Brentz had surgery on his thumb last week and is out at least two months. There will be no "seeing what he's got to offer" with him this year.
Hoping to curtail any "itchiness" to trade for the sake of trading, Al.Al Zarilla said:You're expecting poison ivy? Mike Ivie?
And then there was the knee injury - unrelated to shooting himself in the leg.Buzzkill Pauley said:It's unfortunate, but the thumb injury to Brentz, when set along side his self-inflicted gunshot wound, means he really has lost his best opportunities.
E5 Yaz said:There's a very real possibility that they'll have to win the division to earn a playoff spot.
At the risk of being fairly criticized for a lack of analysis - no, no they do not.Savin Hillbilly said:
Of course this is possible, but it seems unlikely given that if the season ended now, there would be three AL East teams in playoffs.
The problem isn't that they need to win the division, the problem is that they need to play substantially better than at least two, more realistically three teams, all of whom also play each other.
This is not altogether implausible if you assume that there is substantial untapped potential in this team as it stands--i.e., if you assume that the team as a whole has significantly underperformed. If that's true, then all that's required for them to stage a plausible comeback run is for them to significantly overperform. If their true talent is that of a .525 team, then an overperformance equal to their underperformance so far would have them playing about .610 ball the rest of the way, or 52-33, for a final record of 86-76.
If they go 52-33 the rest of the way, then to cop a wild card spot they need the other teams in the division, plus Minnesota, to play just a game or two over .500 the rest of the way, and teams like Detroit, the Angels and the Rangers to play no better than about 7-8 games over .500. All of this seems possible, though it would require a ton of luck. The question is really, do they have enough untapped potential to play .600+ ball the rest of the way?
I wouldn't bank on this for the rest of 2015.Sampo Gida said:Eduardo and Clay are pitching reasonably well at the front end of the rotation
Sampo Gida said:I think the team has the ability to come back and win 90 games, provided that they add some pieces (and asuming Hanleys wrist/hand is not broken). Eduardo and Clay are pitching reasonably well at the front end of the rotation and the offense is showing signs of life. Pieces needed are
Ace like SP'er
1B platoon candidate against RHP'ers
What would it take to get Hamels and Howard (797 OPS vs RHP'ers) a package?. Taking on Howard might reduce the prospect requirement for Hamels depending on how much salary the Phillies eat for Howard. The salary bump might be an issue but JWH has the money since the LT threshold has not kept pace with payroll and revenue inflation and they are paying the lowest tax rate this year . None of the prospects down on the farm is an untouchable IMO, even Moncada (can he be traded? PTBNL until he can?). Heck, even Castillo can be dealt (Red Sox eating most of salary of course).
But they don't have to be limited to Hamels and Howard, there may be better deals out their
They sold off in 2012 and 2014, enough is enough with the waving of the white flag and cries of wait for next year . Can't keep waving the flag every year when things don't go you way. Missing the playoffs 5 of 6 years is just something really hard to do and not acceptable, as is 3 last place finishes in 4 years. How long will fans continue to deal with the highest ticket prices in baseball only to watch meaningless games in August/Sep. This has to be a concern of ownership.
The Howard contact is getting close to over. It's 25 million for 2016 then a ten million dollar buyout for 2017 unless someone feels like picking up a 23 million dollar option.ivanvamp said:
Howard is one of the worst contracts in baseball. If the Sox want Hamels, I would think that taking on Howard would greatly reduce the package they'd need to send Philly in return.
Heck, add Papelbon for bullpen insurance and then all you need to give them is a B-level prospect maybe. Philly very much wants to shed big salary.
Of course, Amaro is impossible to deal with, so who knows.
Are you really sure you're a decent judge of reality?Rudy Pemberton said:The Phillies are suddenly going to be cool with getting few prospects in return for Hamels as long as they can dump Howard? Even though the cash isn't a huge problem for them and lack of good players is? The last place Red Sox are going to be OK with adding a ton of salary in Hamels and
Howard in a desperate bid for...something? That 39 points of OPS Howard has over Napoli upgrades the "black hole position"?
