2014 Roster Projections

[Bellhorn04]

Wilson was fantastic last season. A 2 year deal could be money well spent.

 

That would be great. The couple of times I watched him he looked very tough indeed.

[marklmw]

That would be great. The couple of times I watched him he looked very tough indeed.

 

I wonder how closers feel when an 8th inning set-up man is earning more that he is. That has to suck a little although they all are being paid very well so there really is nothing to bitch about.

[dupree]

I seen reports where he is willing to have a setup role but would like to be paid as a closer. Im not sure what kind of money he would be asking for. And if he is willing to leave the West Coast i see that as the biggest challenge to get him to come east.

[mvp 78]

I seen reports where he is willing to have a setup role but would like to be paid as a closer. Im not sure what kind of money he would be asking for. And if he is willing to leave the West Coast i see that as the biggest challenge to get him to come east.

 

He's from NH, right?

[jung]

The point about John Henry stating the obvious makes it more surprising that he said it at all, especially with such conviction. Why say it at all unless your level of conviction is very high and you think it is in your best interest to inform the fan base and agents and players. That is what comes through Henry's dialogue and that is IMO why it was worthy of posting by Pal and worthy of comment.

 

I am less interested in Henry's comments relating to guys like Ells who I think will be gone or guys like Salty for example. Reports are that the Sox have put a two year deal in front of Salty and I would be surprised if it is anything but the very team friendly deal that I and probably others have been expecting. Reports are that it is 2/10 as in $5M per. Is that team friendly enough for you? Further I don't expect any serious stabs at a Beltan or a Kemp or even a McCann. Maybe Beltran to play LF....maybe. I think that today's reports that the Sox are not even in the running for Drew are not based on Drew getting some fantastic, humongous offers out there as much as the Sox are just way off and have no real interest in extending themselves for some guy with an injury history that is a great fielder but cannot push past the 8 hole in the lineup when they have guys that can play on the left side. If somebody wants to get really stupid on Drew....I think the Sox are OK with that. Same goes for Ells with JBJ waiting in the wings even with the very high likelihood that JBJ is not ready to produce at Ells levels.

 

Pedey was a special case in more ways than one. I just don't see how you can simply look at his position as one of the top 20 position players in the league and just stop there. Pedey is the face of this franchise. He is the heart and soul of this team and will be there after Ortiz is gone. Ortiz is the star without question. But Pedey is the guy that resonates with the rank and file Sox fan. More important, Pedey did not take the Sox to the max to get the deal done and that is the important other element to Pedey's deal. So just stopping at top 20 position players is IMO too simplistic a view of the relevant driving factors in Pedey's deal.

 

So lets say they get past all the current shuffling and scuffling about guys like Ells and past the current crop of crumpled up vets bouncing around this year's FA market. Further, lets say they find their way back to Naps who by all accounts likes it here enough to be willing to come the Sox way if they can get close enough to the offers he is likely to get. While I really believe they get Naps done, suppose they are not even willing to meet Naps part way. Reflect on Henry's comments either way really because if they do get Naps done it will be because Naps did meet them part way, not because the Sox went to the mattresses to sign him.

 

The Sox current process and the one that the Rays have followed and that other teams are now following is that you have to have faith in your development system and if you extend yourself, it is for starting pitching. Well first, you have to have a good developmental system, especially now when you are getting a sandwich pick back every time somebody pilfers your lunch box. You have to have one and you have to build from that. Could the Sox position be any better in that regard. They just won a WS and have a very solid bunch of players sitting at AAA and even AA. Further, they are not going to forget that it took a team acting nuttier than they had been acting to bail them out of the mess where they found themselves.

 

How much is it going to cost to hold onto proven 1 hole, WS starting pitcher, Jon Lester when the time comes? How do you value a SP that gives you innings during the season and steps to the front of the line in the post season? Lester appears to like it here and now the Sox have Farrell as a big factor. But will Lester be willing to talk extension with all the money out there? This is where all the money floating around does have an impact. You would love to think that this option year gives the Sox more time to throw something in front of Lester that he bites at. I for one doubt it. He may stay but I am inclined to think it will be after he tests the market.

