Miguel Cabrera

[KeepTheFaith1229]

Why not? id rather have Cabrera at first than youk , can you imagine the lineup if lowell resign and we get cabrera

 

ellsbury

pedroia

ortiz

ramirez

cabrera

lowell

drew

varitek

lugo

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't want it to happen but it just won't.

 

Btw, Ellsbury shouldn't be in your lineup, unless you planned on dealing Buchholz for Cabrera.

[ksushi]

Did you read the article I posted, where the Marlins would ask for Ellsbury and either one of Lester and Buchholz?

 

No?

 

Yes... I did, and for all we know, the Palm Beach post is about as reliable as the Herald. They're not the Marlins FO. They're speculating that the Marlins are going to be demanding CF prospects because of their overall lack of depth in CF. Hell last time I paid attention to who the Marlins had in CF it was Reggie Abercrombie. It isn't pretty. That said, there was nothing about that article that led me to think they had any special information on what the Marlins were looking for. Pieces like that - especially in a town that probably doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to baseball - are meant more to give a casual reader an idea of the kinds of trades the team is looking into as opposed to doing a lot of guess work as to who the actual names will be.

 

 

 

Irrelevant, seeing as we're going to be faced with the decision to re-up Manny for $20 million in 2009 anyways. Like i said before, pounds can be lost, years can't.

 

I don't think you got my point. New point: Sure Miguel is young. He can work off his gut.

But, imagine until credible rumors surface that the Marlins will be gunning for our top prospects. Is it worth Ellsbury and Buchholz? I think we'd agree probably not. It'd be amazing if we could have Cabrera and keep Buch, but I'll believe that can happen when I see the Marlins are dumb enough to do a deal like that.

 

 

We agree re:Buchholz, but where has it been said that Cabrera isn't a good clubhouse guy? Yes, his work ethic has been questioned, but those issues can be easily resolved, IMO. From what I have heard, he's an easygoing guy who practices Santeria....which is where the perception of clashing with management comes from.

 

Besides, Manny and Ortiz are entering their decline phases. Ortiz has just as many health issues as Cabrera does.

 

Get Cabrera, and in 4 years he can be your DH.

 

I can't find where I've read it or heard it, and I'm even willing to write off any clubhouse woes on the fact that all Florida has done recently is lose. I watched him that whole NLCS is 2003, watched him bomb 3 deep balls of chicago and basically rape their pitchers to the point of embarrassment when he was 20. He's one of the best hitters I've seen under the age of 25. That said, I don't believe in trading top of the rotation pitching for cornerstone hitting. I won't be upset if they do it because RHH Power phenoms like this are once or twice a generation talents, all I've said to this point is I wouldn't do it for Buchholz but the deal would have upside even if we included him.

 

 

They don't have to "make up" for anything. Anibal was a prospect nowhere near the level of Jon Lester, and Ellsbury's got better MiLB numbers than Hanley had.

 

Wow, you really like to nit pick on people huh? I know all about Anibal Sanchez. And I'm not hating on the Beckett trade. Anibal was never going to be what Beckett is and I'll trade a positional prospect for power pitching ANY day of the week. Chill.

 

Part of me would be ok trading Ellsbury to the Marlins, but part of me also is screaming "hitting is a talent, power is a skill - it can develop" with a slide show of Hanley bombing 30 and Carlos Beltrans swing being a mirror image of Jacoby.

[TheKilo]

You honestly think Jacoby can hit 30 bombs? Even 20? In Fenway?

[ksushi]

I think his power will develop. I didn't say he'll hit 30 bombs but if you add even marginal power to the blend of skills he already has, a lot of balls that don't go over the wall will still hit the gaps and roll to it. If his power improves he could be unbelievable - and there isn't any reason to think it can't. Power is something that develops with time, sometimes not much time, sometimes it takes a little. He isn't at the point in his development where you can rule it out. Hes already very good, but not done maturing as a player.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

I think his power will develop. I didn't say he'll hit 30 bombs but if you add even marginal power to the blend of skills he already has' date=' a lot of balls that don't go over the wall will still hit the gaps and roll to it. If his power improves he could be unbelievable - and there isn't any reason to think it can't. Power is something that develops with time, sometimes not much time, sometimes it takes a little. He isn't at the point in his development where you can rule it out. Hes already very good, but not done maturing as a player.[/quote']

 

Its true he will develop more power. He has that "upper-cut" swing similar to Carlos Beltran when he pulls the ball. I don't think he will be called upon to hit the ball out of the park on a consistant basis (focus more getting on base). When I watch him go the opposite way he looks more like Johnny Damon the way he slaps the ball at the last second. This kid will be a very good hitter for a long time.

 

As good as Miguel Cabrera....nope.

 

But I think Ellsbury will be closer to Cabrera's offense than Cabrera will be to Ellsbury's defense.

[TheKilo]

As much as we make fun of Jacko for his ballwashing of Yankee prospects...it seems some people here are in that same frame of mind.

[BSN07]

Jacoby hit 3 HR in the month he was up. It's not out fo the question to expect 15 hrs+ in a full season for him. I think once he fills out into his body he could be a steady 20+HR guy. Hes only 23 and hasn't come close to filling out body wise.

 

Yes ballwashing goes on here for prospects but Jacoby deserves it. This guy is a player and we can expect big things from him.

