Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[example1]

I post a link from the Herald where the writer gives his view of where the Sox are at after the Winter Meetings' date=' and you think that an appropriate reply is to personally attack me? A mature response would have been to discuss the merits of the author's opinion. I realize that your stated profession is Free-loader, but we do have certain rules here whether or not you have rules and discipline in your personal life. There's no free ride here.[/quote']

 

Sharing the opinions of the authors warrants a personal attack? Really? I was hoping for a discussion of the article. Discussion of issues is why I come here. I don't come here for hit and run insults. Is that why you are here? BTW' date=' what substantive issue are you trying to discuss with me? So, you are defending insult and run or troll and run posts?[/quote']

 

Here were the two main questions that you didn't answer in the two above posts. I'm interested in these answers much more than any personal attacks that people are getting involved in:

 

1.

Do you really operate under the assumption that Theo is sitting around on his ass all offseason doing nothing?

 

2.

Do you think Theo is just going to sit by and idly do nothing? That all he cares about is raking in the cash?

[yeszir]

I honestly wouldn't mind a "step back" this year.

 

I urge you to reconsider your position. This is the Red Sox you're talking about. How pissed would you be with an 80 win season. I think that's a Yawkey mentality, not a Theo one.

[Peter Backgammons]

Sorry I'm new to the site and Im trying to sort through the argument. It always seems like Sox arguments break down into pro and anti Epstein camps. That's what's happening here right?

 

I agree with Ron Burgundy, I think. The team isnt going to sit on its hands given an option. Even the incomplete lineup we have right now would be entertaining to watch on the field. It seems like some people i the past few pages dont really like being Sox fans.

[example1]

Sorry I'm new to the site and Im trying to sort through the argument. It always seems like Sox arguments break down into pro and anti Epstein camps. That's what's happening here right?

 

I agree with Ron Burgundy, I think. The team isnt going to sit on its hands given an option. Even the incomplete lineup we have right now would be entertaining to watch on the field. It seems like some people i the past few pages dont really like being Sox fans.

 

They don't like not winning every year and they especially don't like it when it is obvious that the team isn't set the way it should be and the Sox aren't just throwing enormous piles of money at the problem.

 

I think throwing money at the problem when it isn't absolutely the answer is what makes teams like the Red Sox end up with 80 wins for a few years, not making the playoffs year after year.

[a700hitter]

Here were the two main questions that you didn't answer in the two above posts. I'm interested in these answers much more than any personal attacks that people are getting involved in:

 

1. Do you really operate under the assumption that Theo is sitting around on his ass all offseason doing nothing?

 

2. Do you think Theo is just going to sit by and idly do nothing? That all he cares about is raking in the cash?

Did the author of this article make either of those points? Here's the link again:

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/b..._only_way_out/

 

I think he was making the point that after an uneventful Winter Meetings, the FO will have to resort to Free Agency to fill the holes unless they are considering a blockbuster trade for Sox prospects. He pointed out that there are the expensive free agent options, i.e., Beltre and Bay/Holliday, or the bargain basement free agent options, i.e, Mike Cameron and DeRosa/Nick Johnson. Do you disagree that is where the Sox are at this juncture?

 

As for the two questions you have asked that are not even implied in the article, the answers are no and no.

 

I have a similar type of question for you. Do you think the FO is infallible and never makes a mistake?

[a700hitter]

Sorry I'm new to the site and Im trying to sort through the argument. It always seems like Sox arguments break down into pro and anti Epstein camps. That's what's happening here right?

 

I agree with Ron Burgundy, I think. The team isnt going to sit on its hands given an option. Even the incomplete lineup we have right now would be entertaining to watch on the field. It seems like some people i the past few pages dont really like being Sox fans.

You are 7 posts into TalkSox and you are getting ready to suggest that certain Red Sox fans should root for another team... the Yankees perhaps?

:lol:

[yankees228]

You are 7 posts into TalkSox and you are getting ready to suggest that certain Red Sox fans should root for another team... the Yankees perhaps?

