2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[FredLynn]

Who's to say they are unavailable for the right trade?

 

I am sure they ARE available for trade-if we can find a sucker deal. In order to obtain a good SP we would have to surrender many of our top prospects, realistically. Thats not a smart thing to do. No GM is going to swap a Vitek for a good SP straight up; it would take at least three of our top guys to swing that. We just don't have the depth to do that.

[BSN07]

I keep seeing the Red Sox mentioned in articles about That 19 year old Cuban OF, Jorge Soler. What's everyone's thought about possible getting him?

[User Name]

Why would we remove top prospects from the equation? Could that be because ours do not measure up to the top prospects in the farm systems of the top 10 ML teams? I would rather have minor league prospects' date=' especially PITCHING prospects (of which we have very few who are likely to sniff our roster), than middle of the pack guys with a so-called "upside". That category of prospect described Lars Anderson, Felix Doubront, and Michael Bowden not too long ago. [/quote']

 

What does this even mean?

 

I said remove our top prospects from the equation and we could still create an enticing package.

 

If you keep top prospects in the equation (Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Jacobs, Ranaudo) the Red Sox could acquire pretty much any available pitcher they wanted. The problem with the farm system isn't talent ranking itself, but ETA.

 

 

Guys that are closer to being able to contribute are certainly preferable than what we have in our farm system. Thats why our farm system is ranked as very ordinary compared to the top tier. And getting back to my original point, its a reason Cherington didn't have the goods to make a deal for a prime SP, along with the owners reluctance to open wide their wallets. Its why we are where we are today.

 

"Preferable" does not remove the possibility (and it's a very real one) that the Red Sox can prepare a package for an SP if they want to. The right deal simply hasn't come along.

 

Players like Adrian Gonzales, Mark Teixeira (when traded to Atlanta), CC Sabathia (when traded to Milwaukee) have all been traded for packages with guys with high ceilings who were a ways off. You are dead wrong.

 

Your initial point is also incorrect, and again, shows a lack of knowledge of the system. If the Red Sox offered up Middlebrroks, Jacobs, Ranaudo and Sean Coyle for Gavin Floyd, Kenny Williams would fly him to Boston himself.

[User Name]

I am sure they ARE available for trade-if we can find a sucker deal. In order to obtain a good SP we would have to surrender many of our top prospects' date=' realistically. Thats not a smart thing to do. No GM is going to swap a Vitek for a good SP straight up; it would take at least three of our top guys to swing that. We just don't have the depth to do that.[/quote']

 

The farm system has enough depth at 3B, OF and 2B to create a package for a SP while having to use no more than one of the top guys.

[Johnny]

What does this even mean?

 

I said remove our top prospects from the equation and we could still create an enticing package.

 

If you keep top prospects in the equation (Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Jacobs, Ranaudo) the Red Sox could acquire pretty much any available pitcher they wanted. The problem with the farm system isn't talent ranking itself, but ETA.

 

 

 

 

"Preferable" does not remove the possibility (and it's a very real one) that the Red Sox can prepare a package for an SP if they want to. The right deal simply hasn't come along.

 

Players like Adrian Gonzales, Mark Teixeira (when traded to Atlanta), CC Sabathia (when traded to Milwaukee) have all been traded for packages with guys with high ceilings who were a ways off. You are dead wrong.

 

Your initial point is also incorrect, and again, shows a lack of knowledge of the system. If the Red Sox offered up Middlebrroks, Jacobs, Ranaudo and Sean Coyle for Gavin Floyd, Kenny Williams would fly him to Boston himself.

 

 

Notice how the conversation went from not having good prospects to having good prospects but we won't trade them. Which one is it now ?

[FredLynn]

What does this even mean?

 

I said remove our top prospects from the equation and we could still create an enticing package.

 

If you keep top prospects in the equation (Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Jacobs, Ranaudo) the Red Sox could acquire pretty much any available pitcher they wanted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Preferable" does not remove the possibility (and it's a very real one) that the Red Sox can prepare a package for an SP if they want to. The right deal simply hasn't come along.

