Lester and Koji on a roll heading into the trade deadline. So we'll get the max for them. And we just won another championship and are taking a year off to reload with all the young talent. IMO that's working out perfect too
This is working out perfect
- Thread starter RoDaddy
- Start date
Gomes, Victorino, and Carp will at least shed some payroll if we can move them - no big return for any of them, obviously.
Just waiting for the dominos to begin falling.
Just waiting for the dominos to begin falling.
If the remaining pieces who will be sent away before this trade deadline bring a return of young and cost controlled talent proportional to what Peavy just fetched, this could be the best trade deadline for the Sox since Heathcliff Slocumb was swapped for Varitek and Lowe.
I'd rather things go this way than an 84 win season where the Sox are buyers at the deadline only to miss out on the playoffs...then lose Lester in the off-season as well.
3 WS in 10 years puts things in perspective and allows one to have a little patience.
PS Here's hoping a starting pitcher/left handed reliever/closer gets injured for a GFIN team in the next couple days.
3 WS in 10 years puts things in perspective and allows one to have a little patience.
PS Here's hoping a starting pitcher/left handed reliever/closer gets injured for a GFIN team in the next couple days.
Yep.
It's a fantastic seller market with so few teams as clear cut sellers and legit pieces.
The Red Sox have both. They are sellers and that have alot of vet talent on short term contracts.
Get as many prospects as possible. This organization is set up to make big moves this offseason.
It's a fantastic seller market with so few teams as clear cut sellers and legit pieces.
The Red Sox have both. They are sellers and that have alot of vet talent on short term contracts.
Get as many prospects as possible. This organization is set up to make big moves this offseason.
This is yet another by-product of the titles. If the championship drought was still going, this would be an exceptionally frustrating type of season. But given that weight being lifted, we have the luxury of seeing whether they can construct solid deals.
"A" year off? This one??
As noted elsewhere, that's extraordinarily optimistic when you are shedding your ace, emptying your bullpen, and counting on a bunch of kids in the field.
I like the course but am resigned to 1 to 2 more years of growing pains and misfires.
As noted elsewhere, that's extraordinarily optimistic when you are shedding your ace, emptying your bullpen, and counting on a bunch of kids in the field.
I like the course but am resigned to 1 to 2 more years of growing pains and misfires.
I just can't get behind this line of thinking. I understand others disagree with what I'm about to say, and I certainly respect others' right to disagree with me.
From 2002 through 2011, this team won fewer than 90 games only twice, and both of those times the team was still above .500. The team's stated goal during that time was to be "competitive every year." Nothing has changed since that time that would prevent a well-managed version of this team from remaining competitive every year. In fact, their division is the weakest it's been in years, so being competitive this year should have been relatively easy. If you consider the playoffs a crapshoot, then the goal should be winning 90+ games a year -- the playoffs then work themselves out.
With that in mind, two last-place finishes in three years should never be considered "everything working out perfectly." To the contrary, the results in 2012 and 2014 suggest that the team was fortunate to have the whole team outperform expectations last year, and that it's unlikely to be able to repeat that magic again any time soon.
In particular, "everything working out perfectly" would mean that the team was going to be poised to be competitive again next year. I have yet to see any evidence that next year's rotation (not to mention C, SS, 3B, LF, RF) will allow the team to be anything more than mediocre.
From 2002 through 2011, this team won fewer than 90 games only twice, and both of those times the team was still above .500. The team's stated goal during that time was to be "competitive every year." Nothing has changed since that time that would prevent a well-managed version of this team from remaining competitive every year. In fact, their division is the weakest it's been in years, so being competitive this year should have been relatively easy. If you consider the playoffs a crapshoot, then the goal should be winning 90+ games a year -- the playoffs then work themselves out.
With that in mind, two last-place finishes in three years should never be considered "everything working out perfectly." To the contrary, the results in 2012 and 2014 suggest that the team was fortunate to have the whole team outperform expectations last year, and that it's unlikely to be able to repeat that magic again any time soon.
