If we're sellers, who do we sell?

[Julius.R]

Eh, I'm not up for declaring this year to be merely a bridge year. I think we need a full rebuild/retool that involves cleaning up shop and acknowledging (perhaps just in the front office) that we will not and probably should not be contenders next year. I would try to trade everyone except the young players, Pedroia, and Ortiz. We need players to put people in the seats and to help the rookies, which should be Pedroia and Ortiz's main job (as well as trying to pad their stats for the HOF). Houston and Chicago have shown how powerful good drafts can be, and with our crop of lottery tickets, the ability to add to that, a few good drafts, and a renewed salary cap should be enough to start competing again. Right now we are competing against ourselves and should throw in the towel and let the rest of the AL East surrender their prospects for the ability to be swept in the first round. I think if we do what we did last year we will merely throw cash at aging players and find ourselves in limbo again. Maybe sign some players to a one-year prove it deal to either trade, cash in for a pick, or keep when we decide to go all in again. Trade everyone who we can get value for and let Kelly, Craig, Miley, and the rest of our underachieving roster try to prove it before shipping them out.   

 

[Plympton91]

Take a look at the Red Sox first round draft picks since 2006.  Then tell me you think that building through the draft is likely to work out.
 
The model the Red Sox should be following is the one they followed from 2003 to 2009;; Yankees-lite.   Make the playoffs every year and try to not have a manager (2003) screw it up.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Even the Yankees are having trouble doing the Yankees-lite thing since 2009. What makes you think a market still exists in which this is possible?

 

[Plympton91]

Even the Yankees are having trouble doing the Yankees-lite thing since 2009. What makes you think a market still exists in which this is possible?

 
Are they doing the same thing they did before 2009?  This is a topic of discussion in the Yankees thread, but I see a team being run poorly by its ownership rather than left in the hands of their very competent GM.   The whole should-we-or-shouldn't-we get below the luxury tax threshold in 2014 process screwed up their decisionmaking from 2013 to 2015.  If they'd just kept doing what they'd been doing they'd have had better teams for less money.
 
And for all the talk about their lack of attention to the farm system, have they really gotten less help from their farm over the past couple years than Boston?  Do they really have less impact talent?

 

[Erik Hanson's Hook]

 
Are they doing the same thing they did before 2009?  This is a topic of discussion in the Yankees thread, but I see a team being run poorly by its ownership rather than left in the hands of their very competent GM.   The whole should-we-or-shouldn't-we get below the luxury tax threshold in 2014 process screwed up their decisionmaking from 2013 to 2015.  If they'd just kept doing what they'd been doing they'd have had better teams for less money.
 
And for all the talk about their lack of attention to the farm system, have they really gotten less help from their farm over the past couple years than Boston?  Do they really have less impact talent?

 
But Plymp, our farm system is the best. Haven't you heard?

 

[FlyBono]

I disagree on Johnson. He needs a bullpen audition, though. But not one of his pitches are anywhere near as good as EdRo's fastball, and his future as a starter should not be assumed.

I say release Breslow to play with his newborn and cure cancer or whatever, and give Johnson the rest of the season to prove he can get MLB hitters out in the 6th-7th innings.

 
How do you come to that conclusion? Have you scouted Johnson first hand? 
 
One of the many problems in Boston is the Chinese Fire Drill with several positions. If you develop a 3B he plays Third, you develop a SP he starts.. 
Far as Owens, his command is killing his stock. Walk rates are up. I said it once I'll say it again, Owens is trade bait for an Ace with Ball in Salem..

 

[The X Man Cometh]

You literally just said in another thread we need to be more patient with Hanley learning left field. Which is it? Let him learn LF or subsidize his trip out of town?

 
I'm not Plympton91 but I don't think the two are inconsistent. Consider the statements:
 
1) Hanley Ramirez has an elite bat, therefore if we are keeping him, we should give him a chance to learn LF.
 
2) Hanley Ramirez has an elite bat, therefore if he is being a dink, we might be able to trade him while paying some freight.
 
The common thread is that Ramirez has a rare bat that can make someone happy over the 3 years remaining on his deal. When his health was not in question during April, we saw that.
 
I'm not going to say I'm pleased with Hanley so far, but I understood the signing in a vacuum and I think it has plenty of room to skew favorably for the Sox or someone else. Especially if he gets off his high horse and becomes this team's 1B next year, and can field with some competence.

 

[grimshaw]

Plus Johnson doesn't really have the kind of stuff that would have the secondary effect of "playing up" in the pen like Barnes' (in theory) could/should.  It's his command that is his strength.  
 
Now watch him come up and pitch the 7th and 8th next week, like I know anything.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

What else happens in this fantasy world?
 
The only way Ortiz gets dealt is if there's bad blood.

 
I think we find ourselves in violent agreement. My point about AL only is that it cuts the number of trade partners roughly in half.
 
And that's with respect to an already unlikely trade for a guy who has 5/10 right to veto any trade in the first place.

