2015 OF Discussion

[Drek717]

Betts and Swihart appear to have the most value. In addition the Sox wouldn't be trading from an area of depth. That's why I think any trade for a starter is going to start with Owens

I think there is too varied an opinion on Owens to make that a safe assumption.  Some scouts describe him like the best pitching prospect in baseball, others as a #3-#5 starter who just beats up on less polished competition.  I doubt most GMs will rely on him being the centerpiece of a deal when their own scouts will likely be split on what exactly he'll be at the ML level.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Victorino will start not because he's getting paid a lot of money, but because in 152 games for Boston he has been really good (a 5.6 fWAR player). I suspect that he is going to have the opportunity to play until he demonstrates that he is not that player anymore, that's how veterans are treated in MLB...

 
I'd like to understand his recent operation and how that could benefit his swing and legs. I always thought it was consistent hamstring problems until the back issue came up. Has anyone read what was actually done to the 2 discs in his spine? I recall the recover period was something up to 6 months (putting it into February). I also recall the spine situation was impacting his legs (or butt?). He had thumb surgery at the end of 2013 and what's the impact of that? I imagine anything that lingered into 2014 is gone by now, but we never got to see him hit enough to judge.
 
It's conceivable that Victorino is back to health, and plays up to his gold glove, switch hitting prowess. If that's the case - he's got to start in RF. It's also conceivable that his physical problems remain, meaning he can't run well enough to cover right and he still can't hit from the left side or steal a base. If that's the case - he's the backup. 
 
There must be some medical projections out there. Otherwise it's wait and see what happens in March - hamstringing the Red Sox off season plans.

 

[sean1562]

most of our AAA pitchers seem like the kind of trade chips you use to acquire someone like andrew miller at the deadline, not Mat Latos or Johnny Cueto a season before they are FA. Also, isnt the David Price deal seen as universally bad? I mean, look at what Smardizja got the Cubs, a king's ransom

 

[glennhoffmania]

I think a lot of people underestimate Drew Smyly.

 

[sean1562]

I think a lot of people underestimate Drew Smyly.

 in an ideal world, we hope like 2 of our guys turn into a pitcher of his caliber no?

 

[Montana Fan]

Farrell was on MLB Radio this morning and said that when they originally traded for Cespedes there was some discussion about him playing RF but with the emergence of Mookie and the signing or Rusney it's no longer being considered. When discussing the OF in 2015 all of the potential options were mentioned with the exception of JBJ. AAA will do him some good I hope.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 in an ideal world, we hope like 2 of our guys turn into a pitcher of his caliber no?

 
If that's the case, and I'm not saying you're wrong, why is the Price deal so terrible?

 

[twothousandone]

 

If Castillo plays well in ST, there's really no purpose to sending him to AAA over Mookie. He adapted well in limited time this season, and by all accounts is doing pretty well in AFL. If he looks like he can start, he should be starting. 

ZMart raised an idea that I hadn't considered (Castillo to AAA), and then you immediately countered it. 
 
I'm curious about how you draw those conclusions. "Adapted well in limited time this season" applies to both Castillo and Betts. Why wouldn't "if he looks like he can start" apply to both, as well?  In fact, money aside, I'd think there's an argument that Castillo hasn't yet proved he's worthy of a promotion from AAA, while Betts has. Cuba is AAA, at best, right? And given the lengthy time away, and the push to have him play all winter long, I can see someone on the Sox deciding -- "let's let him get acclimated to the season in Pawtucket. We can always bring him up in May or June." 
 
Are you thinking one is a better fit of CF, and the other for RF?  if not, I'd think Betts in CF, with Victorino and Nava splitting time (Victorino also gives Betts a day off when needed) can get them through 8 weeks or so. 
 