In particular, "everything working out perfectly" would mean that the team was going to be poised to be competitive again next year. I have yet to see any evidence that next year's rotation (not to mention C, SS, 3B, LF, RF) will allow the team to be anything more than mediocre.
yeah, it's just perfect when everything goes wrong on the field leading to a last place performance. And it's great that you force yourself into trading your best pitcher because you bungled the negotiation of his contrast extension. Yippee!RoDaddy said:
The glee about "reloading with young talent" here is ridiculous, as if that is the only way to legitimately win a championship. Haven't the Rays and Royals been reloading with young talent for years? What has that gotten them?
It's not just "reloading with young talent", though. It's acquiring young cost-controlled talent that makes acquiring Stanton, Tulowitzki, <insert other wetdream inducing player> while also giving us the payroll flexibility to re-sign Lester or go after whomever we'd like. We have solid young talent now, but adding a difference maker like Stanton or Tulo via trade and then signing one or two front of the rotation pitchers makes us serious contenders instantly.Philip Jeff Frye said:
We can't just stockpile prospects, at some point we need to trade them for bigger pieces. Fortunately, we're in a position now where we can trade guys like Lester, Koji, Miller, et als and acquire young talent so we're not completely emptying the farm for those big pieces.
Yaz4Ever said:
Unless one of those pitchers is Lester, there aren't really one or two front-line starters to sign. Despite his recent quotes I have a hard time believing Lester returns if he's traded, just because it happens so rarely. The other front-line option is Scherzer who is going to be more expensive and, given what we've seen recently, might scare off the Cherington regime.
I'd love to think that this is all going to work out for the best, and that the FO is going to use the deep pool of prospects to acquire an impact bat, and sign Lester or Scherzer.
What also may happen is that Matt Kemp is that big bat acquisition, and the prospects we flip are used to acquire Cole Hamels. Yay.
I don't think anyone is celebrating the botched Lester negotiations in the Spring. But hey, shit happens and even the best front offices make miscalculations. But like others here, I am optimistic that if the Sox handle things adeptly in the next 5 days, it's possible we could be setting the foundation for some serious long term success - as in the early 90's Yankees.
Philip Jeff Frye said:
Think of it this way. Take the Rays or Royals, or better yet the A's, and now give them $80M more to spend.
You can certainly argue that Jon Lester should get $23M of that $80M. But stockpiling prospects, giving them a season or two of run to determine which one's can hold down MLB jobs and then supplementing with 3-4 big-money aces or mashers seems like a sound way to build a juggernaut to me.
Doesn't sound like Ben is the one driving the car on the "no player above 30" stance.NomarRS05 said:
Other than that, we've still 4 days before the deadline. Can we wait and see what shoes drop before getting pissy? I'm not excited about Kemp, but until they actually pull the trigger, we don't know what's going on.
dcmissle said:
I believe the notion isn't that they'll just unload for a bunch of prospects and see who is good next year, but acquire a quantity of legit prospects and see what moves can be made during the off-season for established talent.
Yaz4Ever said:
Now that, my friend, is a recipe for Playoffs over the next 4 years.
Just for shits and giggles, I'd like to see how payroll would pan out if those two (plus Lackey) were backed up by Ortiz, Pedroia, Napoli and a bunch of low-cost kids. I'm bad at this Cot's stuff. Is that scenario do-able? We can debate if it's smart later on.
That's nice. What if the other teams want to keep their good players though? There's no reason why Colorado needs to trade anybody. I'm even skeptical that Miami will trade Stanton, or if they trade him why Assume the Red Sox will be the ones to land him? Other teams, like the Cubs and Mariners have the money to sign him and the prospects they can offer too.Andrew said:
It's not the old regime where teams like the Red Sox get to use the rest of baseball as a AAAA league. These superstars all you prospect hoarders covet may not be available any more reasonably than Jon Lester at 6/$160, especially when you add both the prospect cost and the extension amount. Even if they land Stanton, giving up Betts, Owens, Swihart, and Ranaudo for the privilege, he's not signing for less than 10/$300.
The players who will be available are players like Cliff Lee and Matt Kemp. The ones with question marks making them overpaid. But I bet that's not what people want to hear.
nattysez said:
Well, if you believe the recent email correspondence between Henry and the Herald (is anyone reading the Herald these days), Ben apparently told JH that "[w]hat’s so disappointing is that we are probably the best team in the division. We just aren’t playing like it."
