Yeah, I read it as an excuse for the farm system being terrible. Some of it is bad luck and some of it is trades, but most of those huge trades were 2+ years ago. They haven't really restocked the cupboards at all. And not to nitpick, but Ben10 turned 24 in July. Devers turned 22 about a week ago.
I believe Swihart is out of options, hence his being in the majors all year.
Ok, well then that would necessitate keeping either three catchers or moving one of them in a deal.
That's an inaccurate quote. What he said was that Pedroia will lead off on opening day (I'm sure as a way to celebrate his return) and then Mookie will take over the leadoff spot from then on.
I agree with this in the sense that winning the Series has a way of justifying the strategy, but the Prospectus Top 100 rankings isn't some intangible concept. As it stands, the rotation in 2020—Mookie's last season before free agency—looks like Price/Rodriguez/Johnson/Velazquez/?.
Totally agree. Except that the farm system being strong allows the team to continually be good. When Atlanta was ruling the NL East years ago, it seemed like every year they brought up one or two studs from their system that gave them outstanding and incredibly cheap production. That in turn allowed them to spend money elsewhere as needs arose. The idea of being a massive developmental machine isn't for the purpose of having a great farm system per se, it's so that it can be a pipeline for a continual influx of terrific talent, either to put on your own major league roster or to deal away. Once that dries up, the window to win gets considerably smaller.
Yes, but those two things are not unconnected.
Maybe it's not that big an issue, but there is no reason for it to be an issue at all. They should have been able to add some talent over the last 2 years, instead the farm is really no better off than it was after the Chris Sale trade.
I hope you realize a lot of shit will happen between now and 2020. Like, not a little bit...a LOT, and vast majority of it will be unexpected and unpredictable.
Sustained dominance over time is the exception, not the rule. Often times hitting home runs on prospects in regards to draft picks panning out is more about luck than skill more than most people would care to admit.
You didn't address anything he said.
I see your point, but I'm not fretting about this team. I'm just someone who particularly enjoys plotting out offseason strategies and discussing methods of team building. The last month was some of the most entertaining and rewarding baseball I've ever seen.
Yes this is true. Still, my point is that it doesn't have to be either-or in terms of major league success and a great farm system. Right now the Sox are in a terrific spot. They "graduated" a lot of their top prospects who are now young stars (or becoming young stars or at least contributors) on a championship team: Betts, Bradley, Benintendi, Devers, Bogaerts, Vazquez, Swihart, Barnes, Rodriguez, etc. And if they manage their money right, this window should be good for a few more years.
This is interesting. He was drafted as a shortstop, but people are already describing him as a future first baseman, which doesn't speak well of his defense (it's not like Devers is a defensive superstar). Meanwhile, BA just named Bobby Dalbec the team's top prospect ahead of Chavis. It's behind a paywall, and I don't have access. But maybe he would work at second also?
Going a step further, is there any evidence at all that drafting in MLB is anything more than basically total luck? I may be wildly off base here but I can’t think of a team or GM that is known for consistently drafting really well. Sure certain teams develop great farm systems, but that’s usually a result of consistently poor performance or smart trades or some combination thereof, not a run of great drafts.
From what I understand about their profiles, Chavis seems like a better 2B candidate than Dalbec; he's smaller and quicker. I'd be surprised if he's even an average defensive 2B, but he might be adequate there for a few years. I suspect his long-term destination is a corner OF spot if he can hit well enough.
I don't follow the business of baseball like most of you, but 15/yr for a hard-throwing versatile 3rd starter seems very doable, no?
I wonder how much, if at all, Cora-love/respect, the “Band of Brothers” stuff, World Series glow and desire to keep as much of the band intact as possible will affect players like Eovaldi, Kimbrel, Kelly and Pearce when it comes to signing contracts. And the desire to have another go.
Not sure if it was Heyman or another senior analyst type that said on MLBN today that the Red Sox should offer Eovaldi starter money and make him their closer.
I still believe using Eovaldi as a full-time closer would be a waste, especially given what it'll cost.