It seems a bit like the continuing pitching roster machinations, but there ought to be a way to keep the depth, keep them active, and evaluate them before memorial Day

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Honestly, I found the Castillo signing a little puzzling, and still do. But if they send him down to Pawtucket so they can start Betts in CF and Victorino in right, then it goes from puzzling to baffling. You don't sign a guy right smack in the middle of his theoretical prime to a $70-million contract and then send him to the farm for a little seasoning.

 

[MakMan44]

 
 

ZMart raised an idea that I hadn't considered (Castillo to AAA), and then you immediately countered it. 
 
I'm curious about how you draw those conclusions. "Adapted well in limited time this season" applies to both Castillo and Betts. Why wouldn't "if he looks like he can start" apply to both, as well?  In fact, money aside, I'd think there's an argument that Castillo hasn't yet proved he's worthy of a promotion from AAA, while Betts has. Cuba is AAA, at best, right? And given the lengthy time away, and the push to have him play all winter long, I can see someone on the Sox deciding -- "let's let him get acclimated to the season in Pawtucket. We can always bring him up in May or June." 
 
Are you thinking one is a better fit of CF, and the other for RF?  if not, I'd think Betts in CF, with Victorino and Nava splitting time (Victorino also gives Betts a day off when needed) can get them through 8 weeks or so. 
 
It seems a bit like the continuing pitching roster machinations, but there ought to be a way to keep the depth, keep them active, and evaluate them before memorial Day

 

Well, for starters, I don't want to fall into the JBJ situation with either of them. Looking like they're ready to start in ST may end up being completely meaningless, and I admit that. That being said, if you think both are ready for a starting spot on April 1st and one of them HAS to go down for it to happen, I'm picking Mookie if only because of Castillo's contract and his age. There's no service time benefit to sending Castillo down like there is with Mookie, and if you buy the theory that MLB players peak around 30, Catillo should be right in his prime right now. It's not overwhelming evidence, but I think those things are enough to give Castillo a starting role over Mookie. 
 
EDIT: Savin beats me by 4 minutes.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

 
If that's the case, and I'm not saying you're wrong, why is the Price deal so terrible?

I like Nick Franklin too.  Is he a star?  Probably not, but I think he'll at least be a league-average 2b with a little more pop.  And the Rays are really high on the 18-year-old SS they got in that deal Willy Adames too.  It may wind up a pretty solid deal for the Rays.  

 

[sean1562]

 
If that's the case, and I'm not saying you're wrong, why is the Price deal so terrible?

 
yea fair enough, i hadnt really looked at drew smyly's stats until you said we were underrating him. if any of the AAA projected 4/5 guys turn into someone like him it would be great.

 

[ZMart100]

Claiming that I would keep Betts in Boston over Castillo was a little more controversial than I was expecting. My thought process is simple, I think Betts is better now than Castillo is. The Red Sox paid Castillo roughly like a 2 win player. He looked very good in the games with Boston, and his numbers are a little lower the AFL, but he's only had ~40 plate appearances in each league, so it shouldn't change the Red Sox opinion of him much. I think Betts is closer to a 3 win player, maybe higher if his defense improves. It seems like it would be a waste to have either Castillo or Betts in the minors (at least to start) next year, which is part of why I think we will see at least one trade of an outfielder this winter.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The Red Sox paid Castillo roughly like a 2 win player.

 
This is technically true, but misleading. Yes, you would pay about $10-12 million a year to a 2-win player in free agency--though you probably wouldn't commit to a player like that for 6 years. But in that situation, the player's ability to perform at that 2-win level has been demonstrated over several years in MLB; there's only moderate risk involved (barring recent injury or other complications). You know what you're getting, so you're willing to pay full market value for it.
 
To pay a guy who has never played a single inning of major league baseball like a 2-win player over six years carries the implicit assumption that you think he has the potential to be considerably better than a 2-win player. Because of the total lack of a track record, you're getting his services at a substantial discount, or so you hope.
 