:lol:

 

At this point, I think it's clear you're not wanted by the Red Sox fans, and I think, for you, there is only one logical step to take. It involves pinstripes, a brand new stadium, and, the most enticing part, a very aggressive front office...

[a700hitter]

At this point' date=' I think it's clear you're not wanted by the Red Sox fans, and I think, for you, there is only one logical step to take. It involves pinstripes, a brand new stadium, and, the most enticing part, a very aggressive front office...[/quote']I'm shredding my Yaz memorabilia as we speak. My Ted Williams signed bat is targeted for the fireplace. My team's fans have rejected me. I'm out of the club.

[yankees228]

I'm shredding my Yaz memorabilia as we speak. My Ted Williams signed bat is targeted for the fireplace. My team's fans have rejected me. I'm out of the club.

 

Hahaha, the smartest decision you've ever made.

[example1]

Did the author of this article make either of those points? Here's the link again:

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/b..._only_way_out/

 

I think he was making the point that after an uneventful Winter Meetings, the FO will have to resort to Free Agency to fill the holes unless they are considering a blockbuster trade for Sox prospects. He pointed out that there are the expensive free agent options, i.e., Beltre and Bay/Holliday, or the bargain basement free agent options, i.e, Mike Cameron and DeRosa/Nick Johnson. Do you disagree that is where the Sox are at this juncture?

 

Not at all. I think I've been clear that they need to get Bay or Holliday. I don't feel like it is shocking though. I wasn't expecting them to go and trade Buchholz or Kelly etc.,

 

What the author doesn't point out is that there are plenty of opportunities to make trades for good players without moving guys who are necessarily part of the future.

 

Victor Martinez was a case in point: Masterson, Price, Hagadone. All good players but not essential pieces to the Sox winning the WS.

 

The reality is that peoplereally do see guys like Buchholz, Kelly and Westmoreland as ACTUALLY capable of being MLB stars, not just average players. That's like 4 players out of hundreds in the system--it isn't chronic overvaluing, they've nailed it a number of times with their prospects so far. The rest are still available and so the Sox ability to make trades may be limited to players who can be had for those hundreds of players... that could be okay if they handle it correctly.

 

A way of expanding this pool of players is by trading MLB players and eating their salary to get back good prospects and young players. That's what they're trying to do with Lowell. That's another direction, between the "trade prospects" and "sign FA" duality the article mentioned.

 

I have a similar type of question for you. Do you think the FO is infallible and never makes a mistake?

 

No. Everyone make mistakes. I just don't question their motives. I think they really want to win and they really dislike losing.

[Dojji]

I urge you to reconsider your position. This is the Red Sox you're talking about. How pissed would you be with an 80 win season. I think that's a Yawkey mentality' date=' not a Theo one.[/quote']

 

Meh, I disagree. If it's headed that way, let it happen, don't strain your resources trying to force-fix problems over multiple positions. Right now we have a nice pool of reserve talent at every position but SS and 3B, I'm all for keeping it that way rather than going nuts in big trades for over-30 veterans who won't be with us, or won't be in their prime, when the big wave hits..

 

As near as I can tell, the next big year is 2012. that's when our next wave of kids is going to start really making an impact on the team. 2010. 2011, we'll start seeing the likes of Reddik, Kalish, Expo, Kelly hopefuly Anderson, begin to filter in and then start establishing themselves as stalwarts. Sort of like we intro'd Pedroia, Ellsbury and Lester over the last couple seasons. Unless we trade that all away, of course, on the latest sexy big name that wanders by.

 

In the meantime, I don't think we're in any particular danger of a below .500 season. We didn't even fall that far in '06, and we're a lot better now than we were that season. Our pitching in particular is significantly stronger and deeper, and we can cope with the kind of injuries that troubled the Sox that year much better now.'

