Miguel Cabrera

[Jayhawk Bill]

I believe that Manny will be worth having in 2009' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

OK, cool. We'll see.

 

I don't see a diminished part-time bench-playing what-me-worry big-smile point-two-fingers Manny Ramirez as necessarily blocking Miggy Cabrera, though. I would consider Manny-on-the-bench as a potentially hilarious and a possibly epic experiment, though.

[a700hitter]

OK, cool. We'll see.

 

I don't see a diminished part-time bench-playing what-me-worry big-smile point-two-fingers Manny Ramirez as necessarily blocking Miggy Cabrera, though. I would consider Manny-on-the-bench as a potentially hilarious and a possibly epic experiment, though.

I could see it working if Manny played 5 times a week.

[example1]

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' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

They had been scouting Matsuzaka for a few years and tried to keep it quiet. They knew they would spend money on players other than the ones they had in 2004. They ended up being right to do so. They had a plan at the end of 2005. Continue to get and retain as much young talent/draft picks as possible. Spend money wisely, based on statistical measures of player value; don't deviate from that value.

 

Sometimes they don't always know where they are going to replace value. Damon, for instance, walked away and the Sox didn't have a plan B. However, the plan B they were able to pull off (Crisp) was a better decision than to overpay for too long on Johnny Damon. They knew what the options would likely be before choosing how to approach Damon and made that part of their approach. So, obviously they don't have every small step charted out. However, I bet they have more "scenarios" and flow-charts than you would think, and I bet they have particular players of every age from 18-35 that they would prefer to get their hands on, and others who would never be a good fit.

 

But don't change history.

 

Darn, I thought I could.

 

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.

 

I just think that's hogwash. They didn't play the poverty line, they played the "we don't have an extraordinary amount of money to mis-spend if we want to compete with the Yankees who must not have a hard time with it, as evidenced by 7 years of continually increased spending on wasted talent.

 

There is a subtle but real difference there. The best companies are ones with big budgets but who account for every penny and attempt to put each penny back into the earning machine. THey haven't been perfect; it's an imperfect science after all. They have, however, gone against traditional wisdom (see: traditionalists like you) and it has paid off.

 

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 read Feeding the Monster, which made it clear that they weren't going to spend money on aging, decrepit players. They made it clear that they had money, but that they were also VERY interested in acquiring young talent so that money could be used to acquire FAs and pay higher signing-bonuses. They were pretty transparent with their plan.

 

I certainly wanted them to spend and I knew they had the resources. Did you?

 

Want them to spend money? Not on Johnny Damon, Pedro, Lowe, Loretta, etc.,. On Dice-K? Yes. Did I know that had the resources? I suppose I knew that they were fairly well resourced, given that they were moments away from signing A-Rod after 2003 and still would have had players like Ortiz and Pedro around. They are a big market team, no doubt.

 

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.

 

Do you really believe they would do something like that on a whim? Schilling knew before the offseason that they were going to make a big splash. They had gone out to acquire Foulke and Schilling before 2004, spending a lot of money in the process. I figured they woudl spend whatever it takes to get players who will make an impact.

 

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.

 

I guess you were right because you thought they should spend money. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you have advocated either acquiring over-the-hill players or trading away top talent, often both. Neither of those things have happened and it wasn't unintentional. The Sox FO did things counter to your wishes, and they did them intentionally. I wasn't the one telling them what to do; believe me, they are well ahead of the curve compared to anything I could posit. Nobody was completely right or wrong with each particular decision, but you hated their decisions throughout and attacked the very philosophy that seems to work out. Then you turn around and mock people who think that that philosophy hasn't even played itself out yet, with regard to the true financial value of players like Buchholz and Ellsbury, Pedroia, Youkilis, etc.,

 

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.

 

At no point should the belief that 'all prospects are good for is trading' become anything more than a punchline. The constant catcall here has been you saying "you don't know what value you're going to get from prospects, but [insert overpaid name here] is PROVEN talent and there is no way that [insert prospect name here] will ever become what PROVEN talent is."