EDIT: I'm not saying I think Castillo is a better player than Betts. It's possible, but it would surprise me based on what we've seen of both of them. I'm just saying that there was no point in signing Castillo to that kind of deal unless you had every expectation and intention that he would be a full-time major league player for you, starting immediately. And since nothing about the situation has changed since they signed him, starting him in AAA would indicate some kind of screw-up in the plan.

 

[lxt]

The Sox can go with a fast, good armed, defensively solid OF made up of Betts, Castillo & Victorino ... anything hit anywhere near them will likely be caught ... defense taking away runs ... JBJ & Nava as backups ... they are all, at least presently, if healthy (Victorino) capable of Victorino (2013) numbers ... not too shabby.
 
What about Cespedes ... to the Reds ... I like their closer.
 
Makes a move for Panda a little more important than a defensively oriented Headley.

 

[Plympton91]

 
If that's the case, and I'm not saying you're wrong, why is the Price deal so terrible?

I agree, people are underestimating all 3 of the players the Rays got back in that deal. Smyly outpitched Price post-trade, FWIW.

 

[Fireball Fred]

My take is that the Sox are hoping for a Betts-Castillo-Victorino outfield, strong defense and good-enough hitting (or better). Because his defensive value is in his arm, Cespedes has to be willing to play RF to be worthwhile, and may not be as good as Victorino anyway, so he's trade bait. Nava's a fine fourth with that group - LHH, and he'd never have to play CF. Craig is probably immovable, but if he can play at all he backs up several positions, at worst, and can platoon at DH if Ortiz regresses.

The Sox clearly have too many position players and not enough pitching; and too many of the position players are untradable or untouchable. Given the likelihood of injuries, however, they're fairly close to a manageable IF/OF situation, apart from 3B.

 

[jimbobim]

I know we all want Vic to be the player he was in 2013 but there is no way he can be penciled in as the everyday RF. Him and Craig are both complete question marks. 
 
The outfield rankings as I would say opposing GM's would order 
 
1) Betts 
2) Cespedes 
3) Nava 
4) Victorino 
5) Craig 
 
I left out Castillo because if someone wanted to trade for him they would have signed him. Betts Cespedes and Nava all have varying levels of positive trade value while Vic and Craig with their money are probably considered negative assets if added to a deal. 
 
I'd like to see them move Nava over Cespedes. Both are players with easily recognizable skills and deficiencies . I'd package Nava for pitching depth and maybe he'd be considered more valuable then Cespy to smaller market teams as I believe this is his first year being arb eligible. 
 
I'd also call the Braves about Heyward and imagine the ground covered by a Betts Castillo Heyward OF. In this type of scenario then Cespedes  would then be packaged elsewhere for more pitching . 

 

[Lowrielicious]

Honestly, I found the Castillo signing a little puzzling, and still do. But if they send him down to Pawtucket so they can start Betts in CF and Victorino in right, then it goes from puzzling to baffling. You don't sign a guy right smack in the middle of his theoretical prime to a $70-million contract and then send him to the farm for a little seasoning.

They paid $70 mill because they wanted him and that's what it took to get him. They wanted him because victorino and cespedes are gone after next season and the outfield for 2016 and beyond is a big pile of question marks.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Because Friedman could have done a lot better for Price than a mid rotation starter, a league average 2B and a lottery ticket 18 year old that will have to move off SS. You don't need to necessarily think the trade was terrible to think he could have done a lot better or should have held him until the offseason when he would have a lot more bidders. He certainly wouldn't have done worse. And considering what Shark had just fetched, one would think he could have at least gotten one prospect with a high ceiling, if not more than one. It was just a confusing trade all around.  

