thread. First, you're not going to blow a crater in the farm system by trading 4 or 5 prospects from a team that has 25 players who could be ranked anywhere from 15th to 30th on a top prospect list. If you trade, say Iglesias and Kurtz, for Morneau you're getting a 4-time all-star who had a 902 OPS against righthanded pitching and an overall 820 OPS away from the cavernous Target Field (90 points higher), suggesting that perhaps his battles with the concussion that crushed his career are ending. Yet, you have Bogaerts (probably going to 3B or OF), Marrero, and Vinicio still as shortstop depth in your organization, plus the Taiwanese teenager they signed who was named the 4th best prospect in the GCL. In Iglesias you have 1 more option year for him to learn how to hit his weight, before you have to turn him into a backup infielder or expose him to waivers, and no evidence that he is currently a better option than Ciriaco let alone Aviles or other cheap free agent.

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

I thought the Punto trade had blessedly rid us of the canard that this player or that "only costs money."

It is never meaningful to discuss roster construction apart from financial considerations.



The Sox have a mediocre but serviceable incumbent at shortstop, plus two of its top prospects play the position (for now). They have a thin rotation at the major-league level with little help in the high minors, and we know how frequently pitching prospects in the low minors fizzle. I have no earthly dea why you would prefer to trade for a shortstop than an SP of comparable value.

Obviously, Andrus is not "of comparable value" to Holland. We would have to gut the farm system to acquire Andrus. That's a deal that might make sense for a team in GFIN mode. For the Sox, it would be foolish -- not only because of the talent on the farm, but because Andrus is going to earn close to market value in 2015 and beyond, so his undervalued years would coincide with a time when the Sox don't need payroll flexibility and will probably be longshots to contend.

Is one year of 2011 vintage Ellsbury worth 2 years of Andrus .. that's the question .. I assume if they both had one year left on their deals and you projected a 820ops for Ellsbury you would take Ellsbury over Andrus .. they both are superior defenders .. Ellsbury's a better baserunner - at least as far as SBs are concerned. And he's a much better hitter.

I don't think that extra year would require the gutting of the farm system. If Ellsbury puts up anything approaching his 2011 season he's far more valuable than Andrus.

Ellsbury + 10-15 prospect should get you Andrus - if not move on. And I wouldn't trade him for a midling SP like Holland. Sure he has a nice contract. But, given their payroll freedon that shouldn't really be an issue.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I don't think that's a fair characterization of what I've written in this thread. First, you're not going to blow a crater in the farm system by trading 4 or 5 prospects from a team that has 25 players who could be ranked anywhere from 15th to 30th on a top prospect list. If you trade, say Iglesias and Kurtz, for Morneau you're getting a 4-time all-star who had a 902 OPS against righthanded pitching and an overall 820 OPS away from the cavernous Target Field (90 points higher), suggesting that perhaps his battles with the concussion that crushed his career are ending. Yet, you have Bogaerts (probably going to 3B or OF), Marrero, and Vinicio still as shortstop depth in your organization, plus the Taiwanese teenager they signed who was named the 4th best prospect in the GCL. In Iglesias you have 1 more option year for him to learn how to hit his weight, before you have to turn him into a backup infielder or expose him to waivers, and no evidence that he is currently a better option than Ciriaco let alone Aviles or other cheap free agent.

Here's the problem, though. You aren't just advocating trading for Morneau.

I think going in with that kind of preconceived notion can cause you to miss opportunities. They need to make smart signings of and trades for quality ballplayers when they are presented with the chance to do so. Adding Choo and Morneau in trades, signing one of the #3 starters available in FA to a 3 year deal, resigning Ortiz and Ross, getting a full year out of Middlebrooks, and working in Bradley and Bogearts over the next 2 seasons will make the team watchable and not cripple them long-term.

I think we're in agreement that Morneau can be had relatively cheaply. I would strongly disagree that Choo could be. They're both on the last year of their deals but Choo is Arb3 and will be much cheaper. Choo has also been the better and far healthier player. He's a known commodity while Morneau could be as back as he's going to get or he could be unable to put together a full season ever again. It's really difficult to predict the recovery from a head injury.