Can these suggestions / proposals be grounded in some form of reality?
Rasputin said:I think the difference between packing it in and going for it with the available resources is pretty slim.
In reality you can't do some of this. Due to the luxury tax, it'll take a ton to bring Craig up. You're talking 4 or 5 injuries and an OPS north of .900 for a long period of time.nattysez said:I agree. If anything, rather than "packing it in," the FO should get emboldened by the lousy results and the chastened state of the players to do things that are not going to be popular but may help the team in the short and long term.
(1) platoon Hanley and Ortiz at DH so that Ortiz does not hit against lefties anymore. Hanley can play LF against righties if the FO insists on continuing that farce.
(2) waive Napoli if things don't improve soon and start auditioning in-house options at first (potentially including Craig and Hanley).
(3) leave ShaneVic on the DL unless he is 100% healthy and raking in AAA. If he does both of those things at any point, bring him up only long enough to showcase him and trade him.
(4) give JBJ and deAza lots of ABs to see what they bring to the table. I'd say this about Castillo as well, but that ship has apparently sailed for the time being and once Pedroia is back, even getting Holt, Mookie, JBJ, deAza and ShaneVic consistent ABs is going to be tough.
(5) continue what they're doing with the 'pen, bringing up youngsters to see what they have (or in the case of Barnes, don't have).
Why? He's not a rental, so he's exactly the type of guy who should be targeted.Danny_Darwin said:I can't believe we are still talking about trading for Cole Hamels.
Interesting that you referenced those somewhat improbable comebacks as I made a list of my one over different time frames for Games Remaining. For example, we could list the '67 Red Sox, '64 Cards but that was a collapse of epic perportions, the 78 Yanks (sorry to bring that up) or more recently the 02 A's and the '07 Rockies.Todd Benzinger said:Savin made a very interesting post that I wanted to hear more about, but it was in the JBJ thread. The big question under debate was whether or not the Sox should stop thinking about the postseason already and start looking at the rest of 2015 as developmental time/ tryouts for 2016.
Savin pointed out that a number of teams before the 2nd WC era would've made it from as far back as the Sox are now. And I would add, those teams didn't have the 2nd wildcard to shoot for, so it is possible that they were less aggressive in terms of getting the best team on the field than they could've been.
Obviously, of course, this anecdotal list does not at all prove that the Sox would be wise to keep going for it. If 8 teams would have made it over 12 years, many more would not have. OTOH, the Sox have vastly underperformed preseason projections, so there is some theoretical hope that they are much better in terms of underlying talent than they have shown.
In the context of the discussion in the JBJ thread, the question was if the Sox should favor De Aza or JBJ. But it seems possible to me that JBJ might actually do more to help the team win than De Aza would anyway. IOW, it is possible that taking the developmental/2016 approach could actually lead to better results on the field... And certainly going young with the pitching could help--I have more hope for Brian Johnson going forward than for Masterson... And maybe cutting ties with vets like Napoli would actually be good either way.
So, I wanted to hear the thoughts of SoSH on this issue. What approach would you favor? How thoroughly doomed are the Sox for the postseason this year?
Snodgrass'Muff said:The proposed deal of Howard, Papelbon and Hamels for a B prospect makes zero sense for either team. The last thing the Red Sox need is to add more high paid, under performing players to the roster. Hamels is a great upgrade for the rotation, but Howard would cost at least 10 million next year, even if he doesn't play for the Sox. Papelbon's option will probably vest, and even if it's not a sure thing, he'll probably insist on it being guaranteed by the Red Sox to waive his no trade clause and his value beyond this year is highly questionable. This isn't a move that is likely to make them a better team overall, even if the cost is virtually nothing as it would make it nearly impossible to get under the luxury tax threshold next year.
Then there's the Phillies who would be giving up their two best trade assets for a B prospect. Hamels shouldn't go anywhere without getting a very good prospect+ in return, and Papelbon is probably worth as much as Koji. Would anyone here be happy if Koji was simply tossed into a trade as salary relief?