 

[Hagios]

 
...  but the front office deserves some serious questioning over their player acquisition strategy. Nothing this team did all winter has worked out; you can call that bad luck, but at a certain point, that doesn't hold water. And that's especially true given that this is now year three of four in which the Cherington front office has assembled a last-place squad.

 
That raises an interesting question - how much blame does the front office take for this season? They put together a team that was projected to win 87 games, and have improved on it since then. So what more do you want from them? Everyone tries to create a better projection system and they really can't do it. Even a deliberately dumb system like Marcel's comes very close to the most sophisticated projection system, which suggests that even with insider knowledge, you can only beat projection systems slightly. So it seems like a good FO should try to assemble a team that projects to 90 wins, give or take, and then it's a crapshoot from there.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

 
That raises an interesting question - how much blame does the front office take for this season? They put together a team that was projected to win 87 games, and have improved on it since then. So what more do you want from them? Everyone tries to create a better projection system and they really can't do it. Even a deliberately dumb system like Marcel's comes very close to the most sophisticated projection system, which suggests that even with insider knowledge, you can only beat projection systems slightly. So it seems like a good FO should try to assemble a team that projects to 90 wins, give or take, and then it's a crapshoot from there.

 
I don't see how you could not blame the FO for this season. Their job isn't to put together the best team on paper, its to put together the best team. And its not as if the adage "win some, lose some" applies here. Between the five most expensive offseason acquisitions - Ramirez, Sandoval, Porcello, Castillo, and Masterson - three are at or below replacement level so far. Sandoval is a tick above. If you are missing consistently, you have to re-evaluate your process.
 
As for the subject of the thread - Tazawa and Uehara are the players who scream "sell" right now. I'm not sure what the point of trading anyone else is - better to hope they improve first.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
I don't see how you could not blame the FO for this season. Their job isn't to put together the best team on paper, its to put together the best team. And its not as if the adage "win some, lose some" applies here. Between the five most expensive offseason acquisitions - Ramirez, Sandoval, Porcello, Castillo, and Masterson - three are at or below replacement level so far. Sandoval is a tick above. If you are missing consistently, you have to re-evaluate your process.
 
As for the subject of the thread - Tazawa and Uehara are the players who scream "sell" right now. I'm not sure what the point of trading anyone else is - better to hope they improve first.

 
Couple things...how exactly does a front office put together the "best team" if they're not trying to put together the best team "on paper"?  Without a crystal ball or a Delorean, I'm not sure how they can operate in any other way than trying to put together the best roster "on paper" and hope it translates on the field.
 
Second, are they really "missing consistently" if you're cherry-picking the acquisitions you're evaluating?  Not only cherry-picking, but choosing five that have had all of 3 months on the team?  Rather a small sample size to decide that they are all misses (though I'm prepared to grant you Masterson since he's a short term deal).
 
Not saying the front office is perfect by any means, but the same "process" that led them to sign Masterson and Mujica led them to sign Uehara and Napoli and Victorino, too.

 

[dcmissle]

Yes, but ...
 
1.  Ben was ball washed here for his brilliant deadline dealing last season; I was part of the chorus. 
 
So you take the good with the bad.  Something can't be brilliant, and then immune from criticism months later when the results begin to translate on the field.  (And whenever you think you may have gotten the better of the St. Louis Cardinals in one of these things, history counsels that maybe you should think again ...)
 
 
2.  The Masterson things was just so damn obvious to many of us heading in, as was the reliance on Buchholz and so forth.  Every optimistic scenario was predicated on the absolute best case from more than a few pitchers who had not come close to demonstrating that they would deliver best case individually, let alone collectively.  That was my biggest problem with the offseason -- it was not credible from a pitching standpoint. 
 
I'll never stop giving them credit for 2013, but all of the concerns raised here are legitimate. 

 

[The X Man Cometh]

 
Couple things...how exactly does a front office put together the "best team" if they're not trying to put together the best team "on paper"?  Without a crystal ball or a Delorean, I'm not sure how they can operate in any other way than trying to put together the best roster "on paper" and hope it translates on the field.
 
Second, are they really "missing consistently" if you're cherry-picking the acquisitions you're evaluating?  Not only cherry-picking, but choosing five that have had all of 3 months on the team?  Rather a small sample size to decide that they are all misses (though I'm prepared to grant you Masterson since he's a short term deal).
 
Not saying the front office is perfect by any means, but the same "process" that led them to sign Masterson and Mujica led them to sign Uehara and Napoli and Victorino, too.

 
I'm not saying that you need a crystal ball, I'm saying that projections don't represent a complete insight into building a team.
 
Projections isolate a set of variables that correlates with performance. Performance as measured in previous games, age, league averages. Are those the most important variables? Sure. But every team has access to that information. You have to win on the margins to be one of the strong front offices - SF, STL, etc. 
 