 

Players like Adrian Gonzales, Mark Teixeira (when traded to Atlanta), CC Sabathia (when traded to Milwaukee) have all been traded for packages with guys with high ceilings who were a ways off. You are dead wrong.

 

Your initial point is also incorrect, and again, shows a lack of knowledge of the system. If the Red Sox offered up Middlebrroks, Jacobs, Ranaudo and Sean Coyle for Gavin Floyd, Kenny Williams would fly him to Boston himself.

 

You are missing the point again. We cannot afford to surrender Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Jacobs, and Ranaudo for ANYONE. There are simply too few guys left behind them.

If the chances of a "near ready" top prospect making an impact in the majors is, for example, 50%, the chance for a prospect who is in AA ball is far less. So we need a lot more of them in order to get a couple of guys who will eventually make it up in a meaningful way. Thats why our farm system is ranked as ordinary by every source I could find. We trade away four (or three) of them for a single guy like Floyd and we dramatically reduce the quality of our already mediocre farm system.

As regards the Gonzalez trade, Rizzo and Kelly were hardly in the class of Middlebrooks (who hit .161 at AAA last year) et al. Rizzo has already played in the majors, and Kelly is not far behind, most likely. No GM is just going to give away a good SP for a couple of guys with "an upside". It will take a large package of them or fewer of the kind of prospects we no longer possess.

[FredLynn]

Notice how the conversation went from not having good prospects to having good prospects but we won't trade them. Which one is it now ?

 

Thats better than calling some posters here "stooges". Now we can discuss the issues.

I probably misspoke. The intent was to convey my opinion that we cannot afford to trade away the number of prospects it would take to secure a good SP, our primary need, without severely raping our already mediocre farm system. We do have some prospects, obviously, but none who are really going to be able to contribute any time soon. If I am a GM, I would prefer guys who have played in AAA and played well as part of the package as opposed to guys who have 100 ABs in AAA or haven't even made it there yet.

[FredLynn]

The farm system has enough depth at 3B' date=' OF and 2B to create a package for a SP while having to use no more than one of the top guys.[/quote']

 

Really. Then why wasn't it done?

[User Name]

You are missing the point again. We cannot afford to surrender Middlebrooks' date=' Bogaerts, Jacobs, and Ranaudo for ANYONE. There are simply too few guys left behind them.[/quote']

 

That was exactly the point of "remove them from the equation". Who's missing the point again?

 

If the chances of a "near ready" top prospect making an impact in the majors is, for example, 50%, the chance for a prospect who is in AA ball is far less. So we need a lot more of them in order to get a couple of guys who will eventually make it up in a meaningful way. Thats why our farm system is ranked as ordinary by every source I could find. We trade away four (or three) of them for a single guy like Floyd and we dramatically reduce the quality of our already mediocre farm system.

 

This doesn't mean that a deal could not be struck, which was your initial point. The farm system can produce players for the trade.

 

As regards the Gonzalez trade, Rizzo and Kelly were hardly in the class of Middlebrooks (who hit .161 at AAA last year) et al. Rizzo has already played in the majors, and Kelly is not far behind, most likely. No GM is just going to give away a good SP for a couple of guys with "an upside". It will take a large package of them or fewer of the kind of prospects we no longer possess.

 

Middlebrooks got 56 At Bats in AAA, for one. The point of the Gonzales trade, by the way, were Kelly and Fuentes. Who are very comparable right now to some of the mid-level guys the Sox have right now if you take away Kelly's hype machine.

 

The issue here is that your initial point was that they "don't have the players to pull off a trade for a SP". You came up with the "depth" argument afterwards. They have enough players in the farm system to pull off a trade. Depleting the farm system, as an argument, was inconsequential to the initial point. And even if we include it, they still have enough depth in certain positions to pull off a trade without seriously damaging the farm.

 

You keep bashing the "mediocrity" of the farm, but i don't quite think you're focusing on the real status of the Red Sox farm system. It's not a lack of talent that the system suffers from.