 

I don't want to see Buccholz of Ellsbury dealt, and if that means no MC then o well.

[a700hitter]

As much as we make fun of Jacko for his ballwashing of Yankee prospects...it seems some people here are in that same frame of mind.

How some posters actually believe that we should hold onto our top prospects instead of pursuing Johan Santana or Miguel Cabrera is laughable.

[Taliesin]

How some posters actually believe that we should hold onto our top prospects instead of pursuing Johan Santana or Miguel Cabrera is laughable.

 

I'll laugh w/ you in a year or two when Ellsbury wins the MVP. He is no longer just a prospect. The real deal he is. After him...all bets are off. Pitching is incredibly precarious and prospects in that arena are simply just that. I'd trade the top two seemingly untouchables for Santana plus whoever else they can throw at them. Cabrera....you are wrong. I'm chuckling myself.

[TheKilo]

I'll laugh w/ you in a year or two when Ellsbury wins the MVP. He is no longer just a prospect. The real deal he is. After him...all bets are off. Pitching is incredibly precarious and prospects in that arena are simply just that. I'd trade the top two seemingly untouchables for Santana plus whoever else they can throw at them. Cabrera....you are wrong. I'm chuckling myself.

 

Wow.

[example1]

How some posters actually believe that we should hold onto our top prospects instead of pursuing Johan Santana or Miguel Cabrera is laughable.

 

What's laughable is this:

 

4-30-06:

 

a700hitter:

 

I'd give them Lester and Pedroia if that's what it took. Trading away your farm system is exactly one of its major functions. Lester is not going to help the ML club this year. They are still teaching him the basics. And he may not be ready by next year. This Red Sox team is ready for Prime Time, and Willis could step right in to solidify the rotation. He's cheap and young and really good. He would be Red Sox' present and future.

 

ksushi: Let me ask you this, would you trade Lester Hansen and Pedroia?

 

a700hitterNo, but I would substitute MDC for Hansen. The Sox are an elite team. Of course, yo make moves to win now. By time Lester is ready for prime time, Manny, Schilling, Trot, Lowell, Foulke, and Loretta are likely to all be gone.

 

Nope, Nope, thankfully, Not yet, thankfully and rookie of the year. You were wrong on many counts.

 

Theo doesn't like compromising the future for expensive players who only have a couple of years left. Getting willis is for a package of prospects is not compromising the future. Willis is the future. He is a stud and he is still cheap. It would be a trade of an uncertain future for a certain future. Theo would be a fool not to make the deal. Lester is 22 and they are still teaching him fundamentals. He has a long long way to go, but Willis at 24 is already a star. There's no comparison.

 

It took me 5 minutes to find it. I typed it "Ellsbury" and searched for over a year ago. Go ahead, do it with any prospect of recent years. A700 would sell them down the river if he had his way.

 

In retrospect, does anyone think it would have been smart to trade Lester, Pedroia and Manny Delcarmen for Dontrelle Willis?

 

The sure thing:

2005: 22-10, 2.63 ERA, 1.13 WHIP

2006: 12-12 3.87, 1.42 WHIP

2007: 10-15, 5.17, 1.597

 

Still laughing?

 

 

I don't understand how you can so confidently mock those of us who have an understanding of what the FO is trying to do. Many of us haven't changed our tune for the past few years. Now we have 2 WS in the past 4 years, and have a farm system poised to move us forward.

 

 

Don't think Willis is a comparable situation? ********. You were enamored with him then and would have traded Lester, Pedroia and Manny Delcarmen for him. Then you think we don't remember and that we aren't smart enough to do a search. I could pull up so many of your statements that just ended up being wrong.

 

Is it POSSIBLE that a "lock" a "sure thing" a "superstar" has to prove himself too, each and every year just like everyone else?

 

You could look at nearly any number you want, any split or rate stat, and you would see with consistency that Clay Buchholz is a better, more poised pitcher, with better stuff and better command compared to Willis. You were willing to sell the farm to get WIllis at the age of 23, simply because his team was s***** enough to need him to pitch. If Buchholz had pitched for the marlins you would have a completely different view of him, which is pretty pointless if you also think you're actually evaluating the player himself.

 

Don't insult us for wanting to hold onto guys who we--and most of the scouting world--think is valuable. Sure, it would be great to have Cabrera or Santana, but it isn't a no-brainer. If it was a no-brainer and if prospects were solely for selling to other teams, then the Sox would offer Buchholz, Bowden, Ellsbury, Hansen, Masterson, Kalish, Lin and Lester to get Johan Santana. Why would they need those guys? We would have Santana and Cabrera, who are PROVEN stars and guaranteed to never do anything average ever again.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

This argument over Miguel Cabrera, Johan Santana, and the Red Sox prospects is just dragging out at this point. The facts are the Minnesota Twins will try to sign Santana to a long term extension while the Marlins will trade Cabrera to a team such as the Angels or Dodgers who are rich with talent and willing to possibly give it up.

 

The Red Sox are in a great position where they don't need to make these moves. They have some good depth at most positions. If it turns out they can't resign Mike Lowell then the will look at A-Rod or possibly move Coco Crisp for a 3rd or 1st baseman.