There is nothing realistic or logical about that proposal.
Mostly I just feel like the topic has been discussed to death, but perhaps more importantly, has there been anything to indicate the Red Sox are still interested at this point? Would he waive his no-trade clause to join a last-place team when there are assuredly going to be contenders vying for his services?Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:Why? He's not a rental, so he's exactly the type of guy who should be targeted.
There are definitely players who have better major league numbers than their minor league numbers would predict - probably, in fact, most players with substantial MLB careers. To me, this looks like selection bias rather than something that should dictate how young players are handled. Players that do better than expected stick around; players that fare worse disappear and we forget about them. It should go without saying that far more players who struggle at AAA fail in the major leagues than find success.Drek717 said:I'm operating under the assumption that when it comes to 24+ year old prospects in the middle of a lost season it's time to shit or get off the pot.
A lot of very good players had down seasons/poor tenures in AAA only to turn it on in the majors, for a variety of factors. Josh Reddick for example has a ML line less than .010 points behind his AAA OPS in 740 ABs at that level. Brandon Moss saw his OPS jump nearly .050 points in the move from AA to AAA (over 1000 ABs in AA before then) and his 2012 OPS was about .100 points over his career AAA numbers. Hanley Ramirez was a career .752 OPS hitter with over 600 ABs in AA (no AAA time) and has since been an .870 OPS MLer. These are just old Sox farmhands I can recall quickly mind you.
I don't get the idea that we can "see what we have" by plugging these guys in and seeing what happens. Will Middlebrooks, for instance, hit .288/.325/.509 when the Sox ran him out there for 286 PA in 2012, but he totally fell off a cliff after that. We didn't find out what we had in 2012 - we were misled by his hot streak. If they call up Brentz or Cecchini and they have a hot 200 PAs, what does that tell us that their 750-1000 mediocre AAA PAs does not? It seems to me that it's as likely to result in overreactions based on small sample size as to provide any meaningful information.Drek717 said:Bryce Brentz is 26 years old, is either going to have his breakout at the ML level, be the next Johnny Gomes, or is going to wash out in the very near future. So why not give him some ABs and see what we have?
Same for Cecchini. He looked like a corpse for the first 2/3rds of last year in AAA. Put it together for a little while just before the September call-ups, then in a small sample looked better and put up better numbers than he had in AAA. Same scenario is likely playing out again this year. Lets maybe prevent that sample from being so small this time and find out if he's worth having around.
None of these guys are going to revive their trade value in AAA. Cecchini is in year two at AAA and still struggling to make consistent contact, which was supposed to be his calling card. Likely because he's fucking with his swing trying to gain power because he thinks that's what is needed to make the bigs. He also doesn't look capable of sticking at 3B as a full time ML regular.
Shaw has actually got the bat going a bit this year in AAA now after a very slow start but he's always just rode the pine when called up. Again, like Cecchini the word is he lacks power for the position, but then that was also the knock on Youkilis and he developed power in the majors. Neither of these guys are close to Youk on contact or OBP, but then we don't need them to post a .900 OPS to be an upgrade either. .800 out of 1B would look like mana from heaven right about now.
So dump Napoli and Vic, platoon Brentz with Hanley in LF and spell Ortiz against LHP (who still isn't hitting LHP, he just hasn't faced as many LHP of late), Cecchini and Shaw can duke it out for 1B playing time with Holt slotting in there over them when no one else needs a day off. See if these guys are even worth 40 man roster spots and get done with it instead of hanging onto everyone well into post-prospect status and never giving them a real taste of the majors. Especially in years when we already suck.
I don't want Craig up if he is cooked. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.NDame616 said:In reality you can't do some of this. Due to the luxury tax, it'll take a ton to bring Craig up. You're talking 4 or 5 injuries and an OPS north of .900 for a long period of time.