As for the turn of phrase "missing consistently", it seems like a fair statement to me. Ramirez, Sandoval, Cespedes, Porcello, Castillo, Masterson, Miley, Mujica, Drew 2.0, Sizemore, Pierzynski, Craig, and Kelly have struggled or failed to meet expectations despite considerable outlay. Is it too early? Yes. And I do sincerely believe that Porcello is going to someday blend his GB% past and K/9 present together and reward us. But I don't think its cherry picking at all - from winter 2013 to today its been the norm. Not to mention that, for a team that prides themselves on having a long view, the Sox seem to have missed the boat on the expanding strike zone and have changed tack on a near yearly basis in terms of embracing a new plan (last year being youth movement, the past 12 months being the "bats are a market inefficiency" phase)
 
The problem with applying broad, theory-heavy strokes to baseball acquisitions, in my personal opinion, is that the strength of a process-oriented approach is in volume. We talk on here about stabilization rates in hitting stats - volume gives you confidence  that nebulous factors will be ironed out. But a strong offseason hinges largely on a small number of decisions and its very easy to "luck into" the exceptions. We don't have the luxury of signing 100 Rusney Castillos and keeping the 60 good ones. Signing baseball players is necessarily case-by-case. And so far it looks like the variables being glossed over in the process (attitude problems, injury problems, inexperience) are consistently coming up tails right now.
 
I'm not trying to go EEI on anyone - hopefully these three months turn out to be just that. But I'd like to bring what I think is warranted criticism to the table.

 

[moondog80]

As for the turn of phrase "missing consistently", it seems like a fair statement to me. Ramirez, Sandoval, Cespedes, Porcello, Castillo, Masterson, Miley, Mujica, Drew 2.0, Sizemore, Pierzynski, Craig, and Kelly have struggled or failed to meet expectations despite considerable outlay. Is it too early? Yes.  And I do sincerely believe that Porcello is going to someday blend his GB% past and K/9 present together and reward us. But I don't think its cherry picking at all - from winter 2013 to today its been the norm

 
1. As you say, it's early.  Pablo Sandoval has had one bad month. His wRC+ is 96, ahead of Chase Headley, Adrian Beltre, and Josh Harrison. 
2. How was Cespedes a miss?  If anything it looks like maybe we should have kept him.
3. If I look at Cherrington's entire body of work instead of conveniently staring in winter 13, I get  Victorino, CRoss, DRoss, Shoppach, Napoli, Holt, Drew 1.0, Carp, Gomes, Koji, Badenhop all turned out OK.

 

[Hagios]

 
Projections isolate a set of variables that correlates with performance. Performance as measured in previous games, age, league averages. Are those the most important variables? Sure. But every team has access to that information. You have to win on the margins to be one of the strong front offices - SF, STL, etc. 

 
Sure, but the margin on paper projections is razor thin. Back when projections were made on batting average, home runs, RBIs, errors, wins, and losses, you had a lot of room to improve your projection system (blah blah moneyball, blah blah). Now? Even if teams are investing millions in big data analytics, they can only very slightly improve over Steamers or Pecota, or even Marcels. Right now the market inefficiencies would seem to be on things like pitcher health.
 
 

We don't have the luxury of signing 100 Rusney Castillos and keeping the 60 good ones. Signing baseball players is necessarily case-by-case. And so far it looks like the variables being glossed over in the process (attitude problems, injury problems, inexperience) are consistently coming up tails right now.

 
I think you're drawing the wrong lesson. You are correct that we don't have the luxury of signing 100 Rusney Castillos. But the correct conclusion is that there is a lot of luck. Some prospects work out and some don't and there is nothing that even the best FO can do to change that. You suggest that "(attitude problems, injury problems, inexperience)" may be the missing factors, but that seems pretty ad hoc to me. 
 
Attitude? Josh Beckett was lights out in 2003 and 2007 and a cancer in 2011. Lackey was a cancer then a hero. AJP was just a cancer. Ortiz was the heart and soul of the team but now he's a problem. I suppose that the FO should have stayed away from Ramirez, but his hitting was awesome until he ran into the wall.
 
Inexperience? Playing the kids worked out great in 2007. Sometimes prospects work out; sometimes they don't. Sometimes they have a quick transition to the majors; sometimes they don't. If anything, I think this criticism speaks to why we hope FO's are not like fans. We wishcast stardom on every prospect, and then demand to run them out for a bucket of balls if they don't immediately fulfill our dreams.
 
Injuries? I think this is remains a huge inefficiency, but that sounds like the job for the strength and conditioning coach. Who should the FO have signed or not signed? Was giving a one year deal to Masterson that big a deal? Should they have predicted that Ramirez might injure himself playing the outfield? 

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
Couple things...how exactly does a front office put together the "best team" if they're not trying to put together the best team "on paper"?  Without a crystal ball or a Delorean, I'm not sure how they can operate in any other way than trying to put together the best roster "on paper" and hope it translates on the field.

This is exactly the job of pro scouting, and why I've been calling for the head of Allard Baird since before Tito was sacked.

He heads up the "crystal ball and DeLorean" department, and is ultimately responsible for assessing what may be future issues beyond stats related to long-term contracts (e.g. Panda's weight, Hanley's ability to field LF), as well as with short-term MLB contracts (e.g. Jedi's reduced stuff, Porcello's ability to be a "stopper").