 
I was responding to the bolded below.  I'm not saying he couldn't have done any better.  But I think the idea that it was a no-brainer dumb move by Friedman is completely wrong, and that's all I was replying about.  I also think that Smyly has the potential to be a pretty damn good pitcher.
 

most of our AAA pitchers seem like the kind of trade chips you use to acquire someone like andrew miller at the deadline, not Mat Latos or Johnny Cueto a season before they are FA. Also, isnt the David Price deal seen as universally bad? I mean, look at what Smardizja got the Cubs, a king's ransom

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Re: the Price trade discussion, the Cubs gave up Shark AND Hammels, fwiw.  I think what TB got was fair.  Not a home run by Friedman, but a double.  People are underestimating the value of a young SP (Smyly) with MLB success has compared to a high upside prospect (Russell).  Assuming TB's goal is to continue to field a competitive team within a confining payroll, then they did well to get a mix of current and future value.
 
Back to our assets, none of our AAAA guys have experienced the same success yet that Smyly has, so the questions loom a bit larger (Webster's command, Workman's starting repertoire, etc.).  IMO, none is sufficient to get Cueto in return, especially given Cinci's apparent desire and ability to compete in 2015.  They'd need a good, inexpensive MLB-ready contributor, and perhaps another good prospect to engage in that trade discussion.  Something like Betts,  Webster and Chavis.  Too much for my taste.  JBJ, RDLR, and Owens?  I'd do that, but the Reds would have to really like RDLR to contribute to their MLB roster right now.

 

[mfried]

 
 

ZMart raised an idea that I hadn't considered (Castillo to AAA), and then you immediately countered it. 
 
I'm curious about how you draw those conclusions. "Adapted well in limited time this season" applies to both Castillo and Betts. Why wouldn't "if he looks like he can start" apply to both, as well?  In fact, money aside, I'd think there's an argument that Castillo hasn't yet proved he's worthy of a promotion from AAA, while Betts has. Cuba is AAA, at best, right? And given the lengthy time away, and the push to have him play all winter long, I can see someone on the Sox deciding -- "let's let him get acclimated to the season in Pawtucket. We can always bring him up in May or June." 
 
Are you thinking one is a better fit of CF, and the other for RF?  if not, I'd think Betts in CF, with Victorino and Nava splitting time (Victorino also gives Betts a day off when needed) can get them through 8 weeks or so. 
 
It seems a bit like the continuing pitching roster machinations, but there ought to be a way to keep the depth, keep them active, and evaluate them before memorial Day

 

The factors affecting Castillo strategy: salary and age.  For now, the salary makes him untraceable, and P'tucket seems like an equally unlikely scenario.  Mookie, for those reasons, is a more probable candidate for both strategies (though not my own preference).

 

[Plympton91]

Re: the Price trade discussion, the Cubs gave up Shark AND Hammels, fwiw.  I think what TB got was fair.  Not a home run by Friedman, but a double.  People are underestimating the value of a young SP (Smyly) with MLB success has compared to a high upside prospect (Russell).  Assuming TB's goal is to continue to field a competitive team within a confining payroll, then they did well to get a mix of current and future value.

Not to mention, Nick Franklin had an 870 OPS in AA during his age 20 and 21 seasons, and a 96 OPS+ over 400 PA as a 22 year old in the majors. By all accounts, he's a capable SS, so as a 2B he should be well above average defensively. If he were a Red Sox property, Xander would be preparing to play 3B, with Franklin taking over SS. The idea that Friedman didn't do well in that trade is ignorant.

 

[Drek717]

Re: the Price trade discussion, the Cubs gave up Shark AND Hammels, fwiw.  I think what TB got was fair.  Not a home run by Friedman, but a double.  People are underestimating the value of a young SP (Smyly) with MLB success has compared to a high upside prospect (Russell).  Assuming TB's goal is to continue to field a competitive team within a confining payroll, then they did well to get a mix of current and future value.
 
Back to our assets, none of our AAAA guys have experienced the same success yet that Smyly has, so the questions loom a bit larger (Webster's command, Workman's starting repertoire, etc.).  IMO, none is sufficient to get Cueto in return, especially given Cinci's apparent desire and ability to compete in 2015.  They'd need a good, inexpensive MLB-ready contributor, and perhaps another good prospect to engage in that trade discussion.  Something like Betts,  Webster and Chavis.  Too much for my taste.  JBJ, RDLR, and Owens?  I'd do that, but the Reds would have to really like RDLR to contribute to their MLB roster right now.