 

 

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.

 

I bet their plan was to let the players from the 04 team leave, get the prospects from those players, save the money, and then reinvest it. They exploited the loophole for supplemental picks based on FAs, and were able to get plenty of important early round picks to improve their system. Yeah, they may have gotten lucky. Nobody would have predicted that Clay Buchholz--previously an OF--would be such a great pitcher. Of course, only one team drafted him... so luck or foresight or predictive models... it all kind of melts together at that level.

 

 

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.

 

Here's the model again: aim to win 94 games each year. Look at the constitution of your team, making projections along a number of possible %. In other words, run a simulation of your team with Pedroia producing at 40% of his PECOTA, and one with him producing at 80%, etc., you will have a pretty clear idea of how many runs your team will score if you simulate that season 1,000 times. Do the same thing with pitchers. Project how many runs your staff is going to give up, based on past performances and similar players. Figure out the difference between the two and you should have a pretty good idea what your record will be. Construct your team in such a way that they end up with 94 wins and more often than not your team will make the playoffs.

 

Sub rules:

--all things being equal, get power rather than finesse arms

--all things being equal get guys with high OBP, look for walk rates

--all things being equal, if you end up paying "market value" for a player, you likely overpaid. Do everything you can to acquire similar talent through the draft or through reasonable trades from strength

--all things being equal, draft guys with extensive college resumes with your highest picks and spend money on guys who are waffling between the pros and college near the bottom of the draft. In other words, use your financial advantage when the amount of money being discussed is a 'paltry' couple hundred-thousand dollars on high school/international players. That 300,000 will put the player under your control for at least 6 seasons, and is NOTHING compared to what any player worth his salt will earn on the market

 

I'm sure there are a number of other 'sub rules' here, but I think you get the point... They have an approach and they don't really deviate from it.

 

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.

 

No. Your posting rights should be revoked!! I'm kidding. Of course I'll give you grace with two year old opinions. I just wonder why your opinions haven't changed. Why would you be willing to trade Lester, Pedroia and MDC for a 23-24 year old Dontrelle WIllis, but you call it a no-brainer to trade Buchholz (who is the age Willis was when you wanted him so badly) and any other player they want for Santana. Some people here are proposing that we shouldn't stop at anything to get Santana, no matter who it takes. You support them by making fun of those who propose that we hold onto our best prospects (who are ready to take their starting spots in the Sox lineup/rotation immediately, just like Pedroia was last year).

 

I don't remember them saying they wouldn't go over the luxury tax. I remember them saying it would be something to avoid, because your money becomes noticably less valuable when you spend over that threshhold. Doesn't sound like they deviated that strongly. In fact, by putting all their eggs in the Dice-K basket they actually increased the amount they saved under the cap and put it to other good uses. It was a pretty obvious component of their most recent big FA signing, so I'd say it is still a value.

 

It's like saying "I value not spending money when I'm in debt". But when I'm in debt I may need to spend some money. Overall, the idea is to avoid debt and unnecessary spending. The Luxury tax is unnecessary spending, basically from the Sox pockets to the rest of the league.

 

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?

 

Nothing. You can't keep the Yankees from getting every single player. Furthermore, I'm not blind enough say that the sox shouldn't trade Buchholz + ??? + ???? for Santana but that the Yankees should trade Hughes/Chamberlain + Cabrera + Cano (or whoever). I think if the asking price is a Buchholz-level player, the Yankees will give up a Buchholz level player. To ME, a Buchholz-level player is a potential future ace. I think Phil Hughes still has a shitload of talent and that any team should be very, very happy to get him. The Yankees would be wise to hold onto Hughes and Chamberlain and try to build around them by getting rid of their NON-elite prospects to get what they need. I have no problem with teams saying they won't get rid of their one or two franchise-level prospects. If my team's biggest rival deals some of its top guys then I think they will have lost and gained at the same time. Of course, every deal is different and depends largely on where each particular team is at the time.