I have to believe he gets more than that. The Sox signed Ryan Dempster at age 36 for $13.25 million per yer for the '13 and '14 seasons.
For reasons I won’t get into I was looking at the 1978 team’s stats and Bob Stanley’s reminded me just how much bullpen tactics have changed. He was 15-2 even though he started 3 games. He threw 141.2 innings. That’s more than EdRo and nearly as many as Sale. I’m not proposing a return of the multi-inning long-relief ace, but if there was ever a guy fit for that role, it’d be Eovaldi.
Baseball is a different animal because players can take 2-4 years to develop into a major league-ready player. It’s not like football or basketball when the top guy can change a franchise immediately.
I don’t think it’s quite that simple is it. Epstein was the one who brought in the idea of trying to contend in most of the years in a specific window and you try to win the WS of course but if a team lets the farm run completely dry it’s going to be unreasonably expensive to fix the big leave team, successful teams surely need to have a good balance of developed talent , traded talent and then purchased talent. It would be weird if the FO didn’t have a pretty large section in their files detailing how the future will play out including prospects and young cheap talent and the time to really start chewing on that is now when we’re at the top rather than wait until the whole thing crashes and you’ve got no young players and all your big league players are too old or too expensive
I been thinking the same thing. Especially in preference to letting him walk and while watching Kimbrel accept his arby offer.
I think regardless of what you pay, it's better to get 200 quality innings out of a guy than 50. If the Red Sox sign Eovaldi, at whatever the price, it's going to be to start. He should only be a reliever if he fails as a starter...or in the post-season because the rotation gets shortened.
Well Corbin is going to make north of 20 million. Eovaldi is probably getting 15 or around that. I've been curious about a couple things. How will they pay all of these guys? Who do you keep and who do you allow to walk? I'm genuinely curious if they move Porcello and Bradley this offseason as a way to use that money to keep Sale and maybe hammer an extension out with X. JBJ isn't going to be cheap for much longer. The good news is that Panda's terrible deal is coming off the books next season.So maybe that will negate trading Bradley for another season.
You don’t pay all of them. I don’t think they keep Sale. Think Pedro with the Mets.
You can't. Its possible to keep the main ones however. Sale strictly depends on his arm. Look at DD's history. I believe Sale stays. Thats just me
I think moondog is on to something comparing Sale now to Pedro in the winter of 2003-2004. They have him under contract for next year. There's no reason to rush to extend him beyond that given how his season concluded. Even if Sale's shoulder is okay enough to not need surgery now (like Pedro's was then), it may be inevitable. The question is whether you want to be on the hook when it happens. Remember they didn't just let Pedro walk away, they tried to re-sign him but the Mets were willing to go further with their commitment. At present, I see no reason not to take the same approach to Sale. If he comes back next year and throws 200+ innings with no seeming ill effects from his shoulder inflammation, you go all out to bring him back. No reason to do it now though, and certainly no reason to move other controlled pieces like Bradley or Porcello to clear salary for a Sale extension that may never happen.
I fixed your post.
JBJ projects to cost $7.9M next year, and despite a first half marred by slumps and bad luck was "worth" $22.4 million according to Fangraphs (I know, I know). Considering how he finished the year, a 137 wRC+ from August 10 on, he's still an incredible asset.
I have never seen Chavis play, and obviously Nunez this year showed that it's not easy to play a competent second base. But it is easier to play second now than it used to be. With most lefty hitters now, you're playing about 20 feet on the outfield grass, so you have more reaction time. And you don't have to worry about being taken on double plays anymore. It's worth a shot to see if Chavis can do it.
This, to me, is nuts. When you have a guy who can still throw 99 mph on his 100th pitch, you keep him as a starter.
Miller would be a great choice to pick up and hope he still has something in the tank as a power lefty, but do you want to sign him as "the guy" and call it a day? Nope.
Doesn't that depend on the quality of his secondaries, though? The reason why guys who throw triple digits tend to end up in bullpens is only partly that most guys can't do that for 100 pitches. It's also that most major league hitters can catch up to that kind of heat if they see it enough times and the pitcher can't get them thinking about something else.
Isn't Heyman usually delusional?