Amateur scouting hit on both EdRo and BROCKHOLT as recent trade acquisitions that absoluely no one would have placed on anyone's "best team on paper" ...while pro scouting has blessed us with the like Craig, Kelly, Porcello, and Miley.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

This is exactly the job of pro scouting, and why I've been calling for the head of Allard Baird since before Tito was sacked.

He heads up the "crystal ball and DeLorean" department, and is ultimately responsible for assessing what may be future issues beyond stats related to long-term contracts (e.g. Panda's weight, Hanley's ability to field LF), as well as with short-term MLB contracts (e.g. Jedi's reduced stuff, Porcello's ability to be a "stopper").

Amateur scouting hit on both EdRo and BROCKHOLT as recent trade acquisitions that absoluely no one would have placed on anyone's "best team on paper" ...while pro scouting has blessed us with the like Craig, Kelly, Porcello, and Miley.

 
Side note - what does it say that two of the biggest recent success stories from the team's farm system are players who were acquired in trades and not originally drafted or signed by the Red Sox?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
Side note - what does it say that two of the biggest recent success stories from the team's farm system are players who were acquired in trades and not originally drafted or signed by the Red Sox?

 
I don't think it says a whole lot, and I disagree with the implication in your question.  Rodriguez is off to a hot start (last outing notwithstanding), but I don't think he can be classified as any more of a success story to this point than Bogaerts or Betts, who are 100% Red Sox "bred".  Both those guys experienced pretty hot starts themselves (first 200 PA or so) before the league caught up with them a bit.  Wouldn't be surprised to see Rodriguez come back to earth a bit as the league has more time to scout and data with which to prepare for him.

 

[Hagios]

 
Side note - what does it say that two of the biggest recent success stories from the team's farm system are players who were acquired in trades and not originally drafted or signed by the Red Sox?

 
You would take Holt over Betts or Bogaerts? (All three have essentially the same WAR, but Betts and Bogaerts are 22 whereas Holt is 27).

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

 
Side note - what does it say that two of the biggest recent success stories from the team's farm system are players who were acquired in trades and not originally drafted or signed by the Red Sox?

That there was a gap between the Pedroia/Ellsbury/Lester/Buchholz/Masterson/Bard crop of prospects and the current one. Iglesias, Kelly, WMB, and Rizzo were traded away. Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, JBJ, and Vasquez have all played in MLB with varying degrees of success and/or promise. It's not that the farm system hasn't been productive, or that the productivity comes from another team's draft picks, it's that the team didn't hold onto its most successful prospects in the 2009-2013 or so period.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
You would take Holt over Betts or Bogaerts? (All three have essentially the same WAR, but Betts and Bogaerts are 22 whereas Holt is 27).

 
Don't recall saying anything about anyone "over" anyone else. 

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
Side note - what does it say that two of the biggest recent success stories from the team's farm system are players who were acquired in trades and not originally drafted or signed by the Red Sox?

It means the same thing as always, that the minors are a numbers game.

Holding onto prospects at all costs isn't the answer either, of course. For the signing of every 17-yr old Xander Bogaerts, there's way more than one 17-yr old Michael Almanzar inked.

But being able to distinguish the value of the team's best prospects in direct relation to current MLB talent is the real trick. And that's where the real problem has recently been for the Sox, as I see it. It's been clear for quite a few years (since Ellsbury In 2008 ), that pro scouting has been over-valuing non-elite MLB vets on a consistent basis.

 

[Super Nomario]

But being able to distinguish the value of the team's best prospects in direct relation to current MLB talent is the real trick. And that's where the real problem has recently been for the Sox, as I see it. It's been clear for quite a few years (since Ellsbury In 2008 ), that pro scouting has been over-valuing non-elite MLB vets on a consistent basis.

I'm not sure which direction the causation arrow points. Every team knows you should build through the farm system, but what do you do when it doesn't work? I don't think the Red Sox have decided to go for mid-tier vets over young players, but when they failed to develop young players through bad luck (Westmoreland, Kalish), trading away guys for big stars (Kelly and Rizzo), and busts (Lars Anderson and a bevy of Jason Places and Kolbrin Viteks), then what? The alternatives are committing big money and big years to stars (which they tried with Gonzalez and Crawford) or going after these kind of mid-tier guys.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I'm not sure which direction the causation arrow points. Every team knows you should build through the farm system, but what do you do when it doesn't work? I don't think the Red Sox have decided to go for mid-tier vets over young players, but when they failed to develop young players through bad luck (Westmoreland, Kalish), trading away guys for big stars (Kelly and Rizzo), and busts (Lars Anderson and a bevy of Jason Places and Kolbrin Viteks), then what? The alternatives are committing big money and big years to stars (which they tried with Gonzalez and Crawford) or going after these kind of mid-tier guys.