[BSN07]

A700 your great to have on the site but man you where so far off on so many of our rookies I can't really take your argument seriously. Lester, Pedroia, and MDC for Willis? I liked Willis to but thats just crazy. Look at how many key pieces we would have lost from this yrs Championship team. Yes I know we couldn't have known it back then but just don't be so quick to give up on prospects so early. Your far to into the "Name" of a player. Let the FO do its job and scout and trust them to put a farm system together. With all the home grown talent on this roster and whats to come you have to believe there good enough to play. The FO has proven it can do that, signing FA on the other hand has been hit or miss, but I still like the Lugo and Drew signings, I think rebound yr for both next season.

 

Minny needs to sign santana or they might lose there stadium deal( I read it from either ESPN,Foxsports or SI, som legit site anyway),x It said since so much of it is publicly funded the investors can say the club lied and let the 2 biggest names on the team leave by FA or Trade. I believe Santana is staying in Minny.

 

 

I have been one for trying to acquire Miggy, but not at the cost of either Buccholz of Ellsbury. There are alot of question marks about him, but also alot of upside, but I wouldn't trade the prospects mentioned above, anyone else is fair game.

[a700hitter]

A700 your great to have on the site but man you where so far off on so many of our rookies I can't really take your argument seriously. Lester' date=' Pedroia, and MDC for Willis? I liked Willis to but thats just crazy. Look at how many key pieces we would have lost from this yrs Championship team. Yes I know we couldn't have known it back then but just don't be so quick to give up on prospects so early. Your far to into the "Name" of a player. Let the FO do its job and scout and trust them to put a farm system together. With all the home grown talent on this roster and whats to come you have to believe there good enough to play. [/quote']I am honored that Example, or anyone for that matter, would take the time to research my posts back two whole baseball seasons.

 

First of all, almost no one expected Pedroia to hit .320 in his Rookie Year. If they did, I'd like to see those posts. He was projected with an upside of being a Mark Loretta/David Eckstein type. That is no great shakes. As far as his physical skills go, they are also very average. I was wrong about Lester? How so? He still has not cracked the rotation for an entire year. His case is obviously skewed by the cancer, and maybe it was already affecting him when I saw him last spring (2006). After seeing his stuff, I thought he was 2 years away from taking a rotation spot and I didn't think he had top of the rotation stuff, at least not yet. MDC ? He's still not a main go to guy and I still don';t trust him with the ball in his hand late in games. I think Willis is floundering in Florida and a change of scenery would help him. He needs some coaching stability among other things, but he was a star and still has the ability to produce as a star. He's still a baby. The change of scenery could have been coming to Boston in 2006. We'll never know.

 

Was I wrong about Ellsbury when I posted during ST that this kid was special and had all sorts of tools? That being said. He's not ever going to be Miguel Cabrera with the bat. Few players in history have achieved what Miggy has at this age. He'd be a nice replacement for Manny. He's about the only guy that I can think of that could replace Manny.

 

Will Bucholz be a star? He's got the stuff. Will he be Johan Santana? That's a tough tag to put on the kid. Even if he becomes Santana, it will take him 2-3 years. Sanatana is already a shut down ace and he's young enough that he can probably be a shut down ace for five years. Why wait?

 

Fellas, don't get all kid crazy because we won this year. One rookie... one played a major role. We don't win it this year without Pedroia, but no one predicted him to be a .320 hitter. All the other kids played small roles and they got their playing time as the team was slumping, so they really didn't drive the team to the pennant. They helped keep it afloat through the tough times. They provided depth, but they didn't play major roles. You may think 2007 was a product of the farm system, but it was more the product of more than $200 million in FA contracts in an unprecedented Red Sox spending spree. Although Dice K got tire at the end, he helped solidify a rotation that was in tatters at the end of 2006. The starting rotation was the true strength of the team. Getting Dice K and Beckett's progression to ace were the key elements of 2007. Don't go kid crazy. Maybe Ellsbury makes a Pedroia-like impact next year, but I'd rather have Miggy Cabrera or johan Santana. I know, there is no speculation, that they would make a huge impact.

 

It is the FO job to figure out which kids to keep and which to trade. Very few make it. It's their job to make the right call, but to get a Miggy Cabrera or Johan Santana you have to give up the real deal.

 

That being said, I hope they keep Manny for a couple of more years '09 and '10. That would make the debate over Miggy Cabrera moot, so please don't bother to track down this post two years from now after another championship when Ellsbury has won a batting title and SB crown. As for Santana, if he resigns with the Twins the point is similarly moot, even if he becomes a .500 pitcher. It's hard not to be a .500 pitcher on the Twinkies. However, if Santana does move and he goes to the Yankees, because we didn't want to part with Bucholz and the Yankees hang banner #27, I'll come looking for your posts as a reminder of why you get a superstar pitcher when you have the chance. Beckett made that case very nicely this year. Don't you think?

[a700hitter]

ksushi: Let me ask you this, would you trade Lester Hansen and Pedroia?

 

a700hitterNo, but I would substitute MDC for Hansen. The Sox are an elite team. Of course, yo make moves to win now. By time Lester is ready for prime time, Manny, Schilling, Trot, Lowell, Foulke, and Loretta are likely to all be gone.

Well, Loretta, Foulke and Trot are gone. Lowell could be gone, and he would have been gone if he didn't have a career year. (BTW Did you or anyone else predict tthat he would ever hit .320?) Schilling has one more year. ... and Lester has still not pitched successfully in a major league rotation for a year. It seems like I still have a pretty good shot at being completely right on this statement.