[User Name]

Really. Then why wasn't it done?

 

They set a value for players. If they think that what the other team was asking is too much for their taste, they don't make a trade. Aren't you the "read between the lines" guy? Then why weren't their two main targets, Floyd and Garza, traded at all? Is it a problem with the Red Sox depth or were the Chicago teams asking for too much?

[Johnny]

Thats better than calling some posters here "stooges". Now we can discuss the issues.

I probably misspoke. The intent was to convey my opinion that we cannot afford to trade away the number of prospects it would take to secure a good SP, our primary need, without severely raping our already mediocre farm system. We do have some prospects, obviously, but none who are really going to be able to contribute any time soon. If I am a GM, I would prefer guys who have played in AAA and played well as part of the package as opposed to guys who have 100 ABs in AAA or haven't even made it there yet.

 

 

You clearly did and also have no baseball knowledge

[FredLynn]

That was exactly the point of "remove them from the equation". Who's missing the point again?

 

 

 

This doesn't mean that a deal could not be struck, which was your initial point. The farm system can produce players for the trade.

 

 

 

Middlebrooks got 56 At Bats in AAA, for one. The point of the Gonzales trade, by the way, were Kelly and Fuentes. Who are very comparable right now to some of the mid-level guys the Sox have right now if you take away Kelly's hype machine.

 

The issue here is that your initial point was that they "don't have the players to pull off a trade for a SP". You came up with the "depth" argument afterwards. They have enough players in the farm system to pull off a trade. Depleting the farm system, as an argument, was inconsequential to the initial point. And even if we include it, they still have enough depth in certain positions to pull off a trade without seriously damaging the farm.

 

You keep bashing the "mediocrity" of the farm, but i don't quite think you're focusing on the real status of the Red Sox farm system. It's not a lack of talent that the system suffers from.

 

You keep bashing the "mediocrity" of the farm, but i don't quite think you're focusing on the real status of the Red Sox farm system. It's not a lack of talent that the system suffers from.

 

Thats EXACTLY what we suffer from. Its why we are ranked anywhere from 10th to 18th by all the sources I could find. If we had more TALENT we would be ranked higher.

The SP problem is one that I am sure our FO is aware of. I am also sure that they made every effort to obtain a good SP with a package of midlevel prospects, which is really all we have-guys with an upside who are nowhere near ML ready.

As I said, sure, we have the players to pull off a trade, but what it would take to get a good SP would excessively further degrade what is already a mediocre farm system. I don't think we can afford to sink any lower than where we are now. Maybe if some of these guys come along in their development we can swing a trade that makes sense. Right now it didn't happen, and there is probably a very good reason for it. Other GMs are not going to just give away good SP.

[FredLynn]

They set a value for players. If they think that what the other team was asking is too much for their taste' date=' they don't make a trade. Aren't you the "read between the lines" guy? Then why weren't their two main targets, Floyd and Garza, traded at all? Is it a problem with the Red Sox depth or were the Chicago teams asking for too much?[/quote']

 

The Chicago teams were probably asking for what they felt was fair; and we probably offered what we thought was fair, what we could afford to give up. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to give up much nowadays, what with the current state of our farm system. Its not good enough to withstand giving away any package of decent prospects.

[FredLynn]

You clearly did and also have no baseball knowledge

 

Gosh Mr Wizard, is that what you really think?

Pardon me while I take a minute to genuflect in your presence.......:harhar:

[Johnny]

That was exactly the point of "remove them from the equation". Who's missing the point again?

 

 

 

This doesn't mean that a deal could not be struck, which was your initial point. The farm system can produce players for the trade.

 

 

 

Middlebrooks got 56 At Bats in AAA, for one. The point of the Gonzales trade, by the way, were Kelly and Fuentes. Who are very comparable right now to some of the mid-level guys the Sox have right now if you take away Kelly's hype machine.