I mean it's not like Ben and the boys weren't trying to compete this year. But perhaps it's the parity in the new regime that can take a group of guys who weren't expected to win more than 80 games and have them win a World Series and then take about the same group of guys, who were expected to go to the playoffs, and end up being the worst team in the division.
The goal is not winning 90 games a year. The goal is putting a team together that might win 90 games every year. I think by and large they have done that over the last, say, 10 years. Might be a bit harder if they don't sign Lester but they are also trying to transition to a team that plugs and plays its prospects and gives them much longer ropes than Red Sox teams of the past.
If by working out perfectly you mean that it was a perfect storm of not hitting when the pitching was good and not pitching well when the hitting was good than you'd be correct. In that sense things have been flawless this year. To the point in which its almost unrealistic. The Red Sox selling guys like Lester, Koji and Miller that could help the team in 2015 for what are essentially question marks is far from "perfect."
Philip Jeff Frye said:
What it got them, from 2008 till this year, was a perennial contender that made the playoffs four out of six years and the WS once. That's pretty damn good, especially for a team with no money.
True, they never won the WS. Remember, if you view playoff performance as random, even a team that makes the playoffs every single year will only win the WS once every decade. The Red Sox in the past decade have been not only outstanding, but damned lucky, and as a result we Red Sox fans have become not only spoiled but a little reality-challenged.
What's a realistic goal? I would say it's a team that can contend for the playoffs most years, make the playoffs about 2 out of 3 years, make the WS about every five years, and win the WS about once a decade. That would be fucking awesome, and it's probably the most that any front office can reasonably be asked to deliver over the long haul. The fact that it's a bit less than we've been getting lately says more about our good fortune than it does about what we should expect from Ben Cherington and John Henry.
Understood, but one of the three moving pieces is the bullpen, in our case an excellent one that people seem anxious to empty. Everyone knows the bitch that is bullpen construction. Koji and Miller replacements may work out, or not. If they don't, you will not be playoff competitive.Andrew said:
Then there is the matter of a legit 1 starter, without which you cannot be successful in the playoffs, assuming you make them. What we have heard to date is so much wheel spinning. If they are not going to spring for Lester, they are unlikely to spring for Scherzer (for example). So that leads them to sending a mother lode to Philly for a Lester replacement. Hamels not coming cheap. So you have decimated your pen to generate sufficient prospect surplus for Hamels. Congratulations. And by the way, you are still paying Hamels $100 million.
Finally, even if there are sufficient prospects left for the bold stroke trade, the fact remains that they will live or die with a lot of young question marks who have great promise and reputation. Now that is the part of this that always had to go right. It certainly cannot be laid at the feet of any management misstep with Lester.
However. and this is my point, from a competitiveness standpoint in 2015, they have gone from one major area of concern to three
All of those working out next season is like filling an inside straight
It's painfully obvious that tanking works in MLB. Just look at what happened the last time Boston picked high in the draft. Trey Ball at 7 was such a great pick. I'm getting tired of the posters who are clamoring for this team to run with a 50 million dollar payroll full of homegrown talent. This is the Boston Red Sox. They fight to contend every year. It didn't work out at all and they're attempting to strengthen the overall system to compete again next year.Philip Jeff Frye said:
I would think this is all about getting pieces for a run at Stanton.
Well, that's what it got the Rays, but only in the sense that they were the worst team in baseball for half a decade or more prior to that run. If that's what the Red Sox have planned, I'm glad I live in a NL City with a team that can distract me from it without threatening my allegiance to the Sox overall.Savin Hillbilly said:
But, the post you responded to also highlighted the Royals; I might also add the Pirates, who despite having the same "benefit" of being at the very top of the draft year after year didn't hit the same lottery as the Rays did with Price and Longoria until recently. That suggests that perhaps the better way to look at the Rays is that maybe they just had their 4 to 6 year run of success in the middle of a 20 year cycle of mostly suck. And you can add teams like San Diego, who pretend to be medium-size markets building through farm system and trading off superstars while supplementing with mid-tier veterans, a strategy that seems not unlike the one being laid out here for Boston, and they've failed miserably since 199X, when they got torched by the Yankees in their one WS trip.