Short-term contracts for mid-tier guys in complementary roles is what made both 2004 and 2013 roll. They're a good thing. Long-term contracts for mid-tier guys, not so much. Especially now with TV deals and revenue sharing leveling the playing field of financial haves vs. the have-nots.

 

[Super Nomario]

Short-term contracts for mid-tier guys in complementary roles is what made both 2004 and 2013 roll. They're a good thing. Long-term contracts for mid-tier guys, not so much. Especially now with TV deals and revenue sharing leveling the playing field of financial haves vs. the have-nots.

The 2004 and 2013 squads also had a lot more star power than this year's Sox. I think the longer deals are because they went after younger guys, owing to a complete dearth of prime-aged talent.

 

[Toe Nash]

I'm not sure which direction the causation arrow points. Every team knows you should build through the farm system, but what do you do when it doesn't work? I don't think the Red Sox have decided to go for mid-tier vets over young players, but when they failed to develop young players through bad luck (Westmoreland, Kalish), trading away guys for big stars (Kelly and Rizzo), and busts (Lars Anderson and a bevy of Jason Places and Kolbrin Viteks), then what? The alternatives are committing big money and big years to stars (which they tried with Gonzalez and Crawford) or going after these kind of mid-tier guys.

Or one can just try to build through the system again until you have a core you can build around with outside acquisitions. So the strategy last offseason would be to pass on Hanley and Panda and maybe Porcello, and try re-treads and castoffs at those positions for the year hoping you find a gem, and then when it seems like Betts / Bogaerts / Swihart / Owens / Rodriguez / whoever are ready to play starring roles on the team, work to fill in around them.
 
But the team is too impatient for that, or thinks the fans are too impatient. I would argue that they would get less anger and overall more fan interest if they "let the kids play" and had low-ish payrolls if they honestly felt they didn't have the core of stars to compete, rather than spending huge money on guys who are average at best. But maybe the casual fan really does buy a ticket to go see Panda, I don't know.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Or one can just try to build through the system again until you have a core you can build around with outside acquisitions. So the strategy last offseason would be to pass on Hanley and Panda and maybe Porcello, and try re-treads and castoffs at those positions for the year hoping you find a gem, and then when it seems like Betts / Bogaerts / Swihart / Owens / Rodriguez / whoever are ready to play starring roles on the team, work to fill in around them.
 
But the team is too impatient for that, or thinks the fans are too impatient. I would argue that they would get less anger and overall more fan interest if they "let the kids play" and had low-ish payrolls if they honestly felt they didn't have the core of stars to compete, rather than spending huge money on guys who are average at best. But maybe the casual fan really does buy a ticket to go see Panda, I don't know.

Without Hanley Ramirez going bat shit crazy in April before he got hurt this team might have 10 wins. I think he's playing hurt. You can't just call up the Pawsox and put Travis Shaw at 1st like some posters have suggested for the last two years. Or you can't just replace Hanley with JBJ. If you want to watch a team churn through a rebuild over and over again then I would invite you to watch the Royals rebuilding project for the last 20+ years. Sure they are the defending AL champs but how long did it take them? The Pirates still haven't made the World Series in how long?

Sure the front office made mistakes but it would be an equally big mistake to try and focus solely on building from the minors. For every Mookie Betts there's 5 Michael Coleman's. For every Eduardo Rodriguez there's 10 Vaughn Eshelmans.

You need to build through the farm, trades, and signings. The reason why Hanley and Panda were brought in was because of the FO failure to find a 3B and a power bat in a trade or in the system.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Or one can just try to build through the system again until you have a core you can build around with outside acquisitions. So the strategy last offseason would be to pass on Hanley and Panda and maybe Porcello, and try re-treads and castoffs at those positions for the year hoping you find a gem, and then when it seems like Betts / Bogaerts / Swihart / Owens / Rodriguez / whoever are ready to play starring roles on the team, work to fill in around them.
 
But the team is too impatient for that, or thinks the fans are too impatient. I would argue that they would get less anger and overall more fan interest if they "let the kids play" and had low-ish payrolls if they honestly felt they didn't have the core of stars to compete, rather than spending huge money on guys who are average at best. But maybe the casual fan really does buy a ticket to go see Panda, I don't know.

 
The thing is, signing/acquiring Hanley and Sandoval and Porcello doesn't run counter to the notion of building through the system.  All three play a position that needs to be filled not just in 2015 but for the next couple years as well.  There's no third baseman knocking on the door or racing through the system.  There's no clear and obvious LF candidate in the system either.  And even if they were to find themselves with an abundance of young OF in a year or two, the DH spot is obviously going to open up within the next couple years.  They need five starting pitchers at any given time, now and next year and the year after.
 
I'm not sure there's any difference between who they signed and going after re-treads other than saving a few bucks and perhaps sacrificing some ceiling.  This team isn't going to cheap out and reduce payroll to middle of the pack just because they're in a "re-build".  I don't think it's impatience that prompted the acquisitions this past winter, nor do I think it's marketing based.  They went out and got guys they liked for positions of need.  We can question their scouting, I suppose, but I can't see how their motivations were anything but 100% baseball based.