[a700hitter]

Don't insult us for wanting to hold onto guys who we--and most of the scouting world--think is valuable. Sure' date=' it would be great to have Cabrera or Santana, but it isn't a no-brainer. If it was a no-brainer and if prospects were solely for selling to other teams, then the Sox would offer Buchholz, Bowden, Ellsbury, Hansen, Masterson, Kalish, Lin and Lester to get Johan Santana. Why would they need those guys? We would have Santana and Cabrera, who are PROVEN stars and guaranteed to never do anything average ever again. [/quote']I am sorry that my post was insulting. I didn't mean for it to be taken personally. My posting style is provacative, if you hadn't already noticed. I do it to generate a lively debate, but please don't be personally insulted. I have a great deal of respect for your point of view, even when I completely disagree, and I have learned a lot from you and others on this site. I apologize if you thought I was personally insulting you or anyone else on the site.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Fellas' date=' don't get all kid crazy because we won this year. One rookie... one played a major role.[/quote']

 

Significant Boston Rookies, 2007:

 

Dustin Pedroia

Daisuke Matsuzaka

Hideki Okajima

Jacoby Ellsbury

 

That being said, I hope they keep Manny for a couple of more years '09 and '10. That would make the debate over Miggy Cabrera moot, so please don't bother to track down this post two years from now...

 

I don't know if we'll both be posting here in the 2009-2010 Hot Stove League, but I guarantee you that I'll remember this post if we're both still here.

 

If we are both here, this is a preview of my intended comment: . Manny was a great hitter and is an inner-circle HOFer, but he's going to continue his decline over the next three years. Whether that decline costs him OPS or games played or his ability to play the outfield I can't foresee, but I know that Manny 2009

[a700hitter]

Significant Boston Rookies, 2007:

 

Dustin Pedroia

Daisuke Matsuzaka

Hideki Okajima

Jacoby Ellsbury

 

Ellsbury played a role, but he didn't even come onto the scene until we had a huge lead. His primary role was OF depth.

 

Dice K and Okajima? You don't pay $102 milion for a rookie or sign them to million dollar multi-year contracts. I think you know what I meant. These guys were acquisitions, not kids from the farm.

 

If we are both here' date=' this is a preview of my intended comment: . Manny was a great hitter and is an inner-circle HOFer, but he's going to continue his decline over the next three years. Whether that decline costs him OPS or games played or his ability to play the outfield I can't foresee, but I know that Manny 2009

[HeadOfSoxNation]

Ellsbury played a role, but he didn't even come onto the scene until we had a huge lead. His primary role was OF depth.

 

Dice K and Okajima? You don't pay $102 milion for a rookie or sign them to million dollar multi-year contracts. I think you know what I meant. These guys were acquisitions, not kids from the farm.

 

I wouldn't disagree with this, but I don't see how it is responsive to my post. If we extend Manny, they will probably pass on Miggy, so the Miggy for Ellsbury/Bucholz debate would be moot. I think you missed the point.

 

What kind of a huge lead can you have going into Game 1 of a World Series? Ellsbury played all 4.

[a700hitter]

What kind of a huge lead can you have going into Game 1 of a World Series? Ellsbury played all 4.

I was tlaking about the context of the entire season. JD Drew was instrumental in the off-season too. We don't get by the Guardians but for his Grand Slami, but would you argue that he was a good acquisition based on that, unless he improves next year? He didn't play a major role either IMO.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Ellsbury played a role' date=' but he didn't even come onto the scene until we had a huge lead. His primary role was OF depth.[/quote']

 

Let's check VORP + FRAA

 

Ellsbury: 13.6 + 3 = 16.6

Manny: 34.6 - 13 = 21.6

 

I'd consider 77% of Manny's contribution significant. YMMV...but I'd thought that you supported Manny.

 

Dice K and Okajima? You don't pay $102 milion for a rookie or sign them to million dollar multi-year contracts. I think you know what I meant. These guys were acquisitions, not kids from the farm.

 

You said, "One rookie... one played a major role." You didn't restrict rookie status...and I remember hundreds of cyberspace denizens claiming that Matsuzaka and, especially, Okajima were worthless last winter because they were unprovn in MLB...because they were "rookies."

 

I wouldn't disagree with this, but I don't see how it is responsive to my post. If we extend Manny, they will probably pass on Miggy, so the Miggy for Ellsbury/Bucholz debate would be moot. I think you missed the point.

 

If you, too, think that Manny will suck in 2009, I concede the point. If you believe that he'll be worth $20 million, my point stands.

[a700hitter]

Let's check VORP + FRAA

 

Ellsbury: 13.6 + 3 = 16.6

Manny: 34.6 - 13 = 21.6

 

I'd consider 77% of Manny's contribution significant. YMMV...but I'd thought that you supported Manny.

Let's try to have a discourse of ideas instead of arguing for arguments sake. I don't know what road you are going down now, but if you are comparing the worth of someone with 116 career ABs to Manny 2007, you'll have to engage in that one yourself.

 

You said' date=' "One rookie... one played a major role." You didn't restrict rookie status...and I remember hundreds of cyberspace denizens claiming that Matsuzaka and, especially, Okajima were worthless last winter because they were unprovn in MLB...because they were "rookies."[/quote']Either you have little common sense or you knew what i meant, but decided to be argumentative anyway. Which is it?