This year will mark them having missed the playoffs in 4 of the past 5 seasons (with the 2009-2010 season being the advent of the "bridge year" strategy), and if the full scale sell off of pending free agents continues apace without the historically low probability outcome of them resigning with the Red Sox, it will likely stretch to 5 of the past 6.Savin Hillbilly said:
I'm not sure there's anything to be done about it at this point, which is a big part of my frustration. I have full faith that they will "try" to make it work, and I think they are highly competent, as the Peavy haul reinforces. But I think they miscalculated, and that what is left to be done is wait for this group of prospects to mature, hopefully more quickly than we have a right to expect. Regardless, despite my overall confidence, I cannot fathom a scenario in which they did anything other than completely bungle the Lester negotiations, and similarly if they don't resign Miller I'll also question what they're smoking. I'd prefer they sign Koji, but in his case I do understand at least the opposite point of view, more so if they resign Miller. 40 year old pitchers lose it fast, and it may be a case where getting out a year early, or in this specific case 2 months early, is the prudent path.
I haven't. He was a project to begin with. It's more about how they botched the Meadows pick. The guy looks like he's going to be special.Papelbon's Poutine said:
What you describe in the first paragraph was never, ever the point of the famed $100 million player development machine -- or if it was, Henry and Theo held out on us at the time.Tyrone Biggums said:
In present circumstances, the philosophy was never to pass on a guy like Lester. It was to lock him up, which the machine would put you in a position to do.
So after a dozen years, with the machine hitting on all cylinders, the philosophy gets hijacked, at least temporarily, this spring. Thus the giant shit sandwich on our dessert plate.
Tyrone Biggums said:
It's not what they spend but how they spend it. The problem is that, in the last few years with more TV money available to all teams, the Sox are not competing with just the Yankees anymore. Every team in MLB would like to have Stanton, If more teams have the money and talent to get him, then the competition is greater. A talent that good who is available in his prime is in everyone's demand. Paying top dollar for Lester isn't the problem either. It's whether to pay that for more than 4 years at his age. When the Sox go after veteran free agents they are more likely to pay more AAV in the short term than to sign someone for much more than 1 year longer than they should. It's now a seller's market for free agents every winter. Other avenues to acquire talent are more cost effective. The trade market still swings between neutral, buyer's or seller's. If you have a lot of expiring contracts, including an age 39 surprise closer who you can sell high in a seller's market, then if your scouts know their stuff you will acquire younger good cost controlled talent. Having enough of those kinds of players makes it possible to not care as much about overpaying (as everyone does now) for veteran free agents and you have an ample supply of such desirable talents for other teams to go after when they must unload proven impact talent that the Sox and everyone covets.
I agree completely with this. Then draw the exact opposite conclusion about the appropriate strategy as you do.The Boomer said:
Give me all the examples you can think of where a top free agent turned down a longer deal with higher total dollars for a shorter deal with fewer total dollars but a higher AAV. People throw this around like it's a perfectly obvious and reasonable alternative. For that to be true, you need a long list of cases where it netted a top free agent. So, name them.The Boomer said:
Your final sentence contradicts your first one. If the league has more revenue parity, then by definition there will be many fewer times where teams must unload proven impact talents, and in the rarer cases where it does occur, there will be more bidders, thus ensuring that in acquiring proven impact talent through trades you overpay in prospect for the privilege of conveying a long-term big dollar contract.The Boomer said:
The Peavy trade drives that point home, how many hear would have been pleased to have traded Matt Barnes and Drake Britton for 2 months of Jake Peavy? Look at the Soria deal. Highway robbery as well. You're going to overpay in controllable talent in a trade, I'd rather, as one of the richest teams in baseball, overpay in dollars, especially when I'm signing my own free agents who've proven they can play in this environment.