 

The issue here is that your initial point was that they "don't have the players to pull off a trade for a SP". You came up with the "depth" argument afterwards. They have enough players in the farm system to pull off a trade. Depleting the farm system, as an argument, was inconsequential to the initial point. And even if we include it, they still have enough depth in certain positions to pull off a trade without seriously damaging the farm.

 

You keep bashing the "mediocrity" of the farm, but i don't quite think you're focusing on the real status of the Red Sox farm system. It's not a lack of talent that the system suffers from.

 

 

You are right, he switched boats the minute he saw the iceberg in front of him

Going from Nobody will trade us a good SP to how if he was a GM he wouldn't is totally different

[User Name]

You keep bashing the "mediocrity" of the farm' date=' but i don't quite think you're focusing on the real status of the Red Sox farm system. It's not a lack of talent that the system suffers from.[/i']

 

Thats EXACTLY what we suffer from. Its why we are ranked anywhere from 10th to 18th by all the sources I could find. If we had more TALENT we would be ranked higher.

The SP problem is one that I am sure our FO is aware of. I am also sure that they made every effort to obtain a good SP with a package of midlevel prospects, which is really all we have-guys with an upside who are nowhere near ML ready.

As I said, sure, we have the players to pull off a trade, but what it would take to get a good SP would excessively further degrade what is already a mediocre farm system. I don't think we can afford to sink any lower than where we are now. Maybe if some of these guys come along in their development we can swing a trade that makes sense. Right now it didn't happen, and there is probably a very good reason for it. Other GMs are not going to just give away good SP.

 

That's not what most talent evaluators say, including John Sickels, whose link was posted earlier on the thread.

 

Most people doing this rankings say that the Red Sox farm is loaded with high-upside talent, but that it will take time for them to make an impact. It has been repeated over and over in the thread that for any given year, evaluators grade both talent and potential impact on the MLB club. The "talent" part of the equation is not the knock on the farm system. You have a pre-conceived notion on this subject that is honestly not correct.

 

You can repeat it 'till you're blue in the face, but i'm going to trust the evaluators on this one.

 

Also, the "other GM's aren't going to give away an SP" point is irrelevant to the quality of the prospects. A GM can ask for the moon for a serviceable pitcher like Gavin Floyd, and he won't get it. That's not a knock on the farm systems of the teams that end up not acquiring him, but rather a problem with the GM's expectations.

[FredLynn]

That's not what most talent evaluators say, including John Sickels, whose link was posted earlier on the thread.

 

Most people doing this rankings say that the Red Sox farm is loaded with high-upside talent, but that it will take time for them to make an impact. It has been repeated over and over in the thread that for any given year, evaluators grade both talent and potential impact on the MLB club. The "talent" part of the equation is not the knock on the farm system. You have a pre-conceived notion on this subject that is honestly not correct.

 

You can repeat it 'till you're blue in the face, but i'm going to trust the evaluators on this one.

 

Also, the "other GM's aren't going to give away an SP" point is irrelevant to the quality of the prospects. A GM can ask for the moon for a serviceable pitcher like Gavin Floyd, and he won't get it. That's not a knock on the farm systems of the teams that end up not acquiring him, but rather a problem with the GM's expectations.

 

I found ranking systems that put us at 11, 14, and 18. Someone else here found one that put us at 10. Pretty consistently middle of the pack. Can you find as many that say we rank above #10? If not, with all due respect, I will believe those guys who get paid to rank the farm systems.

[User Name]

I found ranking systems that put us at 11' date=' 14, and 18. Someone else here found one that put us at 10. Pretty consistently middle of the pack. Can you find as many that say we rank above #10? If not, with all due respect, I will believe those guys who get paid to rank the farm systems.[/quote']

 

You keep grabbing on to the number the system is placed in, using one that is an unreliable source and one from last year, and refuse to listen to the explanations the evaluators themselves are giving. Therefore, you only believe them when it suits you. Good luck with that, since i have no desire to continue this discussion.

[FredLynn]

Sickels also ranked us in the middle third:

 

1) Toronto Blue Jays: Eight B+ prospects with ridiculous depth behind them.