 

[Toe Nash]

OK, but LF, DH and 1B are theoretically the easiest positions to find. The Jays are getting good production from Smoak and Colabello who they got for free (and they have a couple stars in Encarnacion and Bautista that they got for very little). Those gems are hard to find but a season like this one would be a perfect time to take a few gambles and hope you hit on someone. If no one works out, well, you're in the same place you started but you're not committed to anyone. If it works out you have a gem and you can spend the money elsewhere. The problem with signing a Panda is you can't give anyone else the opportunity.
 
I knew someone was going to bring up how there were no 3b on the market or in the system; fine-- that doesn't mean you overpay an average one. Things change really quickly and if they were honest with themselves they would have figured that by the time they were ready to compete (2017, really) the landscape would likely completely change. Someone would come available, or a young player would emerge, or they could find someone to come out of nowhere.
 
I'm not advocating always solely building through the minors, if you had actually read my post. I'm advocating being honest with where you are and how close you are to competing and not overpaying for guys who are at best going to take you from 80 to 85 wins. Maybe they just screwed up that evaluation, it would fit the pattern.
 
Finally, seeing the ads on NESN and around Boston this winter, with Panda and Haney plastered everywhere, I have a hard time believing marketing didn't play into the decisions just a wee bit.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

OK, but LF, DH and 1B are theoretically the easiest positions to find. The Jays are getting good production from Smoak and Colabello who they got for free (and they have a couple stars in Encarnacion and Bautista that they got for very little). Those gems are hard to find but a season like this one would be a perfect time to take a few gambles and hope you hit on someone. If no one works out, well, you're in the same place you started but you're not committed to anyone. If it works out you have a gem and you can spend the money elsewhere. The problem with signing a Panda is you can't give anyone else the opportunity.
 
I knew someone was going to bring up how there were no 3b on the market or in the system; fine-- that doesn't mean you overpay an average one. Things change really quickly and if they were honest with themselves they would have figured that by the time they were ready to compete (2017, really) the landscape would likely completely change. Someone would come available, or a young player would emerge, or they could find someone to come out of nowhere.
 
I'm not advocating always solely building through the minors, if you had actually read my post. I'm advocating being honest with where you are and how close you are to competing and not overpaying for guys who are at best going to take you from 80 to 85 wins. Maybe they just screwed up that evaluation, it would fit the pattern.
 
Finally, seeing the ads on NESN and around Boston this winter, with Panda and Haney plastered everywhere, I have a hard time believing marketing didn't play into the decisions just a wee bit.

I know you watched the games last year. What constitutes an opportunity more than what they gave Middlebrooks last year? Or what they gave Holt or Xander or anyone else. Cecchini has close to no value anymore and Devers is roughly 2-3 years away and we don't know how he's going to handle AA and AAA pitching. I know a post in here mentioned this earlier but the 2004 Red Sox had very little home grown talent and won. If you're a big market team like Boston it makes no sense to play with a 100 million dollar payroll. People get caught up with the "romantic side" of this guy was drafted by us and we stuck by him and now he represents us, a true Red Sox!!! In reality this line of thinking fails more times than it succeeded.

Now obviously that being said I've seen a bunch of the prospects in the system. There is a lot of cause for optimism and excitement. However you need to build the core of the team first. I would argue that they have a semblance of the core in

Eddie
Hanley
Pedroia
Panda
Betts
Xander
Swihart

But you can't win with 7 players. Castillo no one knows if he's a core player and Papi at 39 isn't considered a part of the actual core going forward.

If you're selling you sell the pieces that teams would overpay on. Napoli, the pen, an NL team would probably take Miley etc...Victorino probably would hold some value as a playoff tested fourth outfielder etc...

You clean out the minors of the guys such as Craig Hembree Hinoja and Brentz and bring them up to see if they have any future.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Yeah, I was thinking about raising this issue after last night.   Thought it was a hair early, and that I'd wait until someone else brought it up. 
 
We're at 27-33 (25-35 pythag).  102 games left.  It's recently taken 88 wins (or more) to get to the second wild card spot.   So they'd have to go 61-40 in the remaining games.  That's a .603 winning percentage.  If you want to be safer and get to 90 wins, it's 63-38, a .623 percentage.  They'd basically have to be as good as STL or KC has been thus far.  But for twice as long. 
 
Sure, it's possible.  But this team has that "if only it all started working right" feel to it since the beginning.  Sort of like 2012 (or 2014), but now with everyone saying the right things (and no BV).  Speaking of 2012, the Punto trade was on Aug 25.  But the ownership must have felt that team was out of it well before that point.   The day of the trade the Sox were 60-67, a .472 winning percentage.  The 2012 Sox were at .487 on June 11.  Last year we had the fire sale at the trade deadline - July 31st (the big trade day) saw us at 48-60, .444.   The 2014 Sox were at .446 on June 11.
 
We're currently at .450.  The team probably has 30 days until management starts dialing the phones. 

 
5 days can make a difference.  (And my math sucks.)
 