There are several ways to skin a cat so to speak. One difference is that the Sox could go cheap for a year or so let the young talent grow, re-assess and then spend (in ways that the Rays and Royals do not) and fill in the few holes they have. This strategy of taklng one step back to go two forward may help assure a longer period of contending.Philip Jeff Frye said:
Plympton91 said:
You missed my point. The trade market fluctuates. Last year, the Sox sold high on Iglesias to get Peavy, This year, the Giants sold low on Hembree and Escobar to get the same player with one more WS ring and duck boat than before. You will always overpay for free agents. If your timing is good and you are a good judge of both proven and unproven talent, you can win some trades. Free agency, at best, is occasionally a break even proposition but usually it isn't.
Theo Epstein talked about making the playoffs seven out of ten years (he finished six of nine) and being lucky and winning it all one or two times a decade. Of course that was before they added the "play-in" game, and finishing second in the AL East ain't what it used to be.Savin Hillbilly said:
A long time ago I wrote a paper in school about how many ways there were to skin a cat.
If I recall, there were really only 2.
I was mildly surprised.
If I recall, there were really only 2.
I was mildly surprised.
Trey Ball has pitched well for 2 weeks. Granted he was again supposed to be a project but he was also looked at as a small reach. The smart money was always on Frazier Moran or Meadows being the pick if they were available. The issue is that you look at where the Red Sox organization is weak and the 2 biggest spots are 1st base and outfield. Meadows could have solved a lot of issues in the future and his approach for his age isn't bad. Ball isn't a bust yet but you'll have a hard time convincing me that he was the best pick for the team.Papelbon said:
The original player development philosophy has been twisted for the last few years. The Red Sox will not become the Royals Pirates or Rays in terms of spending.
It has potential to achieve an ideal (or "perfect") outcome versus where this club was a month or two ago. Where this club was before the season started and where it has been since about the end of April are two different situations entirely. The FO needs to make the best of a bad situation that was only in-part their creation.Philip Jeff Frye said:
Could they have handled extending Lester better? Absolutely. Could they have added more depth to protect against the tidal wave of injuries and under performers? Maybe. But now all they can do is take the hand they've been dealt and play it out for the best possible 2015 club they can make.
As we saw in the winter of 2012/spring of 2013 Cherington is a pretty worthwhile GM to have when given lots of holes and lots of money to fill. He managed that off-season without giving up a single pick. He'll likely have a protected first in 2014 and far more minor league trade chips to play with.
We'll have to see how it plays out, but the possibilities are pretty endless right now for 2015. That is the reality no matter what from this point forward, Koji, Miller, and Lester are all free agents after the season and the Sox haven't made a hard push to extend any of them too far into the season to presume they won't entertain free agency, so the slate is getting wiped clean regardless. Maybe they bring one, two, or even all three back. Maybe they sign three entirely different guys for the exact same roles. Who knows. What is perfect though is that the Sox, finding themselves in a position where it makes no sense not to be a seller, have probably the three most valuable trade chips in the league with those three guys on expiring contracts. Given what the market has paid for Soria, Samardzjia/Harrel, and Peavy that's a pretty ideal place to be in for a team not winning anything this season anyway.
Moving all three would likely return between 3-6 top 100 prospects with at least 2-3 in the top 50. The end result of that would have the Red Sox top 20 prospects comparable to many other clubs' top 5.
Given the lack of offense in the league and the fact that the Sox have a lot of young arms already I think it's perfectly fair to wish the Sox had taken the high-ceiling outfielder who is already hitting well for his level over the high school pitcher who is struggling (both at the time and now). It is still early, but Meadows is doing just what you'd expect and Ball is not. TB would be far from the first HS pitcher to be drafted highly and do nothing. Look at what Theo is doing...Papelbon's Poutine said:
Additionally this was the highest pick the Sox had had in 20 years and looked like their best chance to add a high-ceiling all-star level talent that would have 6 years of control. But hey, they get another shot next year!
1) Trade Lester and Cecchini for a subsidized Kemp and SeagerRudy Pemberton said:
2) Trade Koji and Miller for two premier prospects
3) Resign Lester, Koji and Miller at market rates that are now easier to accept because you have the value of the prospects
4) Trade some surplus for another bat.
I know everyone is fond of stating that teams don't resign their FAs that go to market. But this is a different animal than them simply going to market. This would be a planned process to increase the value of the FAs by leveraging a talent return to augment the market value you pay them. There is nothing to prevent the Sox from doing just this and they don't need to skirt any ethical issues along the way.