 

We tend to focus on the money part of the equation with regard to change. "Teams are flush with money". Guys will cost more" etc etc. What else has changed. Young talent is coming up earlier and producing at a faster pace than we have seen in the past. Organizational ability to judge and further manage young talent appears to be on the rise. So the other change is that it is no longer acceptable to just rest on the old saw about the low percentage rate of success for prospects overall. Further, fans love to see the kids play presuming they can play. They are not willing to support the Keystone Kops out there especially in a big market but a healthy mix of vets that can play that drive the personality of the team and kids that can play makes for a very appealing marketing opportunity...way better in this market than having any bunch of fat cat superstar FA's you can think of.

 

That LA has not been able to avoid their position is as specific to their market as the things that are specific to our market. LA can't support an NFL team sufficiently. So that market is a beast unto itself. Eventually I think guys like Boras are going to be far more dependent on an LA than will be comfortable. I see Boras trying to impact the CBA as a means to change the current dynamics as I don't think he likes what he sees regardless of all the money out there.

Edited November 14, 2013 by jung

[marklmw]

The point about John Henry stating the obvious makes it more surprising that he said it at all, especially with such conviction. Why say it at all unless your level of conviction is very high and you think it is in your best interest to inform the fan base and agents and players. That is what comes through Henry's dialogue and that is IMO why it was worthy of posting by Pal and worthy of comment.

 

I am less interested in Henry's comments relating to guys like Ells who I think will be gone or guys like Salty for example. Reports are that the Sox have put a two year deal in front of Salty and I would be surprised if it is anything but the very team friendly deal that I and probably others have been expecting. Reports are that it is 2/10 as in $5M per. Is that team friendly enough for you? Further I don't expect any serious stabs at a Beltan or a Kemp or even a McCann. I think that today's reports that the Sox are not even in the running for Drew are not based on Drew getting some fantastic, humongous offers out there as much as the Sox are just way off and have no real interest in extending themselves for some guy with an injury history that is a great fielder but cannot push past the 8 hole in the lineup when they have guys that can play on the left side. If somebody wants to get really stupid on Drew....I think the Sox are OK with that. Same goes for Ells with JBJ waiting in the wings even with the very high likelihood that JBJ is not ready to produce at Ells levels.

 

Pedey was a special case in more ways than one. I just don't see how you can simply look at his position as one of the top 20 position players in the league and just stop there. Pedey is the face of this franchise. He is the heart and soul of this team and will be there after Ortiz is gone. Ortiz is the star without question. But Pedey is the guy that resonates with the rank and file Sox fan. More important, Pedey did not take the Sox to the max to get the deal done and that is the important other element to Pedey's deal. So just stopping at top 20 position players is IMO too simplistic a view of the relevant driving factors in Pedey's deal.

 

So lets say they get past all the current shuffling and scuffling about guys like Ells and past the current crop of crumpled up vets bouncing around this year's FA market. Further, lets say they find their way back to Naps who by all accounts likes it here enough to be willing to come the Sox way if they can get close enough to the offers he is likely to get. While I really believe they get Naps done, suppose they are not even willing to meet Naps part way. Reflect on Henry's comments either way really because if they do get Naps done it will be because Naps did meet them part way, not because the Sox went to the mattresses to sign him.

 

The Sox current process and the one that the Rays have followed and that other teams are now following is that you have to have faith in your development system and if you extend yourself, it is for starting pitching. Well first, you have to have a good developmental system, especially now when you are getting a sandwich pick back every time somebody pilfers your lunch box. You have to have one and you have to build from that. Could the Sox position be any better in that regard. They just won a WS and have a very solid bunch of players sitting at AAA and even AA. Further, they are not going to forget that it took a team acting nuttier than they had been acting to bail them out of the mess where they found themselves.

 

How much is it going to cost to hold onto proven 1 hole, WS starting pitcher, Jon Lester when the time comes? How do you value a SP that gives you innings during the season and steps to the front of the line in the post season? Lester appears to like it here and now the Sox have Farrell as a big factor. But will Lester be willing to talk extension with all the money out there? This is where all the money floating around does have an impact. You would love to think that this option year gives the Sox more time to throw something in front of Lester that he bites at. I for one doubt it. He may stay but I am inclined to think it will be after he tests the market.