 

If you' date=' too, think that Manny will suck in 2009, I concede the point. If you believe that he'll be worth $20 million, my point stands.[/quote']Try to stay up with the discussion. The debate here was whether we should trade for Miggy and if so what should we give up.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Let's try to have a discourse of ideas instead of arguing for arguments sake. I don't know what road you are going down now' date=' but if you are comparing the worth of someone with 116 career ABs to Manny 2007, you'll have to engage in that one yourself.[/quote']

 

The value of a guy who hit .353/.394/.509 in 116 regular-season AB while playing an above-average CF was 77% of the value of a guy who hit .296/.388/.493 in 483 AB while playing the worst defense of any current MLB player.

 

Either you have little common sense or you knew what i meant, but decided to be argumentative anyway. Which is it?

 

False dilemma. Quoting you:

 

"My posting style is provacative, if you hadn't already noticed. I do it to generate a lively debate, but please don't be personally insulted."

 

You're just being yourself. My points are clear.

 

Try to stay up with the discussion. The debate here was whether we should trade for Miggy and if so what should we give up.

 

You ventured that Boston wouldn't need Miggy if Manny were extended. I consider that a poor argument, and I consider you to be trying to dodge the fact that you tried to make such a point.

 

See, Manny isn't a great ballplayer come 2009. Miggy might be a great hitter; Ellsbury might be a great ballplayer. All of these bear upon the Miggy-to-Boston issue...thus the relevance.

[example1]

Well' date=' Loretta, Foulke and Trot are gone. Lowell could be gone, and he would have been gone if he didn't have a career year. (BTW Did you or anyone else predict tthat he would ever hit .320?) Schilling has one more year. ... and Lester has still not pitched successfully in a major league rotation for a year. It seems like I still have a pretty good shot at being completely right on this statement.[/quote']

 

Yeah, except that a big part of your prediction was that the Sox would be blowing a huge opportunity if they didn't make a trade like Pedroia + MDC + Lester for Dontrelle Willis. I argued that they had a good team and don't need to sell the farm. They didn't sell the farm, they won another WS and are in good shape to contend again next year. You were right that all of the guys you listed were questionmarks through and through, but you were wrong in what needed to be done about it.

 

To have been "completely right" about the statement, the Sox would have had to have lost. By winning they are directly challenging your assertion that you have to trade prospects to support your stars when you have the chance. It is actually impossible for you to have been right about it, now that they won with a strategy you so strongly disagreed with.

 

I am sorry that my post was insulting. I didn't mean for it to be taken personally. My posting style is provacative' date=' if you hadn't already noticed. I do it to generate a lively debate, but please don't be personally insulted. I have a great deal of respect for your point of view, even when I completely disagree, and I have learned a lot from you and others on this site. I apologize if you thought I was personally insulting you or anyone else on the site.[/quote']

 

You're a good guy. The "insult" was more intellectual in nature, not so much personal.

 

Thanks for the respect and I'm glad that I've had some impact on your well-worn baseball knowledge. You are obviously a good fan.

 

First of all, almost no one expected Pedroia to hit .320 in his Rookie Year. If they did, I'd like to see those posts. He was projected with an upside of being a Mark Loretta/David Eckstein type.

 

Well, my first post about Pedroia called him untouchable. Granted, it also called Hanley Ramirez untouchable, but if I had known that Josh Beckett was someone the Sox could get for him I would have taken it back. You can see throughout that I was pretty enamored with Beckett.

 

7-23-2005: example1:

There are only a few big name prospects I would label 'untouchable', given the money this team has. I don't know enough about the lower levels (A, short-season A) but Paplebon, Hanley, Pedroia and maybe Lester. Are there ones that I'm missing there? Schoppach can go for all I care, I'm sure he'll be good but we have catchers (albeit aging ones). I'm confident we will be able to find good values from MLB ready players and free agents in the next few years so we won't need THAT much from the minor league system. If I had to choose, it would be Paplebon, Hanley and Pedroia as hands off, the rest are negotiable. Am I missing someone?

 

At the time Ellsbury, Buchholz and Bowden were barely prospects, they were barely minor-leaguers. Otherwise, without getting number specific, I would say this is a good start for a FIRST post about Pedroia.

 

What else...? let's see:

 

 

12-29-05: example1 "I've heard Pedroia called the Eckstein that could be. He has Ecksteins tools but more leadership and better overall skills. I imagine Pee Wee Reese, for some reason."

 

 

9-9-06: example1: "Is it more fair to think Chuck Knoblock in his prime, rather than Eckstein when thinking about Pedroia's upside? People were sounding disappointed by comparisons to DEckstein, saying its not Sandberg or Morgan. Knoblock wasn't a bad (small) player. I think he'll have a better glove (arm, actually) than Knobs but he could definitely be the same type of slashing doubles hitter."

 

12-26-06: example1: "Stop bitching and moaning about "Pedroia isn't Soriano. He's not Joe Morgan!" Jesus, just shut up already! It's true. Jason Varitek isn't Yogi Berra, Julio Lugo isn't Honus Wagner and Coco Crisp isn't Willie Mays. So what? Does that mean they can't be good, useful players? You guys would rather that Pedroia sit on his ass until 2 months in, when your mediocre aging replacement second baseman gets injured and Pedroia comes off the bench cold for the first month or two, which will inevitably lead to you guys continuing to bitch and moan at Pedroia.