I'm not stating this will absolutely happen, just that it is as possible as any other scenario being discussed.
Toe Nash said:
It's great how people are already declaring a pitcher who just turned 20 and grew up in IN (thus not having the experience that kids in warm weather states might have) as a bust. Ball hit 95 in his last outing. Lefties who can throw 95 are pretty valuable, aren't they? Maybe the Red Sox figured that a top-of-the line LH starting pitcher is more difficult to find than an All-Star CF? Maybe the Red Sox weren't convinced that Meadows would stick at CF as he filled out?
Yes Ball wouldn't be the first high school pitcher who was drafted and didn't do a thing, but Meadows is no sure bet either. While I think it's perfectly fair for people to have wished the RS had taken Meadows or Frazier or anyone else for that matter, because this front office has a track record of being decent and because the draft is such a crapshoot, I find it difficult to kill them for taking Ball.
This is the reason I don't like the pick. HS pitchers are already risky and the lack of experience adds that much more risk. Nowhere did I nor the other person to dislike the pick declare him a bust (in fact, Tyrone Biggums said "he's not yet a bust"), but OK.wade boggs chicken dinner said:
The team has a great track record with lower picks, but basically no track record when picking in the top 15. If a project like Ball was available lower down it makes sense. Maybe Ball will take leaps and bounds soon, but it seems like he should be blowing away But it's hard not to think they outsmarted themselves here.
Just because I'm curious and bored:
LH high school pitchers taken in the top 10, by career WAR (since 1990):
Made majors:
Kershaw
Danks
Bumgarner
Adam Loewen
Danks didn't dominate his first season, but the other two were incredible from the moment they turned pro.
Never made majors:
Mike Stodolka
Josh Girdley
Geoff Goetz
Doug Million
Mark Phillips
Ronnie Walden
Joe Torres
If you expand it to picks in the top 20, you get Sabathia, Hamels, Kazmir, Billingsley, some mediocre guys, and 16 players who never made the majors.
Trey Ball's July was pretty good. 5 starts, 4 good, 1 bad, for an aggregate line of 25 IP, 18 hits, 15 runs (9 earned), 19 strikeouts to 7 walks, and one home run.
Opponents OPSed .551 against him in that span, down from 1.034 in April and May. Looks like progress to me.
Opponents OPSed .551 against him in that span, down from 1.034 in April and May. Looks like progress to me.
I don't disagree with any of this, in response I would say:The Boomer said:
1) maximizing $/win is only a means to an end. Superstar players efficiently convert AB/IP/roster spots into wins, which is a different kind of efficiency.
2) The players you want / need may or may not be available in the trade market. Building a complete team is likely going to involve filling holes via both the FA market and the trade market.
3) Superstar players are especially valuable to a team that plans to break in rookies. The struggles of Bogaerts and Bradley at the bottom of the lineup would have been easier to absorb if we still had a circa-2004-Manny-and-Ortiz 3/4 combo. Workman, RDLR, Ranaudo, Webster, etc. are going to struggle at times in 2015; that'll be less impactful if we've got a Lester at the front of the rotation. If the team isn't going to have star power, it can't really afford to have black holes, which means being a lot less aggressive in promoting rookies.
Last year's championship team was weird - the only regular starter under 28 was Middlebrooks, who struggled, and two of the younger starters, Saltalamacchia and Ellsbury, were allowed to leave in FA. They managed to win the World Series with little in the way of contributions from players ages 25-28, some of the most common peak ranges. Through busts (Anderson, Bowden), trades (Rizzo, Reddick, Kelly, Masterson), and health issues (Westmoreland, Kalish), the Red Sox got almost nothing out of their top prospects from 2009, 2010, and 2011, and we're seeing the fallout from that now. The last core of home-grown talent (Ellsbury, Pedroia, Lester, Youkilis, Papelbon) is gone or on the downside, the core that should be in place now never arrived, and what is hopefully the next core (Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Bradley, Vazquez, Cecchini, the young pitchers) is largely struggling. So now what? I think everyone understands that free agency is the worst way to acquire players, but what else are you supposed to do when you're working through a player development dead spot and you still want to compete in the short term?