AM of June 15, 2015: .415, 27-38.  Pythag: .402  97 games left.  For 88 wins: .628, 61-36.   For 90 wins: .649, 63-34.
AM of June 15, 2014: .456, 31-37.  Pythag: .607  94 left.
AM of June 15, 2013: .594, 41-28.  Pythag: .474  93 left.
AM of June 15, 2012: .492, 31-32.  Pythag: .539  99 left.
AM of June 15, 2011: .591, 39-27.  Pythag: .593  96 left.
 
That hypothetical 10 game post team-meeting winning streak that I keep fantasizing about would place us at 37-38, 87 games left, aroundabout July 26.  For 88 wins: .586, 51-36.
 
So we're still within range of a possible run, given an unlikely fluke happening.  
 
***
Who'd have thought this team would have underperformed the 2012 and 2014 squads by this point in the season?  Not me.  At worst I figured we'd be a .500-ish throwback Sox team - slugging and slowish, with nail-biting pitching.  At least that'd be fun to watch, and, with a prime pitching call up or two, a team poised to make a rush.  Now, we've got a team that's painful to watch, with no predictable excellent performance from any one aspect of the club.  
 
Memory is so subjective.  In retrospect, the 2011 collapse, while frustrating, should seem even more so now.  Perhaps the Punto Trade changes the severity of it.  

 

[soxhop411]

“@alexspeier: David Ortiz tells @nickcafardo he wouldn’t agree to be traded; he plans to remain w/Sox for duration of his career http://t.co/tpkU2xvK6A”

 

[jasail]

“@alexspeier: David Ortiz tells @nickcafardo he wouldn’t agree to be traded; he plans to remain w/Sox for duration of his career http://t.co/tpkU2xvK6A”

 
Why would he? We talk about these guys like assets. But here's a guy who is a legend in this town, owns a villa in the nicest suburb of Boston, has a family and could make $20M over the next two seasons if he's respectable at his job. IMO, my biggest issue with this is we are going to wish Ortiz away to make room for Hanley at DH, rather than loving what that big man has done for this team as he retires. It's emotional, but David should be celebrated...

 

[MuzzyField]

 
Why would he? We talk about these guys like assets. But here's a guy who is a legend in this town, owns a villa in the nicest suburb of Boston, has a family and could make $20M over the next two seasons if he's respectable at his job. IMO, my biggest issue with this is we are going to wish Ortiz away to make room for Hanley at DH, rather than loving what that big man has done for this team as he retires. It's emotional, but David should be celebrated...

I think he's already has been celebrated enough. Hit, or retire and make room for the replacement DH that wanted to play with you.

 

[soxhop411]

“@Ken_Rosenthal: Yes, I’m advocating that the #RedSox find takers for Hanley and Pablo. Fix the mess. Admit the mistakes. Column: http://t.co/FbohD5O5v7”

 

[johnnywayback]

“@Ken_Rosenthal: Yes, I’m advocating that the #RedSox find takers for Hanley and Pablo. Fix the mess. Admit the mistakes. Column: http://t.co/FbohD5O5v7”

 
Uh huh.  And then, according to Rosenthal, we trade for Hamels (losing more prospects in addition to the ones we give up to ditch Hanley and Pablo) and sign Cueto (spending more cash in addition to what we spend to ditch Hanley and Pablo) and then, I guess, here's our 2016 lineup: Pedroia 2B, Holt 3B, Ortiz DH, Bogaerts SS, Castillo LF, Betts RF, Bradley CF, Shaw 1B, Swihart C?  That's assuming we're okay with Holt full-time at 3B, and that Ortiz's decline isn't terminal, and that Castillo and Bradley and Shaw and Swihart are major-league hitters.  And it's still not good.
 
The logic behind these signings was that offense is an increasingly rare commodity.  The players we signed have underperformed.  But the logic was sound.  If we want to compete in 2016 -- and with our young core, we absolutely should be planning to compete in 2016 -- someone has to hit in the middle of the lineup, and we're just not producing that kind of hitter in our system.  If you're saying we should get rid of the two guys we signed to solve that problem, you should explain your alternative solution to it.

 

[ShaneTrot]

“@Ken_Rosenthal: Yes, I’m advocating that the #RedSox find takers for Hanley and Pablo. Fix the mess. Admit the mistakes. Column: http://t.co/FbohD5O5v7”

This column is terrible. Good business is not selling low. How much value do Pablo and Hanley have?

 

[Harry Hooper]

It's been a total team effort with every component of the club contributing their own failures to get the Sox to last place, yet somehow removing Hanley and Pablo rights the ship? Sure.
 
 
Addendum: Rosenthal thinks BobbyV was scapegoated. Ken put less thought into that piece than Pablo did on Instagram.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I think that Cherrington has to stick to his guns on Sandoval and Ramirez. In the last three years the roster has kept overturning and overturning and overturning. At some point you have to say, "For better or worse, this is my plan and it may not be working right now but it will eventually work out." Which is normally the opposite of what I liked about Duquette and Epstein (for the most part, they were pretty quick to admit when they screwed up and got guys that they screwed up on out of town; especially compared to Lou Gorman) but I think that Cherrington has to give this a bit of time.
 