 

Some of you don't seem to understand the value of a player who is a + fielder and who can get on base better than 90% of players his age at his posiiton.

 

 

12-28-06 Example1:

"If David Eckstein is who this guy is that's great, but I think that's undershooting his potential a bit. The best reason to compare them is their size, but that's about it. Eckstein is a good player, a good guy to have on your team. But Eckstein had as many HRs last year as Pedroia did (2). Somehow, despite 500 ABs Eckstein had only 18 doubles, while in 89 ABs Pedroia had 4. I think that Pedroia, in fenway for half his games, will put up Youkilis type offensive numbers and will play a more than adequate 2B defensively. People can legitimately complain that Youkilis type numbers from a 1B might be scarry, but they should also agree that that would be a VERY productive numbers from a 2B.

 

2-25-07 Example1:

I am pretty attached to Pedroia because I love the type of player he is. He's not the only one like that, we've all played with someone like him in the past. He's scrappy, reliable, extremely talented and very smart. I think the Sox should set aside one or two positions on the team where they take a high OBP guy with plus defensive and clubhouse abilities. Those two players, in my mind, are Youkilis and Pedroia. I think they can both be around affordably for the next 5 years or so and each can still get on base at a .370+ clip.

 

Pedroia's actual stats: .317 .380 .442

 

a700, you asked for someone who predicted that Pedroia would hit .320 this year... well, I knew that I didn't predict that. I think it is time for you to adopt OBP as the statistical bar. I predicted he would get on base at a .370+ clip. I was right. I didn't need to know that "X number of hits will fall in" but, trend wise, OBP doesn't tend to just fall off the face of the earth.

 

If a player has a high OBP it represents good plate control and plate vision. There are a number of very productive players who will, time in and time out, be easier outs than Dustin Pedroia is. The basic point of batting is not to get hits, the point is to NOT make outs. Pedroia and Ellsbury have done it at an elite level at each level they played in, so it wasn't much of a leap to predict Pedroia's (and next year, Ellsbury's) success.

[a700hitter]

The value of a guy who hit .353/.394/.509 in 116 regular-season AB while playing an above-average CF was 77% of the value of a guy who hit .296/.388/.493 in 483 AB while playing the worst defense of any current MLB player.

Do those statistics reflect for runs saved, because hitters will not stretch a single against Manny because of his adeptness in playing the wall. Does it reflect runs prevented because the runners will not go second to home, because Manny plays shallow and has a quick release and accurate arm?

 

You ventured that Boston wouldn't need Miggy if Manny were extended. I consider that a poor argument' date=' and I consider you to be trying to dodge the fact that you tried to make such a point.[/quote']I'll say it more clearly, if they intend to extend Manny, they will not pursue Miggy, thus, making the argument regarding whether Ellsbury/Bucholz should be included in the trade a moot point. Does that mean that Manny 2009 > than Miggy 2009? No, Miggy will be in his prime. It just means that we will not have them both in 2009. No dodge.

[a700hitter]

Yeah, except that a big part of your prediction was that the Sox would be blowing a huge opportunity if they didn't make a trade like Pedroia + MDC + Lester for Dontrelle Willis. I argued that they had a good team and don't need to sell the farm. They didn't sell the farm, they won another WS and are in good shape to contend again next year. You were right that all of the guys you listed were questionmarks through and through, but you were wrong in what needed to be done about it.

 

To have been "completely right" about the statement, the Sox would have had to have lost. By winning they are directly challenging your assertion that you have to trade prospects to support your stars when you have the chance. It is actually impossible for you to have been right about it, now that they won with a strategy you so strongly disagreed with.

That's not accurate. They took a different tact that neither one of us envisioned at the time of that post. They spent a ton of money acquiring Dice k, Drew, Lugo and Okajima. Dice K solidified the rotation. Okajima was the missing part of the bullpen and the other two although disappointing in the regular season were nonetheless still upgrades from 2006. I agreed with those moves. They were different from what I had expected at the time of my April 2006 post, but I would maintain that prior to those acquisitions that they didn't have a good team. They had major, major holes with no one in the organization to fill them.

 

If a player has a high OBP it represents good plate control and plate vision. There are a number of very productive players who will' date=' time in and time out, be easier outs than Dustin Pedroia is. The basic point of batting is not to get hits, the point is to NOT make outs. Pedroia and Ellsbury have done it at an elite level at each level they played in, so it wasn't much of a leap to predict Pedroia's (and next year, Ellsbury's) success.[/quote']You were a steadfast supporter of Pedroia. If you say that you predicted a high OBP for him, I would not disagree. I also agree that OBP is the most significant stat for # 1 and 2 hitters. To me it is more significant than OPS for # 1 and 2. I have never disagreed about Ellsbury, from the first Spring game that I saw him play. He will be a star, and soon, but I do think Miggy Cabrera can be a Hall of Famer. That's a signicantly different level, and if the FO wants Miggy it will cost a star like Ellsbury.