 

Now we might win 89, 90 games and miss the playoffs, and I'm here to say that I'm fine with that as long as it's used to springboard us to a longer and healthier set of peak years over the 4-5 seasons that come afterward.

[a700hitter]

What the author doesn't point out is that there are plenty of opportunities to make trades for good players without moving guys who are necessarily part of the future.

 

Victor Martinez was a case in point: Masterson, Price, Hagadone. All good players but not essential pieces to the Sox winning the WS.

This is the kind of discussion that i wanted to have when I posted the article. I don't know why so many posters would rather argue about whether the FO is good or evil instead of arguing about what we think they will or should be doing. I don't know anyone in the FO, so i neither like or dislike any of them. There are many ways to build a good team. It is not limited to one formula or set of moves. Some people prefer Bay, other Holliday. They are both good, and either would help the team. If the team signs bay, that doesn't mean that the fans that like Holliday hate Theo. Anyway, back to the sports discussion. What other players who are rumored to be available could improve the Sox and could be had for something less than our best prospects?

 

I think they really want to win and they really dislike losing.

Don't they try to balance winning with maximizing revenue and profit?

[yankees228]

I think it's come down to this: what are you willing to do for a championship? Hypothetically, lets say the proposed trade is Halladay for Kelly.

 

-Halladay gives you a great shot to win a championship in the next couple years.

 

-Kelly has a chance to be a big contributor on the Red Sox for many years to come.

 

It's very similar to Beckett for Hanley. Obviously, we know Theo's position on trades like this, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone for feeling either way.

[example1]

There are many ways to build a good team. It is not limited to one formula or set of moves.

 

Success can come in many shapes and forms, we agree. So why does that mean that they I should get upset if they don't get who I think they should get or who is the public consensus #1 choice. If success comes in many forms isn't there reason to think this successful and well-resourced FO might know another way of getting there?

 

Not to belabor the point, but let's take Adrian Beltre and Mike Lowell, for instance. Based on a number of different measurements, Beltre will outproduce the Mike Lowell that we've seen the past few years, largely due to his glove. He's expected to be healthy, he's younger and he hits with some pop. Not exciting, but he's likely to produce enough (when both sides of the ball are taken into account) to actually strengthen his 1/9th of the team.

 

If this type of addition is combined with a number of other trends, it actually comes across as an acceptable move at the right price--to me at least. Where this team may be trying to make its biggest impact is with run prevention; namely, realizing that 5 very good starting pitchers with a very good defense can carry a team to the playoffs.

 

Beltre may make more than he should, but he probably won't be paid more than he's worth. They need all players to be able to field well if they are going to exploit their pitching/defensive advantage. Which leads to ....

 

Some people prefer Bay, other Holliday. They are both good, and either would help the team. If the team signs bay, that doesn't mean that the fans that like Holliday hate Theo.

 

I wonder if Bay or Holliday are going to be the option here? Bay's defense really isn't very good, but I think he'd be a good DH... whether he'll take DH money to stay is another question. Holliday seems like he's going to be really expensive and that Boras is going to play this goddamn game of chicken again for his client.

[Lester82]

"and, the most enticing part, a very aggressive front office...'

 

The Red Sox have a pretty aggressive front office as well. Thank the lord they went out and found a taker for Lowell and are remaking this team's defense. Kudos to ownership for being willing to pay heavily to get Lowell out.

[riverside sluggers]

Meh, I disagree. If it's headed that way, let it happen, don't strain your resources trying to force-fix problems over multiple positions. Right now we have a nice pool of reserve talent at every position but SS and 3B, I'm all for keeping it that way rather than going nuts in big trades for over-30 veterans who won't be with us, or won't be in their prime, when the big wave hits..

 

As near as I can tell, the next big year is 2012. that's when our next wave of kids is going to start really making an impact on the team. 2010. 2011, we'll start seeing the likes of Reddik, Kalish, Expo, Kelly hopefuly Anderson, begin to filter in and then start establishing themselves as stalwarts. Sort of like we intro'd Pedroia, Ellsbury and Lester over the last couple seasons. Unless we trade that all away, of course, on the latest sexy big name that wanders by.