Chavis isn't trade eligible until after the 2015 draft, FYI, and Betts is too much for one year of anyone, especially one year of a pitcher when the off-season market includes Lester, Scherzer, Shields, etc. as FAs with Hamels (Chicago traded Jason Hammel, extra 'm', no 's'), one of Latos/Cueto, possibly Samardzija, etc. up for trade.
 
Cespedes is a very good fit for Cincy in that he would be a massive upgrade over Ludwick, provide insurance in case one of Votto/Bruce fails to rebound well, etc..  Jocketty has made similar moves in the past for a one year push, like when they traded for Shin-Soo Choo.
 
The sticking points would be what other prospects they'd want and who they're actually willing to trade.  Cueto is obviously the guy they'd rather extend and Latos is the one they'd prefer to move, but the market for those two is likely pretty far apart.  Given the spate of injuries Latos struggled with this year and the big eye openers Cueto hit (leading the NL in K's, fewest H/9, an ERA in the low 2's, etc.) the fact that their career FIPs have been pretty comparable is going to be largely ignored by most teams.  
 
Personally I'd rather see the Sox go with a Cespedes+ deal that avoids including any of the real elite prospects to get Latos.  He's two years younger than Cueto, likely to take a more reasonable extension, and he's a big guy who up until this year was a reliable ~200 IP horse, likely to bounce back to that again as none of the injuries were really serious, just nagging in 2014.  Even if he turns into a mid-3's ERA guy instead of a low 3's ERA guy in the AL East he'd be an excellent addition to the Sox' staff.
 
 

Not to mention, Nick Franklin had an 870 OPS in AA during his age 20 and 21 seasons, and a 96 OPS+ over 400 PA as a 22 year old in the majors. By all accounts, he's a capable SS, so as a 2B he should be well above average defensively. If he were a Red Sox property, Xander would be preparing to play 3B, with Franklin taking over SS. The idea that Friedman didn't do well in that trade is ignorant.

I think the perspective on the Price trade is skewed by the (wrong) belief that the Rays are a prospect rich team.  People see that Samardzija got Addison Russell, by far a better prospect than anyone in the Price deal, and wonder where the Rays' centerpiece went.  Friedman went quantity over quality and still got some nice quality.  He did that because the cupboards are a lot barer in Tampa than most are willing to acknowledge.  Competing for a prolonged stretch has drained a farm system used to getting re-supplied with top 10 picks and a host of comp picks on the regular.  The Rays haven't consistently picked in the top half, let alone the top 5-10 for almost a decade now and the new QO rules are pretty hostile towards small market teams as most simply can't leave $14-$15M of their payroll entirely in the hands of a player and his agent for a few weeks in November.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The Sox can go with a fast, good armed, defensively solid OF made up of Betts, Castillo & Victorino ... anything hit anywhere near them will likely be caught ... defense taking away runs ... JBJ & Nava as backups ... they are all, at least presently, if healthy (Victorino) capable of Victorino (2013) numbers ... not too shabby.
 
What about Cespedes ... to the Reds ... I like their closer.
 
Makes a move for Panda a little more important than a defensively oriented Headley.

 
So do the Reds and they have him under control for two more years. What indications are there that he is even remotely available?

 

[OptimusPapi]

The Reds have a vacancy in left. Could we start with Nava and Owen. Then trade Cespedes plus Checchini for another piece the reds would be interested in and round it off with Coyle in exchange for Latos or Cueto and a 72 hour negotiating window?

 

[MakMan44]

The Reds have a vacancy in left. Could we start with Nava and Owen. Then trade Cespedes plus Checchini for another piece the reds would be interested in and round it off with Coyle in exchange for Latos or Cueto and a 72 hour negotiating window?

You're overpaying by a fair bit in that scenario. 