2) San Diego Padres: Incredible depth after the winter trades pushes this system almost to the top.

3) Texas Rangers: Continues to churn out talent, with much more percolating at the lower levels. I do not give the Rangers farm system credit for Yu Darvish. They would rank number one if I gave them credit for Darvish, but in my mind that is unfair to the other teams: I see him as a major league free agent, not a prospect.

4) Seattle Mariners: Jesus Montero plus three elite pitching prospects and others who can improve.

5) St. Louis Cardinals: They don't get talked about as much as other teams, but they have a Grade A prospect in Shelby Miller and a lot of pitching depth behind him. I think this system is underrated.

 

6) Kansas City Royals: They slipped from last year's top spot, showing the volatility of pitching prospects, but heavy investments in draft and foreign players should continue to show dividends.

7) Tampa Bay Rays: Impact depth behind Matt Moore has slipped but this is still a robust organization.

8) Atlanta Braves: Lots of pitching at the top, but they need more hitters.

9) Arizona Diamondbacks: Another system with lots of pitching but not much hitting, even more extreme than Atlanta.

10) Oakland Athletics: Trades helped this system a lot, would have ranked much lower otherwise.

 

11) Boston Red Sox: Large group of B- types who can improve. Hitting stronger than pitching at this point.

[User Name]

11th =/= mediocre.

 

Also, i'm the one who posted the Sickels rankings and his rationale, which is in his in-depth ranking. I know exactly where he ranked them.

[Johnny]

You keep grabbing on to the number the system is placed in' date=' using one that is an unreliable source and one from last year, and refuse to listen to the [b']explanations the evaluators themselves are giving.[/b] Therefore, you only believe them when it suits you. Good luck with that, since i have no desire to continue this discussion.

 

According to the stooge 3 out of 4 evaluators ranked our farm system above the "middle of the pack" He either is not listening to the experts or he is too stupid to do the math

[User Name]

The Chicago teams were probably asking for what they felt was fair; and we probably offered what we thought was fair' date=' what we could afford to give up. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to give up much nowadays, what with the current state of our farm system. Its not good enough to withstand giving away any package of decent prospects.[/quote']

 

You're making a lot of stuff up in this post, let me tell ya.

[a700hitter]

Which one are you?

He's Johnny Troll talking trash with his first post. It's likely that he's an alter-ego of one of our past or present psychotic posters. He'll flame out pretty fast.

[jung]

I guess the only question I have in this "discussion" of the quality of player in the Sox farm system does in fact relate to the ETA.

 

I think it would be a safe assumption that some players will work their way up through the system. Some will make it to AAA and some even get to the big club. However if a good deal of your "talent" is young and has still to work its way up, then one would also think some number will fall by the wayside as part of the process.

 

I think that might be a reason for not considering the Sox farm system to be as strong or deep in talent as we would like or some other systems. If you are depending on that stock of "young" talent all making its way up to AAA and eventually MLB I think you would be disappointed in the outcome. The farther guys are from the "show" the more likely that they will hit a roadblock along the way and just never get there.

 

Sometimes hitters do not progress as they are confronted with better pitching. Pitchers often have to transition from one pitch wonders to guys that can throw at least two pitches effectively and whenever they want to in AA. Hence AA also becomes an important proving ground for hitters.

 

The point being that I think in some respects the ETA is in fact a consideration when viewing guys in the farm system because for some of those guys that have a longer way to go, the ETA actually turns out to be never.

 

Part of my concern for Iggy is that the Sox appear to have rushed him through AA and into AAA where he has not been able to hit. That said I would be very very happy indeed if Iggy deserves to come up and is in fact brought up.