You can't punt on your two big offseason acquisitions less than a year into four-year-deals.  

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think he's already has been celebrated enough. Hit, or retire and make room for the replacement DH that wanted to play with you.

 
At the least, if he's going to refuse a trade then he needs to be willing to accept a platoon without squawking. 

 

[The X Man Cometh]

 
Uh huh.  And then, according to Rosenthal, we trade for Hamels (losing more prospects in addition to the ones we give up to ditch Hanley and Pablo) and sign Cueto (spending more cash in addition to what we spend to ditch Hanley and Pablo) and then, I guess, here's our 2016 lineup: Pedroia 2B, Holt 3B, Ortiz DH, Bogaerts SS, Castillo LF, Betts RF, Bradley CF, Shaw 1B, Swihart C?  That's assuming we're okay with Holt full-time at 3B, and that Ortiz's decline isn't terminal, and that Castillo and Bradley and Shaw and Swihart are major-league hitters.  And it's still not good.
 
The logic behind these signings was that offense is an increasingly rare commodity.  The players we signed have underperformed.  But the logic was sound.  If we want to compete in 2016 -- and with our young core, we absolutely should be planning to compete in 2016 -- someone has to hit in the middle of the lineup, and we're just not producing that kind of hitter in our system.  If you're saying we should get rid of the two guys we signed to solve that problem, you should explain your alternative solution to it.

 
The lineup would be worse in this scenario, sure. But pitching would go from a weakness to a strength. And defense would go from a weakness to a strength. Its pretty easy to see a better ballclub overall if you subtract Ramirez and Sandoval and add Cueto and Hamels.
I'm not saying we should do it. The last thing I'd want to do is trade position player prospects for Hamels. The cost would be enormous. But the ballclub would certainly be better, maybe not at selling animal shaped hats or scoring runs but winning games. And frankly, at 29-39 in one of the game's weaker divisions, and performing above Pythagorean expectation, better is an awfully low bar to clear.

 

[dynomite]

 
 If we want to compete in 2016 -- and with our young core, we absolutely should be planning to compete in 2016 -- someone has to hit in the middle of the lineup, and we're just not producing that kind of hitter in our system.  If you're saying we should get rid of the two guys we signed to solve that problem, you should explain your alternative solution to it.

I'll give you Hanley, but is Panda really a middle of the order bat we can't develop?

Since 2011 Panda's averaged 14 HR and a .759 OPS. This season he's roughly at his recent averages across the board, and his .733 OPS is 8th among AL 3B.

This season Holt's up to .876 (I'm counting him because he became a good player in our system at AAA), with Mookie and Xander at .718.

It's not ideal, but I think the Sox system has done pretty well thus far.

Edit: And that's without mentioning players like Reddick and Rizzo who were scouted and developed by many people who remain in the Sox front office.

 

[grimshaw]

Per Alex Speier, Henry Owens has issued the most walks in pro baseball.  So Owens is probably not going to help you get a frontline starter.
How does that happen when NL pitchers intentionally walk way more players than AL pitchers do?
 
I'm ok with subsidizing one of Pablo or Hanley.  Hanley is probably a lot easier to move and would make a good DH elsewhere.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
I'm ok with subsidizing one of Pablo or Hanley.  Hanley is probably a lot easier to move and would make a good DH elsewhere.

What team needs or even could use a dedicated DH, though?

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I'm ok with subsidizing one of Pablo or Hanley.  Hanley is probably a lot easier to move and would make a good DH elsewhere.
 

 
Who is your DH next year? I would bet that Panda ends up moving to first in two year, furthermore I don't think he hits enough to be a full-time designated hitter. 

 

[Sprowl]

Cockles and mussels, alive alive O

 

[dynomite]

What team needs or even could use a dedicated DH, though?

Not for a DH, and might be a stretch financially and practically, but what about the Astros?

Their starting 3B Luis Valbuena is hitting .185 and that team might want a veteran with playoff experience if they're seriously contending now. It's a bit of a crowded lineup with Lowrie returning and Gattis at DH, but they've discussed using Lowrie as a Zobrist/Holt type recently.

Indeed, to make things more complicated the Sox could take Lowrie as a return in the trade?

Edit: it's a silly pipe dream. But it's more fun than thinking about the real season at the moment!

 

[moondog80]

Sandoval's AVG/OBP/SLG are below last year's by exactly 9, 1, and 6 points. Fielding has stunk but no reason to think that's anything more than a fluke.

 

[czar]

Sandoval's AVG/OBP/SLG are below last year's by exactly 9, 1, and 6 points. Fielding has stunk but no reason to think that's anything more than a fluke.

 
The bigger problem is that that AVG/OBP/SLG isn't $95m good. I'd almost rather him be totally in the tank relative to last year because at least I'd have hope of some upside. If a 105-110 wRC+ is his ceiling...