 

In the meantime, I don't think we're in any particular danger of a below .500 season. We didn't even fall that far in '06, and we're a lot better now than we were that season. Our pitching in particular is significantly stronger and deeper, and we can cope with the kind of injuries that troubled the Sox that year much better now.'

 

Now we might win 89, 90 games and miss the playoffs, and I'm here to say that I'm fine with that as long as it's used to springboard us to a longer and healthier set of peak years over the 4-5 seasons that come afterward.

 

I hardly think that 2011 wont be a big year. By them as you noted the some of the top prospects could be making more of an impact. Plus 2010 offseason will see them shedding roughly $55 million off the books, while a deep free agent class is presented

[Dojji]

Sure, but the kids that debut in 2010 and 2011 will likely take a little while to really round into shape, so I'd rather not count on them as impact players Until 2012. that's the price you pay, sometimes, for riding a wave of youth to contention.

[a700hitter]

Sure' date=' but the kids that debut in 2010 and 2011 will likely take a little while to really round into shape, so I'd rather not count on them as impact players Until 2012. that's the price you pay, sometimes, for riding a wave of youth to contention.[/quote']

They may not become impact players until after 2012. By 2012, other holes will have opened up due to age, injury and other reasons, so we could be hearing more of the same "let's not sacrifice the future" talk in 2012 unless they make certain long term acquisitions between now and then. IMO, it is not feasible to field a Championship team with all young cost-controlled guys. There just are not enough of those guys in our system who will be ready to be major contributors by 2012.

[Dojji]

Who said anything about ALL young cost-controlled guys. I'm just against trying to blow our wad early, because you need SOME cost controlled guys arriving on a near-constant basis.

[a700hitter]

Who said anything about ALL young cost-controlled guys. I'm just against trying to blow our wad early' date=' because you need SOME cost controlled guys arriving on a near-constant basis.[/quote']i didn't say that you said anything. My point is that if the FO publicly is saying that thay are not going to sacrifice the future and they are going to hold onto the guys that are 2,3 4 years away that there will be other holes that need to be filled in 2012, 13 with FA's and /or trades. At some point, they have to make some trades or signings whether it be this year or in the next couple of years.

[example1]

i didn't say that you said anything. My point is that if the FO publicly is saying that thay are not going to sacrifice the future and they are going to hold onto the guys that are 2' date='3 4 years away that there will be other holes that need to be filled in 2012, 13 with FA's and /or trades. At some point, they have to make some trades or signings whether it be this year or in the next couple of years.[/quote']

 

I suggest that instead of banking so firmly on Theo's "bridge" comments, you should listen to Larry Lucchino on WEEI the other day (yesterday). It's available on podcast and he clarifies what Theo was talking about and makes fun of Shaugnessy's stupid article.

 

The whole idea of a bridge is merely that in order to stay competitive the Sox are going to have to find some players who bridge the gap between their current team and where they want to be in a few years given some of the excellent players they have in their system. Things like Marco Scutaro and (potentially) Adrian Beltre might be examples of that. What they don't want to do is overreact by signing really long/overpriced deals for guys who are ultimately going to eat into their ability to integrate those players in in a few years. That's all that was meant. Maybe this means they have less interest in John Lackey (who has an injury history) at AJ Burnett money when, for the same money, they could sign someone like Beckett or Cliff Lee next year. Maybe they have their eyes on other players we would be excited about (including Adrian Gonzalez) but who aren't available right now... or the pieces necessary to trade for him aren't available.

 

There's a lot going on behind the curtain that we are not privy to, which will dictate the direction of this team.

 

And Lucchino laughed off any idea of "standing pat" during the offseason, basically saying 'we've been busy every other offseason and we will be this offseason too, it just isn't in our interest, in terms of negotiating, to tell other teams what our salary cap is going to be, or whether we plan to make a big splash in FA. That might be something that fans and the media want, but it isn't beneficial for the organization.'