 

We tend to focus on the money part of the equation with regard to change. "Teams are flush with money". Guys will cost more" etc etc. What else has changed. Young talent is coming up earlier and producing at a faster pace than we have seen in the past. Organizational ability to judge and further manage young talent appears to be on the rise. So the other change is that it is no longer acceptable to just rest on the old saw about the low percentage rate of success for prospects overall. Further, fans love to see the kids play presuming they can play. They are not willing to support the Keystone Kops out there especially in a big market but a healthy mix of vets that can play that drive the personality of the team and kids that can play makes for a very appealing marketing opportunity...way better in this market than having any bunch of fat cat superstar FA's you can think of.

 

That LA has not been able to avoid their position is as specific to their market as the things that are specific to our market. LA can't support an NFL team sufficiently. So that market is a beast unto itself. Eventually I think guys like Boras are going to be far more dependent on an LA than will be comfortable. I see Boras trying to impact the CBA as a means to change the current dynamics as I don't think he likes what he sees regardless of all the money out there.

 

Well said Jung. Sox need to hold the line and not overpay for any player. Players are able to come in now and perform at a younger age. Look at the superstars that are under 25. I also think players like Brentz and Vasquez are not that far away. I would not mind seeing Vasquez / Ross next year. Ross can become his mentor.

[mvp 78]

Jung, you are really out of your element when talking about the LA market.

 

LA supports 2 MLB teams, 2 NBA teams, 2 NHL teams, but can't support an NFL team? Really? It's kind of revisionist history to suggest the Rams and Raiders left because of a lack of fan support.

Edited November 14, 2013 by mvp 78

[sk7326]

Pedroia IS the face of the franchise - but if he were not an elite player, the "face of the franchise" stuff would never happen. That he is more than just a great player is true - but being a great player is the entry criteria. Pedroia is the team's biggest star and resonates with the Boston fan base uniquely for reasons both baseball related and otherwise. Ortiz resonates as well, mostly because of both his current production as well as his connection to 2004 - and damn right is should be.

 

As much as Boston fans like to talk about wanting a team of Scrappy McScrappersons and frowning at fat cat superstars - that is largely nonsense. I have a few years of Pedro Martinez starts to counter that. Winning sells, period. The 2011 team, which is always the cautionary tale told - did not win enough, and that was the crime. They went 81-42 in the middle 123 games of their season, and you heard none of the "these are bad guys" sort of hooey. They stopped winning - and that stopping winning continued in 2012.

 

I think Boston's organizational philosophy has not really shifted - they won in 2007 with home grown folks too. That is always the goal - grow your own, and figure out the rest later. For instance, between whichever prospect guys you read, you imagine that:

 

Bogaerts, Cecchini, Owens, Barnes, Webster, Ball, Swihart (who can't be traded yet, but no matter), Betts ... are all probably Top 100 sort of prospects. So the Red Sox have a lot of guys coming up. You add other guys like De La Rosa, Merrero, Ranaudo, Brentz, who are some version of attractive.

 

Hoarding all of them makes no sense - for either the Red Sox or the players. We know Bogaerts is part of the immediate future. The rest of the guys are assets, just the way it is with Tampa. The difference is, due to Boston's actual big market edges, the prospects + money gives the Sox more options to do things for the major league club. I don't think Cherington is shifting the franchise 180 degrees away from the way the team has operated before (which of course he was a prominent part of) - it just happens that now the organization has more cards to play - such is the cyclical nature of prospects and whatnot.

[jung]

J

ung, you are really out of your element when talking about the LA market.

 

LA supports 2 MLB teams, 2 NBA teams, 2 NHL teams, but can't support an NFL team? Really? It's kind of revisionist history to suggest the Rams and Raiders left because of a lack of fan support.

 

Your missing the point.

 

They have to spend the money in LA. It is a star studded market with plenty of activities to distract the potential fan's attention. It if had NFL teams, they would have to be star studded NFL teams. Does not mean they would win necessarily just like having a star studded baseball team does not mean it will win necessarily. However you won't convince that fan base to come out unless it is profiled along lines of what Dodger's ownership is trying to accomplish in LA. It is far from the reality of many of the other franchises around baseball.