 

[MakMan44]

Why would the Reds trade one of their SP for Cespedes, though? Aren't they much better served moving minor leaguers for a guy like Cespedes...or simply signing an OF as a FA? Trading for Cespedes fills one hole, while opening another. And replacing Cueto is a lot harder than finding someone like Cespedes.

If he was signed for a long time or something, I could see it...but moving one year of Cueto for one year of Cespedes isn't something a GFIN team does.

It's poorly worded, but that's not what he's suggesting. He's suggesting you move Cespedes and Cecchini for prospects or a MLB piece to include in the Cueto deal. 

 

[glennhoffmania]

The Reds have a vacancy in left. Could we start with Nava and Owen. Then trade Cespedes plus Checchini for another piece the reds would be interested in and round it off with Coyle in exchange for Latos or Cueto and a 72 hour negotiating window?

 
I really wish people would stop with this crap.  How about we think it through for a minute.  So Boston would give up their current starting LF, their current 4th OF, a really good pitching prospect and a solid 3B prospect for Latos and the chance to pay him, what, 7/150?  Why in the world does that make more sense than just giving Lester something like 6/150?  The difference in cost over a 6 or 7 year period is immaterial and you don't have to give up 4 players to get him.  Christ, you don't even lose a draft pick.

 

[OptimusPapi]

 
I really wish people would stop with this crap.  How about we think it through for a minute.  So Boston would give up their current starting LF, their current 4th OF, a really good pitching prospect and a solid 3B prospect for Latos and the chance to pay him, what, 7/150?  Why in the world does that make more sense than just giving Lester something like 6/150?  The difference in cost over a 6 or 7 year period is immaterial and you don't have to give up 4 players to get him.  Christ, you don't even lose a draft pick.

Cueto and Latos would be in their early 30's at the end of a seven year deal, Lester would not and all indications seem to point to the sox FO caring about such things. Cespedes and Nava get traded Vic and Craig step into their respective spots with Holt, Hassan, and Brentz as further backup. This would take care of the top of the rotation question and not require the Sox to spend big money to players on the wrong side of thirty.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Cueto and Latos would be in their early 30's at the end of a seven year deal, Lester would not and all indications seem to point to the sox FO caring about such things. Cespedes and Nava get traded Vic and Craig step into their respective spots with Holt, Hassan, and Brentz as further backup. This would take care of the top of the rotation question and not require the Sox to spend big money to players on the wrong side of thirty.

 
The Red Sox are not going 7 years on any starting pitcher
 
Replacing Cespedes and Nava -- two healthy, productive players -- with Craig and Victorino -- two players who wear uniforms -- is a downgrade of severe proportions. There is little to no certainty that either of them will be healthy next year, nevermind be productive if somehow they are healthy.
 
The idea of Holt, Hassan and Brentz as suitable depth for a major league outfield borders between questionable and wish-fulfillment.

 

[OptimusPapi]

 
The Red Sox are not going 7 years on any starting pitcher
 
Replacing Cespedes and Nava -- two healthy, productive players -- with Craig and Victorino -- two players who wear uniforms -- is a downgrade of severe proportions. There is little to no certainty that either of them will be healthy next year, nevermind be productive if somehow they are healthy.
 
The idea of Holt, Hassan and Brentz as suitable depth for a major league outfield borders between questionable and wish-fulfillment.

Do you have a suggestion on how to improve the team that involves no risk? And must teams when talking about backups for their players would be hard pressed to do better the Craig, Holt etc.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Cueto and Latos would be in their early 30's at the end of a seven year deal, Lester would not and all indications seem to point to the sox FO caring about such things. Cespedes and Nava get traded Vic and Craig step into their respective spots with Holt, Hassan, and Brentz as further backup. This would take care of the top of the rotation question and not require the Sox to spend big money to players on the wrong side of thirty.

 
Cueto would be 36 at the end of a seven-year deal. He's only two years younger than Lester. Latos really is a lot younger than Lester, but not as good.
 