 

Long story short, they have to find creative ways to get from here to there while keeping up a high caliber team.

 

Here's a link to that interview if you haven't heard it already (it's on the left side):

 

http://www.weei.com/shows/dennis-callahan/home

 

I'm curious to know your thoughts... in the interest of a good discussion, however, I would ask that you not say "well, it's Larry Lucchino, of course he's going to say everything is fine, we're being aggressive, etc., that's his job and he can't be taken at face value."

 

Listen to what he says and we can discuss it, if you want...

[yankees228]

"and' date=' the most enticing part, a very aggressive front office...'[/b']

 

The Red Sox have a pretty aggressive front office as well. Thank the lord they went out and found a taker for Lowell and are remaking this team's defense. Kudos to ownership for being willing to pay heavily to get Lowell out.

 

Haha, I know. It was nothing more than a joke.

[a700hitter]

Long story short' date=' they have to find creative ways to get from here to there while keeping up a high caliber team. [/quote']Doesn't this bring us right back to the article. If they are not going to part with their top prospects for a blockbuster trade or two, then they are left with the FA route. Do they go the expensive route, i.e., Beltre and Bay/Holliday or do they go for the bargains i.e., Cameron and DeRosa/Johnson. You seem to think there is another option that wouldn't cost our top prospects. I don't remember if you offered any specific possibilities of available players.

 

I'm curious to know your thoughts... in the interest of a good discussion' date=' however, I would ask that you not say "well, it's Larry Lucchino, of course he's going to say everything is fine, we're being aggressive, etc., that's his job and he can't be taken at face value." [/quote']I always take what they say as face value. You are the one that assumes they are playing things close to the vest and have a secret agenda. When they tell me that they don't want to sacrifice the future, I believe them, and i don't expect any big trades. When Theo said it was less than 50/50 that they would do a big deal at the winter meetings, I believed him. And he was apparently telling us the truth, because they didn't make any deal except dumping Lowell and opening a hole at 3B. I am hoping that this doesn't pave the way for Kotchman to start at 1B. I am suspecting that they may be going in that direction, because Beltre has a low OBP and he has been a big bust in Seattle. I wouldn't be turning cartwheels over Beltre, but Kotchman would make me puke.

[Dojji]

Speaking of third base, the scuttle around the Internet is that the Rockies might non-tender Garrett Atkins. I think the non-tender deadline has past, so I'd be interested if anyone knew his status. He might be a good fit, and I doubt he'd be all that expensive coming off a nontender.

 

Thoughts?

[example1]

Doesn't this bring us right back to the article. If they are not going to part with their top prospects for a blockbuster trade or two' date=' then they are left with the FA route. Do they go the expensive route, i.e., Beltre and Bay/Holliday or do they go for the bargains i.e., Cameron and DeRosa/Johnson. You seem to think there is another option that wouldn't cost our top prospects. I don't remember if you offered any specific possibilities of available players.[/quote']

 

I guess I don't consider Beltre to be the expensive route. I am hopeful that he will cost less than 10m and his years will be limited. I think expensive means paying more per-year than you want to, and being forced to pay for longer than they want to. If Scutaro had demanded 4 seasons at 10m a year, that would have been expensive.

 

I always take what they say as face value. You are the one that assumes they are playing things close to the vest and have a secret agenda. When they tell me that they don't want to sacrifice the future, I believe them, and i don't expect any big trades.

 

I believe them to. So when they make trades or don't make trades I assume it is about the future as much as it is about the present. I think they have that value and they want to stick to it.

 

When Theo said it was less than 50/50 that they would do a big deal at the winter meetings, I believed him. And he was apparently telling us the truth, because they didn't make any deal except dumping Lowell and opening a hole at 3B.