[mvp 78]

J

 

Your missing the point.

 

They have to spend the money in LA. It is a star studded market with plenty of activities to distract the potential fan's attention. It if had NFL teams, they would have to be star studded NFL teams. Does not mean they would win necessarily just like having a star studded baseball team does not mean it will win necessarily. However you won't convince that fan base to come out unless it is profiled along lines of what Dodger's ownership is trying to accomplish in LA. It is far from the reality of many of the other franchises around baseball.

 

You're absolutely wrong here. LA loves football as much as anywhere else. You don't need stars to fill a football stadium, just a good product.

 

The fans were hosed when the Raiders and Rams left because of their s***** stadiums. It's the billionaires that are keeping football out of LA, not some antiquated notion about fans only wanting to support a star laden team.

[marklmw]

Pedroia IS the face of the franchise - but if he were not an elite player, the "face of the franchise" stuff would never happen. That he is more than just a great player is true - but being a great player is the entry criteria. Pedroia is the team's biggest star and resonates with the Boston fan base uniquely for reasons both baseball related and otherwise. Ortiz resonates as well, mostly because of both his current production as well as his connection to 2004 - and damn right is should be.

 

As much as Boston fans like to talk about wanting a team of Scrappy McScrappersons and frowning at fat cat superstars - that is largely nonsense. I have a few years of Pedro Martinez starts to counter that. Winning sells, period. The 2011 team, which is always the cautionary tale told - did not win enough, and that was the crime. They went 81-42 in the middle 123 games of their season, and you heard none of the "these are bad guys" sort of hooey. They stopped winning - and that stopping winning continued in 2012.

 

I think Boston's organizational philosophy has not really shifted - they won in 2007 with home grown folks too. That is always the goal - grow your own, and figure out the rest later. For instance, between whichever prospect guys you read, you imagine that:

 

Bogaerts, Cecchini, Owens, Barnes, Webster, Ball, Swihart (who can't be traded yet, but no matter), Betts ... are all probably Top 100 sort of prospects. So the Red Sox have a lot of guys coming up. You add other guys like De La Rosa, Merrero, Ranaudo, Brentz, who are some version of attractive.

 

Hoarding all of them makes no sense - for either the Red Sox or the players. We know Bogaerts is part of the immediate future. The rest of the guys are assets, just the way it is with Tampa. The difference is, due to Boston's actual big market edges, the prospects + money gives the Sox more options to do things for the major league club. I don't think Cherington is shifting the franchise 180 degrees away from the way the team has operated before (which of course he was a prominent part of) - it just happens that now the organization has more cards to play - such is the cyclical nature of prospects and whatnot.

 

You are correct that it is not a good thing to stock-up players and hold them in the minors ... not good for organization or for the player. However, when you do package young prospects in trade deals for proven talent it is better that the talent that you trade for has more potential then a one year solution. Of course the owners know this. Even the Inglesis deal for Peavy could be questioned and at the same time not since the outcome was a WS Championship. Certainly if the Sox still have Ingelesis he could be the SS for the next 7 years with Bogaerts at 3rd for the next 7 years. Hypothetically speaking here. Middlebrooks could be 1B or traded. Remember when the Sox traded for Anderson, how about the trade for Gagne. I understand that some work out and others do not. You can only have 1 player starting in each of the 8 positions. Better to trade two left fielders who are 8's on a scale of 1-10 for a 9.5. However if the 9.5 is going to cost your organization 15M more per season you have to account for what that extra talent will translate to in wins vs. using the 15M for a SP.

[sk7326]

The two times the Dodgers broke 90 wins in the last 6 years, they led the league in attendance. The years they have scuffled, they have scuffled at the box office. The fan base is fickle, but they'll show up to see a winner. Helps to have a great ballpark and tradition.