[example1]

That's not accurate. They took a different tact that neither one of us envisioned at the time of that post. They spent a ton of money acquiring Dice k' date=' Drew, Lugo and Okajima. Dice K solidified the rotation. Okajima was the missing part of the bullpen and the other two although disappointing in the regular season were nonetheless still upgrades from 2006. I agreed with those moves. They were different from what I had expected at the time of my April 2006 post, but I would maintain that prior to those acquisitions that they didn't have a good team. They had major, major holes with no one in the organization to fill them. [/quote']

 

You're just digging a deeper hole though. In addition to not keeping the prospects, you were also advocating for spending money on guys like Damon. The fact that we couldn't predict what they were going to do (i.e., get Dice, Lugo, Drew and Okajima) doesn't mean we couldn't predict they were going to do something. They saved a ton of money with those guys. They acquired a lot of prospects for them and are now in a position where we even have the luxury of discussing trading for guys like Cabrera and Santana. On one hand you were all for getting rid of prospects and young players (pedroia, youkilis, lester) then, and on the other hand you were all for further handcuffing the team with big contracts for old guys.

 

Furthermore, if you are saying that "I would maintain that prior to those acquisitions that they didn't have a good team. They had major, major holes with no one in the organization to fill them." I would agree. Which is why I have been saying for years that the FO isn't full of s*** when they say they are retooling. They actually were retooling, and it actually worked out.

 

Approximate Total cost for 2008:

Pedroia: 380,000

Youkilis: 424,500

Lester: 384,000

Papelbon: 424,500

Delcarmen:380,000

Buchholz: 380,000

=========

$2,373,000 (or, a yearly salary of somewhere between Alex Cora and Julian Tavarez).

 

One would think that after they saved money not going after Pedro, Lowe, Damon, then acquired solid drafts for those guys, used the money from Pedro, Lowe, and Damon to get guys like Matsuzaka, Drew, Lugo and Okajima, spend a lot of money on more solid draft picks and international signings, not to mention being financially flexable for years to come, the successful integration onto the team of rookies and young players under this FO, including Youkilis, Pedroia, and--so far--Ellsbury, and the two World Series titles, that just about all criticism or historic-pessimism aimed toward the FO should just stop. THey clearly have a winning model.

 

I don't think they are going to trade their top prospects for a bat, particularly if they resign mike lowell. A pitcher like Santana, perhaps, but they could wait for Bonderman or Peavy, save the prospects, spend less money and have a pitcher to solidify the middle of their rotation for years to come.

 

You were a steadfast supporter of Pedroia. If you say that you predicted a high OBP for him, I would not disagree. I also agree that OBP is the most significant stat for # 1 and 2 hitters. To me it is more significant than OPS for # 1 and 2. I have never disagreed about Ellsbury, from the first Spring game that I saw him play. He will be a star, and soon, but I do think Miggy Cabrera can be a Hall of Famer. That's a signicantly different level, and if the FO wants Miggy it will cost a star like Ellsbury.

 

I just don't think it necessarily will cost an Ellsbury. The Sox have a whole lot of prospects that other teams should be happy to have. Guys like Kalish, Masterson, Bowden, Lowrie, etc., are actually moving quickly toward a career in MLB. A package of enough high-upside, slightly younger players would make a team like FLA better in the long run. Say, either Masterson and Bowden, or Kalish, Masterson or Bowden and Moss. A player like Ellsbury isn't going to start getting the apathetic S. Florida residents out to the park. What that team needs is a number of solid players who are cost effective, play the game intelligently, and have good stuff (for pitchers, obviously).

[Jayhawk Bill]

Do those statistics reflect for runs saved, because hitters will not stretch a single against Manny because of his adeptness in playing the wall. Does it reflect runs prevented because the runners will not go second to home, because Manny plays shallow and has a quick release and accurate arm?

 

Actually, FRAA is a comprehensive defensive metric, so yes. Zone rating-based stats are far less kind to Manny.

 

"You ventured that Boston wouldn't need Miggy if Manny were extended. I consider that a poor argument, and I consider you to be trying to dodge the fact that you tried to make such a point."

I'll say it more clearly, if they intend to extend Manny, they will not pursue Miggy, thus, making the argument regarding whether Ellsbury/Bucholz should be included in the trade a moot point. Does that mean that Manny 2009 > than Miggy 2009? No, Miggy will be in his prime. It just means that we will not have them both in 2009. No dodge.

 

Your exact previous words were,

 

"That being said, I hope they keep Manny for a couple of more years '09 and '10. That would make the debate over Miggy Cabrera moot, so please don't bother to track down this post two years from now... "

 

You presume that Manny is worth having in 2009. I don't. While I don't dispute that Boston can't find a role easily for Miguel Cabrera in 2009 if Manny is still with the team, I regard it as moot: Manny isn't worth having in 2009.

 

That factors into the calculus regarding Miggy. Manny is not a positive factor from 2009 and beyond...he wasn't a big positive factor in 2007, and he's steadily declining. I'm not a big fan of Miggy, given his rapidly increasing weight, but I'm accepting that he's got future value because Manny's bat is going to be gone.

[a700hitter]

You're just digging a deeper hole though. In addition to not keeping the prospects' date=' you were also advocating for spending money on guys like Damon. The fact that we couldn't predict what they were going to do (i.e., get Dice, Lugo, Drew and Okajima) doesn't mean we couldn't predict they were going to do [i']something[/i]. They saved a ton of money with those guys. They acquired a lot of prospects for them and are now in a position where we even have the luxury of discussing trading for guys like Cabrera and Santana. On one hand you were all for getting rid of prospects and young players (pedroia, youkilis, lester) then, and on the other hand you were all for further handcuffing the team with big contracts for old guys.

