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
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: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
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: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!
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?
Yaz4Ever said: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.
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.
Philip Jeff Frye said: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!
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?
Doesn't sound like Ben is the one driving the car on the "no player above 30" stance.NomarRS05 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.
dcmissle said:"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.
Yes, in my scenario signing "two" would likely be Lester and Scherzer.NomarRS05 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.
Yaz4Ever said:Yes, in my scenario signing "two" would likely be Lester and Scherzer.
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:
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.
Like.nattysez said: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.
nattysez said: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.
Asked if he could pinpoint an offseason decision that he regretted, Henry suggested that the team overrated how quickly its rookies would get comfortable, and never anticipated the drop-off of production from its veterans.
“We knew we were taking a risk in relying on rookies to be able to play every day and adjust to major league pitching right away,” Henry said. “We thought that might be fine because of our core, but we had a number of veteran hitters struggle as well. What particularly hurts this year is the division isn’t as strong as it normally is."
Philip Jeff Frye said:Haven't the Rays and Royals been reloading with young talent for years? What has that gotten them?
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:
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.
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: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!
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?
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:If you've already written off Trey Ball then that says a lot about your understanding of how this game works.
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: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.
I would think this is all about getting pieces for a run at Stanton.
Tyrone Biggums said: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.
I would think this is all about getting pieces for a run at Stanton.
I agree completely with this. Then draw the exact opposite conclusion about the appropriate strategy as you do.The Boomer 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.
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: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.
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: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.
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: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!
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?
Just to be clear--we're not actually skinning a cat?seantoo said: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.
Plympton91 said:I agree completely with this. Then draw the exact opposite conclusion about the appropriate strategy as you do.
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.
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 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.
nattysez said: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.
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:
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.
Shit. This is embarassing.Reverend said:Just to be clear--we're not actually skinning a cat?
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:And you're basing that off of his 71 PAs this season? Yeah he's looks like a HoFer.
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: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!
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?
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:And you're basing that off of his 71 PAs this season? Yeah he's looks like a HoFer.
1) Trade Lester and Cecchini for a subsidized Kemp and SeagerRudy Pemberton said:The biggest issue is that free agency is best used to fill in around the edges. Ben will have money and prospects, but he's also got to find a starting pitcher or two, a closer, a corner outfielder, power bat or two, a bench, rest of bullpen, etc.
I don't know that people appreciate how much weaker the core was from a few years ago. It's a lot easier to fill in around 5-6 top tier players on their prime than it is to find those guys- especially when you're really strict about how long / how much you'll give men of a certain age.
Furthermore, the players that make it to free agency seem like a weaker and more flawed group every year.
Toe Nash said: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...
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!
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:
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.
I don't disagree with any of this, in response I would say:The Boomer 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.