Trading for both Morneau and Choo is going to take a healthy chunk out of the top 15 prospects in the organization. Will it cost Bogaerts, Barnes, Bradley or DLR? Maybe not. And certainly not all of them. But it would likely carve out far more of the top 15 than I'd be comfortable with.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 15 October 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[OttoC]

... First, you're not going to blow a crater in the farm system by trading 4 or 5 prospects from a team that has 25 players who could be ranked anywhere from 15th to 30th on a top prospect list....

There were 206 players making their ML debut in 2012. Thirty-seven of them were September call-ups and another 14 were called up between August 15 and August 31. So, 155/30 is just over five debuts per club, It seems to me that taking 4 or 5 prospects from a club's farm system might have a large impact on that system

[The Boomer]

The other point to consider is the depth chart. For instance, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and Cecchini are all 3B men long-term. Iglesias and the first-round pick this year are exactly the same player. At some point, your best option is to trade at least one of each. The key will be optimizing that trade value. Maybe the best trade is available now, who knows. Middlebrooks and his lack of plate discipline may never be more valuable. Explore what you can get, do a cost-benefit analysis. Don't preempt the discussion just because you didn't have a good record last year.

This is where the scouts earn their money. This time they need to trade the equivalent of Scott Cooper but keep the Jeff Bagwell. Don't give up too soon on the next Cecil Cooper to get a past his prime George Scott. Know your keepers.

[Plympton91]

Here's the problem, though. You aren't just advocating trading for Morneau.



I think we're in agreement that Morneau can be had relatively cheaply. I would strongly disagree that Choo could be. They're both on the last year of their deals but Choo is Arb3 and will be much cheaper. Choo has also been the better and far healthier player. He's a known commodity while Morneau could be as back as he's going to get or he could be unable to put together a full season ever again. It's really difficult to predict the recovery from a head injury.

Trading for both Morneau and Choo is going to take a healthy chunk out of the top 15 prospects in the organization. Will it cost Bogaerts, Barnes, Bradley or DLR? Maybe not. And certainly not all of them. But it would likely carve out far more of the top 15 than I'd be comfortable with.

Well, if the price is too high I wouldn't do it, but it seems like for some people here any price is too high. They just want to coast to another 70 win season and hoard prospects for the sake of hoarding prospects.

We're already seeing in the rule 5 draft thread that this year they've got a logjam at the back of the bullpen and in the corner outfield. Next year, that problem will get worse. You can't just sit on every prospect for 10 years and wait to see which ones establish themselves in AAA. You've got to, as Boomer just said, make the scouts earn their money. The Red Sox need to make some 2 for 1 and 3 for deals that make sense over the next offseason or two. They've got more than enough depth to do it, and you can't be paralyzed by fear that you might give up Kurtz and De La Cruz when you should have given up Britton and Kalish. That's why you have scouts.

Likewise, as I noted with Iglesias, you've got players who are out of options or nearly out of options and don't project to be ready to play everyday on a contender. Stomy Pimental either makes the team next spring or they lose him to waivers. Same with Chris "significant compensation" Carpenter. Jose Iglesias has to be able to hit major leaguers by April 2014, and he's yet to prove he can hit minor leaguers. Are they going to carry Carpenter and Pimental in the back of the bullpen in order to avoid losing them?

Set a value on the trade target, and then make a decision.

Edited by Plympton91, 15 October 2012 - 08:10 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm really not worried about losing guys like Chris Carpenter or Pimental. They absolutely need to move some of those guys to make room for more recent draftees who will need 40 man protection soon. I guess the big area we disagree is on Choo. I think he'll require some top ten prospects. I'm not OK with that and would consider the loss of three or four top ten guys, even if none of them are DLR, Barnes, Bogaerts or Bradley as a big shot to our farm system depth.

[The Gray Eagle]

I thought the Punto trade had blessedly rid us of the canard that this player or that "only costs money."

It is never meaningful to discuss roster construction apart from financial considerations.