Anyway, I agree with E5 Yaz: it's highly unlikely the Sox would go 7 with any free agent pitcher, unless perhaps somebody like a Kershaw or a King Felix were to hit the market in their mid-20s.

 

[sackamano]

Cueto will be 29 before the 2015 season begins.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Cueto will be 29 before the 2015 season begins.

Did not know that about Cueto. But honest question why not more love for Latos. He has a career FIP of 3.41 a career k/9 of 8.12 and a career bb/9 of 2.68. He is no Kershaw but he seems like a good bet to anchor the rotation for years to come.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I just don't see the glut of position players that seems to be motivating this discussion.  There are going to be plenty of ABs to go around with Betts, Castillo, Cespedes, and Victorino all in the mix at the major league level, between off days and the inevitability of one or more of those guys missing time for significant stretches (Victorino is soon to be 34 and has a bad back, Cespedes has played over 140 games one in three years).   Plus you have the likelihood that Pedroia misses a stretch of games, with Betts potentially spelling him.
 
To me, the bigger roster logjam is that there probably isn't room for both Nava and Craig, who both profile as backup 1B/LF options.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Yeah I was just about to post that, PP.  If you're going to advocate for acquiring a certain player based in part on his age, maybe go to any number of sites that would provide such info.
 
I like Latos.  I think he should be a very solid pitcher for several years.  But if the choice is paying him almost market rates plus giving up 4 assets, or signing Lester, that's a no-brainer.  And the response to E5 about how to replace 2 ML OFs was nonsensical. 

 

[Cesar Crespo]

With prospects at a premium, we may see more MLB talent for MlB talent type trades we saw the Sox and other teams make last year. People are too focused on why a competing team would trade so and so... because it improves the team and makes them more well rounded?

Not saying that's the case with the Reds. And as far as our SP prospects who aren't lefty... we saw what they were worth when we traded Miller and Peavy. EdRod seems to have worked out in our favor, and I know he's lefty. I thnk our 3 best SP prospects are all lefty and have more value, including Brian Johnson who the Sox seem really high on and appears close to ready.

Plus not to sound like a prospect humper (I am, somewhat), Margot is probably starting 2015 in AA and could get promoted in June/ July and finish in Pawtaucket. I think the eta of end 2017 is ultra consevative unless he starts in Salem. I also hare how he's still casually thrown in some deals as a "low minors lottery ticket." He's going to be in Portland. He may very well be our top prospect the end of 2015. He could see MLB in mid 2016 if things go semi normally and the sox remain aggressive in promotions.

Edit: For someone who follows the farm religiously, I whiffed on that. I thought Margot had closer to 60 games in Salem... not 16. I still think he's more than a lottery ticket and could be our top prosoect due to guys losing their prospect status. 2017 is far more likely. My bad.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Yeah I was just about to post that, PP.  If you're going to advocate for acquiring a certain player based in part on his age, maybe go to any number of sites that would provide such info.
 
I like Latos.  I think he should be a very solid pitcher for several years.  But if the choice is paying him almost market rates plus giving up 4 assets, or signing Lester, that's a no-brainer.  And the response to E5 about how to replace 2 ML OFs was nonsensical. 

So you never thought you knew something and it turn out you were mistaken? I do apology in the future I will try to be perfect like you and pp. And no I don't think my idea on how to replace Nava and Cespedes is nonsensical especially given that Vic won't be happy getting demoted to a bench spot. But we can agree to disagree.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

delete.

 

[glennhoffmania]

So you never thought you knew something and it turn out you were mistaken? I do apology in the future I will try to be perfect like you and pp. And no I don't think my idea on how to replace Nava and Cespedes is nonsensical especially given that Vic won't be happy getting demoted to a bench spot. But we can agree to disagree.

 
No, if I was going to make an argument based on certain facts, and I could confirm those facts by simply clicking on ESPN, CBS, Fangraphs, or any number of sites with player bios, I would do so.
 