 

There are only a limited number of players who would have represented a more significant move than swallowing Lowell's salary for a good catching prospect. That was a bold move and is the type of thing the Sox can do because of their financial advantage. They didn't land Holliday or Halladay, but moving Lowell and getting Scutaro signed seem like pretty big moves to me.

 

I am hoping that this doesn't pave the way for Kotchman to start at 1B. I am suspecting that they may be going in that direction, because Beltre has a low OBP and he has been a big bust in Seattle. I wouldn't be turning cartwheels over Beltre, but Kotchman would make me puke.

 

He hasn't been a big bust in Seattle. He's been worth more than his contract every season and, according to WAR, he's been more valuable than Lowell. This is simply an incorrect--though common--misconception that I shared with you before I looked deeper into the numbers.

 

The thing I hate about Beltre, more than his performance or the type of player he is, is his 2004 season. If he hadn't had that year I'd see him as a nice--albeit unspectacular--player. Instead, I'm pretty sure he used roids to get a big contract. I know, you hate that type of unfounded speculation, but if it is warranted with anyone I think it's him. His numbers that year were MVP'esque and he hasn't approached it since. THAT is what turns me off about him. Otherwise, he's a good glove, decent power, poor plate discipline guy who will give the team 3-5 WAR on a yearly basis... not horrible.

[Dojji]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091211&content_id=7802094&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

 

Found it. Garrett Atkins has not been tendered a contract and is available as a FA.

 

And there we have it folks -- a legitimate alternative to Adrian Beltre, also righthanded, also coming off a bad year, and probably less expensive.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Difference between Atkins' and Beltre's bad years - one played half his games at SAFECO, the other at f***ing Coors field.

[Dojji]

Sure but it's not like Fenway is a terrible ballpark for RHH either. Probably a bigger criticism would be Atkins' defense, which is mediocre. If he's sufficiently cheaper than Beltre though, and the money could be used to pick up Matt Holliday, it should be considered, especially if you can get Atkins on a 1 or 2 year deal and Beltre wants 3.

[example1]

While he is an alternative, his play has been really bad the past two years. .6 WAR and -.4, for a total or 0.2 WAR over two seasons.

 

He is indeed a cheaper version of Beltre, but without the actual positive contriutions to his team. The confounding issue with the 3B position (which I think might lead them back to Beltre) is that there aren't good options on the horizon, either internally or through FA over the next few years.

 

Youkilis may be an option at 3B, but as time goes on I suspect he is more and more a 1B/DH, and less a 3B option. I'm confident they've projected into the future to see who else is available and that if they sign Beltre it's becasue there really aren't many better options out there.

 

I'm intregued by Atkins, but he couldn't even start for COL this past year and was abysmal the year before. I liked him in 06 and 07, not so much in 10 and 11.

[Dojji]

Well bear in mind that the guy that supplanted Atkins is pretty studly, and we don't have anyone like that looking to take over at third -- so the situation that helped cost him a job isn't really the same as the one we have

 

The way I see it, you get Atkins if you're counting on having one of your prospects, or Max Ramirez, get some work in the minors and then emerge as a stud 1B. Atkins covers that position at at least replacement level for a short period of time without encumbering the books with a big salary you have to move. And if he does perform to his old level with the bat -- DH will be coming open next season, and Atkins can play there or take part in a platoon situation depending on the needs of the club. And I doubt he'll cost enough that this team can't use its financial clout to get him off the team if he becomes a problem, so the risk is actually fairly low IMHO -- lower than Beltre, who we'd have to commit to a great deal more than we would Atkins and would have a much harder time getting rid of if things flopped.

 

I think that just because Youks has played a lot of 1B shouldn't decieve us into thinking he's a 1B in the traditional sense, and not a capable third baseman -- Youkilis originally projected as a solid 3B, remember, and he's played that position solidly every time we've asked him to, even despite putting most of his prepwork into 1B. Just because we've had worse luck replacing at 1B than 3B recently doesn't mean that if he became the everday third baseman we'd have a problem with his glove.