The Loney trade was about getting rid of contracts that were way too long given to players who didn't fit. Free agents basically only do cost money-- yes they take up roster and lineup spots as well, which is why you need to keep the contracts as short as you can, which means value shopping for short-term solutions, not throwing premium money and seven-year deals to guys who are 30 years old.

We are nowhere near the luxury tax limit, and shouldn't be for a long time. This is when we have money to spend and roster and lineup spots that are gaping holes to fill. We should spend some, and spend it wisely, unlike the disastrous offseasons of recent years when we stupidly threw around extremely long term contracts at premium prices. And unlike last offseason, when we had to ditch talent and pinch pennies in every move to stay near the luxury tax limit.

As for the talk about Choo, I like him as a player, but I think Cleveland will be able to get more for him than we should pay. And we should be able to sign a decent free agent OF this year for not much in terms of years or salary. So I don't think we need to be spending our chips on trading for Choo. Players like Pagan or Hunter could fill holes here for maybe two years at reasonable prices, without us having to give up any minor leaguers.

[JakeRae]

Well, if the price is too high I wouldn't do it, but it seems like for some people here any price is too high. They just want to coast to another 70 win season and hoard prospects for the sake of hoarding prospects.

We're already seeing in the rule 5 draft thread that this year they've got a logjam at the back of the bullpen and in the corner outfield. Next year, that problem will get worse. You can't just sit on every prospect for 10 years and wait to see which ones establish themselves in AAA. You've got to, as Boomer just said, make the scouts earn their money. The Red Sox need to make some 2 for 1 and 3 for deals that make sense over the next offseason or two. They've got more than enough depth to do it, and you can't be paralyzed by fear that you might give up Kurtz and De La Cruz when you should have given up Britton and Kalish. That's why you have scouts.

Likewise, as I noted with Iglesias, you've got players who are out of options or nearly out of options and don't project to be ready to play everyday on a contender. Stomy Pimental either makes the team next spring or they lose him to waivers. Same with Chris "significant compensation" Carpenter. Jose Iglesias has to be able to hit major leaguers by April 2014, and he's yet to prove he can hit minor leaguers. Are they going to carry Carpenter and Pimental in the back of the bullpen in order to avoid losing them?

Set a value on the trade target, and then make a decision.

Both Carpenter and Pimental have an option remaining. Neither will need to be exposed to waivers next year.

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

nm

Edited by P'tucket, rhymes with..., 15 October 2012 - 09:10 PM.

[Plympton91]

Both Carpenter and Pimental have an option remaining. Neither will need to be exposed to waivers next year.

Several other members who follow the minor leagues closely have said differently, but if so, that's excellent news. It does not, however, change the underlying point, which is that you cannot hoard the amount of talent currently in the Red Sox minor league system indefinitely.

[Joshv02]

Several other members who follow the minor leagues closely have said differently, but if so, that's excellent news.

Pimemtel was added to the 40 man after the 2010 season. He was then optioned to the minors in 2011 and 2012. So he has one remaining. Carpenter was added in 2011, optioned in 2011, and optioned again 2012 (after a rehab stint, he was optioned on the last day of July). So he, too, has one option remaining.

[mabrowndog]

A red hot Ellsbury is pretty damn valuable.

In his walk year, a "red hot Ellsbury" is almost certain to prompt some team to overpay him on far too long a contract.

In his walk year, a "sub-par Ellsbury" is almost certain to result in a lost opportunity to trade him for some semblance of value.

And, might I add, it's entirely possible that the Sox will be in a position to make the post season, an outcome which is highly dependent on Ellsbury being red hot.

It's also entirely possible that a family of small mammals will be in a position to fly out of my ass next year.

This team is far more likely to be on the outside of the postseason equation in 2013 than they are to make the playoffs. I don't see how anyone can rationally argue to the contrary. Holding on to Ellsbury in the hope of cashing that lottery ticket, while simultaneously hoping that he'll be worth enough to some team at the deadline if the Sox are out of contention, is a risky move.

If the Sox can get talent with appropriate long-term value in exchange for him this winter, they have to lean heavily toward pulling the trigger. Derek Holland alone doesn't meet that criteria IMO, but if Texas sweetens the pot in commensurate fashion Ellsbury needs to pack his bags for Arlington.