Also, Victorino is on a rehab clock in AAA. He wasn't optioned. You can't simply store him down there and see how he hits.
nattysez said:I don't want Craig up if he is cooked. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
ShaneVic can't play consecutive games yet and his rehab time is almost up. If necessary, they should DL him again until he's actually healthy. They are having enough problems with a short bench and getting youngsters at bats without bringing back a guy who is not ready.
Danny_Darwin said:Mostly I just feel like the topic has been discussed to death, but perhaps more importantly, has there been anything to indicate the Red Sox are still interested at this point? Would he waive his no-trade clause to join a last-place team when there are assuredly going to be contenders vying for his services?
I don't get why people keep saying this. I haven't heard a peep out of Lackey about his contract, and even if he did squawk, does he really have any other option than playing?ivanvamp said:I know it appears that the results would falsify the FO's approach to team-building during the offseason. But legit arguments could have been (and were) made for the moves.
Not offseason:
- Lester deal. Who knows if they had a real chance to re-sign him after the season. But they got something useful for him. And that something turned into Porcello, who had been a solid, if unspectacular, pitcher. (The contract extension is another discussion)
- Lackey deal. Craig was worth the gamble, IMO. Hasn't turned out well. Kelly was a young, talented ML arm that could throw 97+, and had a career era of 3.25. And had a tiny salary. Who knows if Lackey was going to pitch in Boston for $500k. We heard many things. Would it be nice to have his steady presence on this staff? Absolutely. But Kelly has gobs of potential.
Offseason:
- Panda. We needed a 3b. Panda is a good one. Not an elite one, but a good one. Solid all around player. And the fact is, there are no good 3b FA after this season. So make the move now to get a quality 3b and fill the spot. Was he worth $20 million? Well probably not, but you're always going to overpay in the free agent market. His 2015 line is eerily similar to his 2014 line:
- 2014: .279/.324/.415/.739
- 2015: .275/.321/.414/.735
His defense is a little worse, but overall, pretty much the player we thought we'd be getting.
- Hanley. Alright, it wasn't crazy to think that he'd at least be a serviceable left fielder. I mean, *Manny* was a serviceable left fielder. The Sox needed right handed power desperately. Hanley was one of the best RH power bats available. Offensively, he's provided just what they need. A 122 ops+, and is on pace for 86 runs, 32 homers and 80 rbi, despite dealing with some injuries.
So obviously the results haven't been there. And it's frustrating. But I think the offseason moves were pretty defensible, certainly at the time, and even in hindsight. It just hasn't worked out like we'd hoped, for a variety of reasons.
Merkle's Boner said:I don't get why people keep saying this. I haven't heard a peep out of Lackey about his contract, and even if he did squawk, does he really have any other option than playing?
Thanks for this. Rotoworld, citing the ProJo, had the Sox targeting a Friday return, hence my bad assumption about his time being up. I really hope they keep him down as long as possible.Red(s)HawksFan said:
Victorino's got two weeks of rehab left, so it's not "almost up". Position players get 20 days of rehab, and he started his last Wednesday.
Since starting the rehab assignment, he's played Wednesday (2 AB), Thursday (3 AB), Saturday (4 AB) and Sunday (4 AB). I've seen no reports that he's struggling (hits in each of the last three games) nor that he's ailing. The off days on Friday and yesterday were planned, and he should be in the lineup tonight. Looks like barring set-backs, the latest he will be back is right after the All Star Game.
RedOctober3829 said:Jared Carrabis on Zo and Beetle: "I'm hearing whispers that the FO is pleased with what De Aza is doing in LF and would be fine going forward without Hanley."
If they did this, that might top Don Sweeney in the dumb move department. De Aza is a bit player who was DFAed earlier this year.