[seabeachfred]

As of this moment it looks like this whole argument is superfluous at best. It doesn't look like Cherington is planning on swinging any big trades---and I just wonder what so-called top notch pitchers are available anyway? I don't see Cole Hamels or Matt Cain suddenly appearing on the trading block and doubt they will be FA for very long before their current teams resign them---if they're smart. I also would like to hold onto some of our better prospects if we can. This ought to be Ortiz' last year with the Red Sox and might be Youkilis' as well. If one or both of them are jettisoned it would be a good idea to have Will Middlebrooks and Ryan Lavarnway around to step in and take over. We're not getting any younger as some of y ou might notice. If we are in the race come the trading deadline we might be able to make a trade f or a pitcher heading to FA---and that wouldn't cost us nearly as much as it would if we were to make a trade now.

[FredLynn]

According to the stooge 3 out of 4 evaluators ranked our farm system above the "middle of the pack" He either is not listening to the experts or he is too stupid to do the math

 

Can I call you Moe? Or would you prefer Mr Moe...

[FredLynn]

11th =/= mediocre.

 

Also, i'm the one who posted the Sickels rankings and his rationale, which is in his in-depth ranking. I know exactly where he ranked them.

 

It doesn't matter what the REASON is that we are ranked in the middle third of farm systems in baseball; the fact of the matter is that that is where we stand. And there are very valid reasons for it.

Let me explain it to you this way: if a baseball comes through your front window, does it matter that the reason it came through the front window is that the neighbor's kid threw it at your window? No. The window is broken regardless of how it got broken. The fact is that our farm system is ranked in the middle third by nearly all people who put out those rankings, regardless of how we got there.

[FredLynn]

I guess the only question I have in this "discussion" of the quality of player in the Sox farm system does in fact relate to the ETA.

 

I think it would be a safe assumption that some players will work their way up through the system. Some will make it to AAA and some even get to the big club. However if a good deal of your "talent" is young and has still to work its way up, then one would also think some number will fall by the wayside as part of the process.

 

I think that might be a reason for not considering the Sox farm system to be as strong or deep in talent as we would like or some other systems. If you are depending on that stock of "young" talent all making its way up to AAA and eventually MLB I think you would be disappointed in the outcome. The farther guys are from the "show" the more likely that they will hit a roadblock along the way and just never get there.

 

Sometimes hitters do not progress as they are confronted with better pitching. Pitchers often have to transition from one pitch wonders to guys that can throw at least two pitches effectively and whenever they want to in AA. Hence AA also becomes an important proving ground for hitters.

 

The point being that I think in some respects the ETA is in fact a consideration when viewing guys in the farm system because for some of those guys that have a longer way to go, the ETA actually turns out to be never.

 

Part of my concern for Iggy is that the Sox appear to have rushed him through AA and into AAA where he has not been able to hit. That said I would be very very happy indeed if Iggy deserves to come up and is in fact brought up.

 

That is a good assessment. We have a large number of guys with potential at the lower levels. Most will fall by the wayside. Now back to the original reason this discussion started, which is that Ben Cherington cannot be faulted for not scoring us a good SP because 1. Henry wouldn't pay for one and 2. We do not have the kind of farm system that can afford to surrender 3 or 4 prospects for such a player. Our strength is in numbers of players and we just can't trade the guys who constitute our top level away-unless its a steal.

[User Name]

It doesn't matter what the REASON is that we are ranked in the middle third of farm systems in baseball; the fact of the matter is that that is where we stand. And there are very valid reasons for it.

Let me explain it to you this way: if a baseball comes through your front window, does it matter that the reason it came through the front window is that the neighbor's kid threw it at your window? No. The window is broken regardless of how it got broken. The fact is that our farm system is ranked in the middle third by nearly all people who put out those rankings, regardless of how we got there.

 

That's an asinine comparison, but whatever. Evaluators say what they say for a reason, and there's a reason why rankings change so much over the short-term, as you so graciously harped on before.

[mvp 78]

He's Johnny Troll talking trash with his first post. It's likely that he's an alter-ego of one of our past or present psychotic posters. He'll flame out pretty fast.

 

Past-poster, maybe.

Current-poster, doubtful.

Why would anyone bother making an extra account? It's not like people aren't free to speak their minds.