You act as if there is only one way to build a team and that you were in perfect synch with the FO. You thought swapping out Damon at 4/$52 million for Drew at 5/$70 million was such a great move. I don't, but they still won a championship. The fact that they won a championship in 2007, doesn't mean that they didn't make some very bad mistakes along the way. They acknowledged that they made some very bad mistakes in 2006. IMO, at the top of that list was letting the Yankees scoop up Abreu. Of course that was okay, because many of us still believed the poverty line of BS. Abreu has been very very productive and he's been a year to year commitment. We've got 5 yrs of Drew and he bombed in his first year. You act like the FO had a plan at the end of 2005 that they executed perfectly without deviation. They did not, and they made some serious missteps along the way. To their credit they changed course at the end of 2006 and aggressively pursued FA's. You want to refer to this as retooling ...well fine.

 

But don't change history. I was thrilled when they opened their checkbooks. I didn't like when they let a bunch of guys walk, because they were giving out the poverty line as an excuse. If I had known that they would increase the spending beyond my hopes to replace the older guys with higher priced young veterans, I'd have had no problem at the time. Neither of us knew they would engage in a spending spree. I certainly wanted them to spend and I knew they had the resources. Did you? You have to look at the posts in the context of what was known at the time. I don't think the FO knew at that time that they would commit over $200 million to 3 players in the 2006 off season. If you are looking to declare victory or something regarding posts from 2 years ago, well go ahead. It's easy to validate being a ballwasher, when we have won the championship, but it took the FO's admission of mistakes, the adjustments to its plan and a change of course, and the 2006 spending spree to accomplish the feat. No one was completely right and no one was completely wrong, not you, not me and not the FO.

 

With the resources they have at hand they could have achieved the feat several different ways. JayHawk takes the position that we could have done as well with getting AJ Burnett and keeping HanRam. I break his balls because he goes out of his way to be an irritating prick, but maybe that would have worked too. Just because they won the Series doesn't mean they hit on some precise formulaic approach to success from which there is no alternative. If your posts are about declaring victory, go right ahead. If you are asking what I was thinking then and if I still hold the same views or if my views have changed, I am happy to engage in that discussion. I see no point in defending each opinion that I had two years ago as if nothing happened in the interim to change my mind. My thoughts and opinions change over time as circumstances change, just as the opinions of the FO have changed over time. Was a 2006 humiliation followed by an unprecedented off season spending spree part of their plan after 2004? I don't think any of them would tell you that that's how they drew it up at the end of 2004. They adapted and changed the plan as dictated by the circumstances and they prevailed.

 

One would think that after they saved money not going after Pedro' date=' Lowe, Damon, then acquired solid drafts for those guys, used the money from Pedro, Lowe, and Damon to get guys like Matsuzaka, Drew, Lugo and Okajima, spend a lot of money on more solid draft picks and international signings, not to mention being financially flexable for years to come, the successful integration onto the team of rookies and young players under this FO, including Youkilis, Pedroia, and--so far--Ellsbury, and the two World Series titles, that just about all criticism or historic-pessimism aimed toward the FO should just stop. THey clearly have a winning model. [/quote']This is a discussion thread. I am not criticizing the FO right now? We are discussing the merits of possible moves. My God! I asked you not to take things so personally, so why are you personalizing posts about the FO? They don't give a s*** what any of us think. Do they have a winning model? Apparently so, because they just won. Is it the same model that was on their drawing board in November 2004? In general principle, probably yes, but they have made major adjustments to the execution of that model. I am thankful that they obviously had a great deal of internal criticism, even from JH, because it spurred them to make some major changes to their plan. Remember, part of their plan was to stay under the Luxury Tax Cap. That part of the plan thankfully got tossed. Does that mean that their original plan and model was wrong? Clearly not. Business plans and models get changed along the way, so afford me the same grace with regard to two year old opinions from posts.

 

I don't think they are going to trade their top prospects for a bat' date=' particularly if they resign mike lowell. A pitcher like Santana, perhaps, but they could wait for Bonderman or Peavy, save the prospects, spend less money and have a pitcher to solidify the middle of their rotation for years to come. [/quote']Maybe you are right, but the debate from my point of view is regarding the cost of getting Cabrera or Santana if that's what they are aiming to get. IMO they should not let the Yankees land Santana, even if it means parting with Ellsbury. If the Twins re-sign Santana, i am just as happy to keep Ellsbury. Don't you think the Yankee's acquisition of Santana could shift that balance back to the Yankees? What would you do to prevent it from happening?

[a700hitter]

Your exact previous words were,

 

"That being said, I hope they keep Manny for a couple of more years '09 and '10. That would make the debate over Miggy Cabrera moot, so please don't bother to track down this post two years from now... "

 

You presume that Manny is worth having in 2009. I don't. While I don't dispute that Boston can't find a role easily for Miguel Cabrera in 2009 if Manny is still with the team, I regard it as moot: Manny isn't worth having in 2009.

I believe that Manny will be worth having in 2009, but that doesn't mean that I think he'll be better than Miggy. I do hope they will keep him, but if he does decline in 2008, don't you think it is possible that they could decline the team option but sign him to a reduced contract? That could happen. Schilling was a perfect example. Would a diminished Manny be worth keepin around in 2009? yes, at the right price. Where we differ I think is regarding his rate of decline. Only time will tell on that one.