The problem with saying that moves that turned out poorly were "worth the gamble" or "defensible" (e.g it turns out Joe Kelly is not currently a major league pitcher, Alan Craig is a 30 million dollar bust, Sandoval should be platooned but may be paid too much to actually platoon, Hanley can't play the position he was signed to play) is that Ben Cherington is not goofing around on a message board a few minutes a day. He is actually paid a ton of money and given a huge staff to figure all of this stuff out ahead of time. And GMs who end up on the wrong side of multiple defensible big money gambles usually don't last long. Saying "hey who knew Hanley would suck so bad in left?" doesn't inspire much confidence in the team's ability to scout and project, does it?ivanvamp said:I know it appears that the results would falsify the FO's approach to team-building during the offseason. But legit arguments could have been (and were) made for the moves.
Not offseason:
- Lester deal. Who knows if they had a real chance to re-sign him after the season. But they got something useful for him. And that something turned into Porcello, who had been a solid, if unspectacular, pitcher. (The contract extension is another discussion)
- Lackey deal. Craig was worth the gamble, IMO. Hasn't turned out well. Kelly was a young, talented ML arm that could throw 97+, and had a career era of 3.25. And had a tiny salary. Who knows if Lackey was going to pitch in Boston for $500k. We heard many things. Would it be nice to have his steady presence on this staff? Absolutely. But Kelly has gobs of potential.
Offseason:
- Panda. We needed a 3b. Panda is a good one. Not an elite one, but a good one. Solid all around player. And the fact is, there are no good 3b FA after this season. So make the move now to get a quality 3b and fill the spot. Was he worth $20 million? Well probably not, but you're always going to overpay in the free agent market. His 2015 line is eerily similar to his 2014 line:
- 2014: .279/.324/.415/.739
- 2015: .275/.321/.414/.735
His defense is a little worse, but overall, pretty much the player we thought we'd be getting.
- Hanley. Alright, it wasn't crazy to think that he'd at least be a serviceable left fielder. I mean, *Manny* was a serviceable left fielder. The Sox needed right handed power desperately. Hanley was one of the best RH power bats available. Offensively, he's provided just what they need. A 122 ops+, and is on pace for 86 runs, 32 homers and 80 rbi, despite dealing with some injuries.
So obviously the results haven't been there. And it's frustrating. But I think the offseason moves were pretty defensible, certainly at the time, and even in hindsight. It just hasn't worked out like we'd hoped, for a variety of reasons.
ivanvamp said:
Yes. He could have sat out. It would be crazy, of course. But he could have done it. And who knows what conversations were had between Lackey and the FO people. Maybe he said if he didn't get a new contract he'd play for 2015 but there'd be no chance in hell he'd sign beyond that. And maybe they thought, well, let's turn him into a piece or two that could help us for longer than just 2015.
snowmanny said:The problem with saying that moves that turned out poorly were "worth the gamble" or "defensible" (e.g it turns out Joe Kelly is not currently a major league pitcher, Alan Craig is a 30 million dollar bust, Sandoval should be platooned but may be paid too much to actually platoon, Hanley can't play the position he was signed to play) is that Ben Cherington is not goofing around on a message board a few minutes a day. He is actually paid a ton of money and given a huge staff to figure all of this stuff out ahead of time. And GMs who end up on the wrong side of multiple defensible big money gambles usually don't last long. Saying "hey who knew Hanley would suck so bad in left?" doesn't inspire much confidence in the team's ability to scout and project, does it?
Wouldn't everyone feel better about this team if we play .610 the rest of the way, though? Given that what we're viewing as 'the core' of the team will still be signed for next year, I feel as though it would change how we approach the offseason if we fall short on an attempted comeback and end up a game or two out rather than just continuing to play sub-.500 ball the rest of the way and be completely out of it.Savin Hillbilly said:
Of course this is possible, but it seems unlikely given that if the season ended now, there would be three AL East teams in playoffs.
The problem isn't that they need to win the division, the problem is that they need to play substantially better than at least two, more realistically three teams, all of whom also play each other.
This is not altogether implausible if you assume that there is substantial untapped potential in this team as it stands--i.e., if you assume that the team as a whole has significantly underperformed. If that's true, then all that's required for them to stage a plausible comeback run is for them to significantly overperform. If their true talent is that of a .525 team, then an overperformance equal to their underperformance so far would have them playing about .610 ball the rest of the way, or 52-33, for a final record of 86-76.