Your response to E5's point about replacing Cespedes and Nava was this:
 

Do you have a suggestion on how to improve the team that involves no risk? And must teams when talking about backups for their players would be hard pressed to do better the Craig, Holt etc.

 
What the fuck does that even mean?  And if you think that Cespedes and Nava carry the same amount of risk as Victorino and Craig then you need to pay a little more attention.
 
I'm done.

 

[OptimusPapi]

 
No, if I was going to make an argument based on certain facts, and I could confirm those facts by simply clicking on ESPN, CBS, Fangraphs, or any number of sites with player bios, I would do so.
 
Your response to E5's point about replacing Cespedes and Nava was this:
 
 
What the fuck does that even mean?  And if you think that Cespedes and Nava carry the same amount of risk as Victorino and Craig then you need to pay a little more attention.
 
I'm done.

Maybe we should start worshiping you? You are full of shit if you never had a moment were you thought you had the facts hence no need to check and you were proven wrong. But I admitted that I was wrong and went on to ask a question about Latos but you are a bit of an ass so this is what you dwell on. Secondly replace must with what. Lastly risking a poor outfield in 2015 due to health concerns is in my opinion worth it if it means getting a top of the rotation pitcher for the foreseeable future. Any problems in the outfield can be rectified further in the season by trade, or in the offseason when there are a glut of outfielders available via FA.

 

[OptimusPapi]

 
Here's the thing, sport. If you're going to make part of your argument based on the age of a player, make sure you actually know the age of the player. It takes literally about 6 second to find out. It's not about being perfect. It's about putting even a modicum of effort in. The main board has become littered with your seemingly stock post of "oh, i was wrong about that, but anyway, now let me spout off more drivel". 
 
Here;s some simple tips: if you are using facts, do your best to make sure they are right. If you're posting opinion, ground it in something. 

If you don't like drivel sport why are you posting?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

tick...tick...tick

 

[glennhoffmania]

Paging Dr. Abs to page 4.  Dr. Abs to page 4 please.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Sorry for defending myself I forgot I was amongst sosh royalty

 

[absintheofmalaise]

OP - We have one main rule around here. You are breaking it every chance you get. You need to quit being so defensive when you reply to posts that question what you have posted.
Like others have said, if you are posting what you think are facts, make sure that they are actually true. If you are posting your opinion, make sure your opinion is based on sound reasoning. Something that you will be able to defend when questioned by others. In any debate you need to be able to see both sides so that you can effectively argue your side. Also, punctuation is your friend.

 

[sackamano]

nm

 

[OptimusPapi]

OP - We have one main rule around here. You are breaking it every chance you get. You need to quit being so defensive when you reply to posts that question what you have posted.
Like others have said, if you are posting what you think are facts, make sure that they are actually true. If you are posting your opinion, make sure your opinion is based on sound reasoning. Something that you will be able to defend when questioned by others. In any debate you need to be able to see both sides so that you can effectively argue your side. Also, punctuation is your friend.

I did defend my point and admitted I was wrong about Cueto age. I then proceeded to ask a question about Latos. At that point Glenn and PP kept harping on the mistake I made. I even at one point suggested we agree to disagree. The response to that was being referred to as sport which is a bit belittling. So maybe the problem lays more in the arrogance and mob mentality of certain posters?

 

[rodderick]

I did defend my point and admitted I was wrong about Cueto age. I then proceeded to ask a question about Latos. At that point Glenn and PP kept harping on the mistake I made. I even at one point suggested we agree to disagree. The response to that was being referred to as sport which is a bit belittling. So maybe the problem lays more in the arrogance and mob mentality of certain posters?

 

Just stop being so defensive and you'll be fine. You made a mistake, people called you out on it, it happens all the time here. Had you simply owned up to it instead of following up with a "I'll try to be perfect like you and PP" it would all have died down and the conversation would've kept rolling on as usual. Don't see this as a personal attack.