 

If they only deal AA guys then they are doing what I propose (Bowden + Masterson).

 

I just don't jump immediately to the creme-de-la-creme of our system when discussing trades. I think there are plenty of exciting players in the Sox system that other teams would want if told to take their pick, not including players 'x', 'y' and 'z'.

[Taliesin]

In any case 700, you're intentionally provocative to stir lively debate and that's the point I imagine, otherwise we'd just be virtually high-fiving each other and that gets old. You also do not resort to juvenile retorts like "WOW" when you have no intelligent response and your moniker doesn't allude to your use of a controlled substance. We can agree to disagree w/ a modicum of civility and that's what's missing in today's crude culture. Forgive me if I don't write a 4,000 word essay w/ cut and pastes and stats going back to Mathewson's time.

 

Clearly, you have class and sense of humor and that's been apparent for awhile.

[a700hitter]

I guess you were right because you thought they should spend money. Otherwise' date=' I'm pretty sure you have advocated either acquiring over-the-hill players or trading away top talent, often both. Neither of those things have happened and it wasn't unintentional. [/quote']I have rarely been interested in acquiring over the hill players, with Helton being an exception. I have been an advocate of getting players like Beckett, Miggy Cabrera, Santana and Oswalt, none of whom are old or over the hill. Even Willis is young, and IMO he is still a big talent.

Nobody was completely right or wrong with each particular decision' date=' but you hated their decisions throughout and attacked the very philosophy that seems to work out. [/quote'] I loved the Beckett deal even after year 1. I liked the opening of the wallet for the young Matsuzaka, and I even applauded the acquisitions of Drew and Lugo, so I don't know what recent moves that I hated except that I would have pulled the trigger on the Helton deal. That's the only disagreement that I had, and the FO had all but made the deal, so they must have liked it somewhat.

 

At no point should the belief that 'all prospects are good for is trading' become anything more than a punchline. The constant catcall here has been you saying "you don't know what value you're going to get from prospects' date=' but [insert overpaid name here'] is PROVEN talent and there is no way that [insert prospect name here] will ever become what PROVEN talent is."

I enjoy your posts and learn a lot from them, but I do get tired of your generalizing when it comes to my views. For the 1,000 th time, I'm not against young players. I love the acquisition of Beckett and I still like Dice k although I think he will blow out his arm if he doesn't learn to pitch more efficiently. I've been a big promoter of papelbon since his first appearances in 2005. I think Ellsbury is going to be a star. I like Bucholz a lot. I wouldn't trade either of them for an over the hill overpaid guy. Miggy Cabrera is a young HOF talented player and Santana is a young shut down Cy Young ace. I don't think we have to have these guys, but I would go hard after Santana if the Yankees are making a play for him, because i think that could shift the balance of power in their favor for 3 or 4 years. Please stop generalizing. It gets tiring to explain more than 1,000 times why the stereotype is wrong.

[example1]

a700, sorry if I was generalizing.

 

I have rarely been interested in acquiring over the hill players, with Helton being an exception. I have been an advocate of getting players like Beckett, Miggy Cabrera, Santana and Oswalt, none of whom are old or over the hill. Even Willis is young, and IMO he is still a big talent. I loved the Beckett deal even after year 1. I liked the opening of the wallet for the young Matsuzaka, and I even applauded the acquisitions of Drew and Lugo, so I don't know what recent moves that I hated except that I would have pulled the trigger on the Helton deal. That's the only disagreement that I had, and the FO had all but made the deal, so they must have liked it somewhat.

 

Being an advocate of your team picking up guyst like Beckett, Cabrera, Santana and Oswalt does not mean you are making good arguments about where your team should go. There isn't a person out there who wouldn't want to get those guys. The challenging part of the equation is what are they worth.