If they go 52-33 the rest of the way, then to cop a wild card spot they need the other teams in the division, plus Minnesota, to play just a game or two over .500 the rest of the way, and teams like Detroit, the Angels and the Rangers to play no better than about 7-8 games over .500. All of this seems possible, though it would require a ton of luck. The question is really, do they have enough untapped potential to play .600+ ball the rest of the way?
RedOctober3829 said:Jared Carrabis on Zo and Beetle: "I'm hearing whispers that the FO is pleased with what De Aza is doing in LF and would be fine going forward without Hanley."
If they did this, that might top Don Sweeney in the dumb move department. De Aza is a bit player who was DFAed earlier this year.
E5 Yaz said:
That's ridiculous. What does "going forward without Hanley" even mean? Trading him?
I'm not all that familiar with the Barstool Sports guy, but what sort of whispers would he even be privy to?
[SIZE=10.5pt]Nitpick but Sandoval is .270/.316/.407/.723 now. As far as is he a good one, Fangraphs has Sandoval at next to last in WAR, 20th out of 21 qualified third basemen, with Will Middlebrooks 19th. I understand that defensive WAR needs a lot more games to be meaningful, but I don't think there is any question that his defense is significantly worse than it was last year with the Giants. 4 1/2 more years of this guy, and he even has a $17 million team option for 2020 with a $ 5 million buyout. He's not a great hitter and his defense is not getting any better. Ugh.[/SIZE]ivanvamp said:
Offseason:
- Panda. We needed a 3b. Panda is a good one. Not an elite one, but a good one. Solid all around player. And the fact is, there are no good 3b FA after this season. So make the move now to get a quality 3b and fill the spot. Was he worth $20 million? Well probably not, but you're always going to overpay in the free agent market. His 2015 line is eerily similar to his 2014 line:
- 2014: .279/.324/.415/.739
- 2015: .275/.321/.414/.735
His defense is a little worse, but overall, pretty much the player we thought we'd be getting.
Red(s)HawksFan said:Pretty sure what is meant by "going forward without Hanley" has to do with Hanley's wrist and putting him on the DL. Basically, if Hanley has to go to the DL, they're not going to go looking for a temporary replacement for him because they like what they have in De Aza for the time being.
I'd bet a million dollars that it has nothing to do with future years or the possibility of trading Hanley. Even the most incompetent front office people aren't going to trade away an elite (but injured) hitter based on two weeks of production out of his journeyman replacement.
Pretty sure they meant if Hanley has to go on the DL they could survive with De Aza for a short period of time without looking for an external replacement. Geeze has Don Sweeney screwed up everyone's opinion of all the local GMs. Ben might be born recently but it wasn't yesterday. Give him a modicum of credit. He is not getting rid of Hanley for De Aza. Wait...Sweeney did trade for Zac Rinaldo so anything is possible but come on...E5 Yaz said:
That's ridiculous. What does "going forward without Hanley" even mean? Trading him?
I'm not all that familiar with the Barstool Sports guy, but what sort of whispers would he even be privy to?
richgedman'sghost said:Pretty sure they meant if Hanley has to go on the DL they could survive with De Aza for a short period of time without looking for an external replacement. Geeze has Don Sweeney screwed up everyone's opinion of all the local GMs. Ben might be born recently but it wasn't yesterday. Give him a modicum of credit. He is not getting rid of Hanley for De Aza. Wait...Sweeney did trade for Zac Rinaldo so anything is possible but come on...
Sorry was typing as the other post went through. Anyway why were you and Red October even questioning getting rid of Hanley for De Aza? Some moves are too ridiculous to discuss. Even Ben would not do that so I don't understand why you even contemplated getting rid of Hanley for De Aza.E5 Yaz said:
Yes, just as Red(s)Hawks said and I acknowledged three posts ago
geoduck no quahog said:Were the Red Sox front office geniuses?