 

I really do respect your position, and certainly respect both your passion and personal history as a baseball fan. You are articulate and steadfast. You also don't like being insulted, and I respect that too. Sorry. The only point of contention I have with your stance is that too often I feel that your view has been that "established" talent trumps any "potential" that a player might have. You stated unequivocally last year:

 

You don't let established winning talent walk for draft picks. That's like selling your house for lottery tickets. Also, by letting established talent walk has had the effect of depleting the organization's prospects, because they were forced to trade prospects that are not ML ready for established players. It just makes no sense the way this FO has approached things. They've let established talent leave, traded top prospects to get lesser replacements, and in return they got extra draft picks. Yuk!! It seems like they screwed themselves. If the FO is so good at picking talented prospects they shouldn't need so many extra picks. There aren't that many Hall of Famers and All Stars in each draft If your scouts and FO are not good enough to pick off these rare players with it's own picks, what makes you think they'll do better with a few extra picks.

 

I have disagreed with the moves that this FO has made since they won the championship. This year the chickens have come home to roost. This team was awful. In many ways it was one of the worst Red Sox teams in decades. I believe the FO has received the cold slap of reality that their approach was doomed to failure. They went into this season in a position where the team could be competitive if every one stayed healthy and everyone had good years. In a situation like that, it only takes a few key injuries or players having off-seasons for things to spiral downward very quickly. If the FO was not embarrassed by a team that was out of it by the second week of August for $120 million, well... they should have been embarrassed.

 

With statements like that a year ago, involving "slaps in the face" and "chickens coming home to roost" you felt justified in slamming the FO pretty hard. You downplayed the injuries on the 2006 team, you downplayed the FO's own predictions that there would be a few-year lag in terms of having the team on the field that they truly wanted.

 

I feel like now is the time to point out that if the proof is in the pudding, you should be liking the pudding. 2 WS in 4 years, even a crusty veteran like yourself must be pretty happy. I don't agree that this is some unexpected development. I think that from every interview I read and books, etc., this is basically what they hoped would happen. They still have stars, and they ensured that they had stars to build around while retooling. The retooling is essentially over and in maintenance mode.

 

I guess this team reminds me of the Detroit Red Wings of a decade ago or so. They will continue to add talented youth to their core of mature players, and the number of REALLY effective players who come through the system might be unprecedented for the Sox. I know it seems improbable that great stars could possibly be born from the core of the veteran 04 and 07 WS teams, but I think it is possible.

 

I love that Buchholz wasn't on the postseason roster. I would have liked to see him pitch, but it will keep a chip on his shoulder as he will need to define himself outside of the 07 Red Sox.

 

I enjoy your posts and learn a lot from them, but I do get tired of your generalizing when it comes to my views. For the 1,000 th time, I'm not against young players. I love the acquisition of Beckett and I still like Dice k although I think he will blow out his arm if he doesn't learn to pitch more efficiently. I've been a big promoter of papelbon since his first appearances in 2005. I think Ellsbury is going to be a star. I like Bucholz a lot. I wouldn't trade either of them for an over the hill overpaid guy. Miggy Cabrera is a young HOF talented player and Santana is a young shut down Cy Young ace. I don't think we have to have these guys, but I would go hard after Santana if the Yankees are making a play for him, because i think that could shift the balance of power in their favor for 3 or 4 years. Please stop generalizing. It gets tiring to explain more than 1,000 times why the stereotype is wrong.

 

Fair enough. There is never anything wrong with a little gamesmanship, trying to lure possible players away from rivals. I dig it.

 

I just feel like the Sox would be being aggressive by being conservative at this point, if you know what I mean, and that is what they should do. The status quo currently involves a huge infusion of young talent into the everyday Red Sox team. That's a good thing.

 

Again, sorry for the generalization. I just think you could give a bit more respect than to call the idea of holding onto Buchholz and Ellsbury instead of throwing them at Santana "laughable" when the patience some of us have defended recently paid off with a WS based on the NEW LOOK Red Sox, who used 3 SPs and an entire bullpen (except Timlin) who were not with the 04 team and had the best run differential in WS history; the lineup--as you obviously know--had two rookies in the top spots in the order, and they looked like they are there to stay.

 

At the end of the season this year we were hands down the best team. No other team is going to improve enough in the off-season to challenge that, whether the Sox have Lowell, or A-Rod or Cabrera or whoever. The top prospects will mature with a solid team around them and be the centerpiece of the offense for years to come. Don't want to mess with that "build from within" plan that is only now coming to fruition.

[a700hitter]

a700, sorry if I was generalizing.

 

With statements like that a year ago, involving "slaps in the face" and "chickens coming home to roost" you felt justified in slamming the FO pretty hard. You downplayed the injuries on the 2006 team, you downplayed the FO's own predictions that there would be a few-year lag in terms of having the team on the field that they truly wanted.

That statement was made in the wake of an embarrassing year. I think 2006 was a slap of reality to the FO. Theo took responsibility and none other than JH gave the go ahead to be aggressive (i.e., money) in building the team for 2007. Since then I have agreed with the approach they have taken. Maybe I have not agreed with every decision, but I have agreed with the overall approach. I am at a loss at what you are contending. Do you feel challenged that I might like the FO moves more than you do.

 

2 WS in 4 years' date=' even a crusty veteran like yourself must be pretty happy. I don't agree that this is some unexpected development. I think that from every interview I read and books, etc., this is basically what they hoped would happen. They still have stars, and they ensured that they had stars to build around while retooling. The retooling is essentially over and in maintenance mode. [/quote']i think they have the team where they want it now, but 2006 was a terrible miscalculation and I believe that they accelerated the retooling process. Either way, they got it right in 2007, and I couldn't be happier. They are in a position of financial strength with a wealth of young talent. The next 3 to 5 years should be a lot of fun.

 

Again' date=' sorry for the generalization. I just think you could give a bit more respect than to call the idea of holding onto Buchholz and Ellsbury instead of throwing them at Santana "laughable" [/quote'] Didn't I already post an apology for that post. Do I need beg your forgiveness before you let it go?

[example1]

That statement was made in the wake of an embarrassing year. I think 2006 was a slap of reality to the FO. Theo took responsibility and none other than JH gave the go ahead to be aggressive (i.e., money) in building the team for 2007. Since then I have agreed with the approach they have taken. Maybe I have not agreed with every decision, but I have agreed with the overall approach. I am at a loss at what you are contending. Do you feel challenged that I might like the FO moves more than you do.

 

i think they have the team where they want it now, but 2006 was a terrible miscalculation and I believe that they accelerated the retooling process. Either way, they got it right in 2007, and I couldn't be happier. They are in a position of financial strength with a wealth of young talent. The next 3 to 5 years should be a lot of fun.

 

Didn't I already post an apology for that post. Do I need beg your forgiveness before you let it go?

 

I will let it go. If you have faith in their philosophy then you should be okay if the Yankees get Cabrera or Santana and the Sox don't. It will not be the same as a Bobby Abreu situation, and will not indicate a sign of weakness. If I can be assured that there will not be another near-riot should the Yankees aggressively pursue one of these guys, I'm fine with everything.

 

BTW, you're pretty funny sometimes.

[TheKilo]

The White Sox are in the mix for Miguel Cabrera, with the intention of playing him in left field, FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal reports.

 

Rosenthal suggests a package of Josh Fields, Gio Gonzalez and Jerry Owens, though he admits it could be too light. Which it would be. Trading Jon Garland for a couple of prospects and then packaging those prospects with Fields and/or Gonzalez might work. The Marlins could also have some interest in Nick Masset and David Aardsma

 

Rotoworld