[sk7326]

You are correct that it is not a good thing to stock-up players and hold them in the minors ... not good for organization or for the player. However, when you do package young prospects in trade deals for proven talent it is better that the talent that you trade for has more potential then a one year solution. Of course the owners know this. Even the Inglesis deal for Peavy could be questioned and at the same time not since the outcome was a WS Championship. Certainly if the Sox still have Ingelesis he could be the SS for the next 7 years with Bogaerts at 3rd for the next 7 years. Hypothetically speaking here. Middlebrooks could be 1B or traded. Remember when the Sox traded for Anderson, how about the trade for Gagne. I understand that some work out and others do not. You can only have 1 player starting in each of the 8 positions. Better to trade two left fielders who are 8's on a scale of 1-10 for a 9.5. However if the 9.5 is going to cost your organization 15M more per season you have to account for what that extra talent will translate to in wins vs. using the 15M for a SP.

 

Some deals are bad on their face - the Larry Andersen-Jeff Bagwell one is ground zero (the prime position prospect for middle reliever = yuck!). But trading your top pitching prospect for Pedro Martinez coming off of his first Cy? That works fine, thank you very much. The Iglesias for Peavy deal rides entirely on the Iglesias valuation. The Beckett deal was a long run loser for the franchise, but they don't win the 2007 title without Beckett or Lowell, so you can't get too teary eyed about it. Flags fly forever.

 

Having a bunch of prospects and budget does not mean you do anything stupid. But if moving a few of your chips means getting an 8-figure star with some prime years left - we aren't the Rays and should not apologize for it.

[jung]

Hoarding all of them makes no sense - for either the Red Sox or the players. We know Bogaerts is part of the immediate future. The rest of the guys are assets, just the way it is with Tampa. The difference is, due to Boston's actual big market edges, the prospects + money gives the Sox more options to do things for the major league club. I don't think Cherington is shifting the franchise 180 degrees away from the way the team has operated before (which of course he was a prominent part of) - it just happens that now the organization has more cards to play - such is the cyclical nature of prospects and whatnot.

 

So are you trying to make that case that getting bailed out by the unlikeliest of possible moves that nobody would have envisioned before it happened and would not have happened at all if not for the change in ownership in LA is just part of some cycle? I don't buy that. The Sox lucked out big time and would still today be throttled by that mess they were in were it not for the LA bail out.

 

I don't think they will hold onto all of their prospects either. However, if they have their wits about them, they will organizationally be built to make better decisions about those prospects, separate the wheat from the chaff better and faster, and flesh off the chaff to somebody that is not as quick on their feet as they. In return they will only take the broken down vet with an ugly contract when they are backed into the position of having to do so.

 

It is not a paradigm shift. You are using that term not me. It is simply better business.

 

You can not look at how they got into that mess and determine it was by process. It was a lack of process. Becket was extended at a time when the Sox were flush with cash....that was a close to a red flag to just spending money because you have it as you can find. AGons was Theo's propensity to fall in love with a player and then move heaven and earth to eventually get his man. Henry is lucky he did not find his yacht headed for San Diego in that deal. Crawford was the classic, "oh lets just toss one more log on this fire" deal, I think finally recognized around baseball as a move you better make very carefully and after a boatload of due diligence has been reviewed very carefully. Before Crawford it was one more log (Jenks) and then one more log etc. There was no paradigm governing those disparate deals unless you want to call an undue influence from marketing holding baseball operations by the throat a paradigm. It was simply bad business which has since been replaced by good business once Henry climbed down out of the clouds and put an end to that mess.

[marklmw]

Some deals are bad on their face - the Larry Andersen-Jeff Bagwell one is ground zero (the prime position prospect for middle reliever = yuck!). But trading your top pitching prospect for Pedro Martinez coming off of his first Cy? That works fine, thank you very much. The Iglesias for Peavy deal rides entirely on the Iglesias valuation. The Beckett deal was a long run loser for the franchise, but they don't win the 2007 title without Beckett or Lowell, so you can't get too teary eyed about it. Flags fly forever.

 

Having a bunch of prospects and budget does not mean you do anything stupid. But if moving a few of your chips means getting an 8-figure star with some prime years left - we aren't the Rays and should not apologize for it.

True that!

[User Name]

jung, can't you make your posts a bit more condensed? I wanna read what you have to say, but not if every post is a goddamned thesis.

[sk7326]

So are you trying to make that case that getting bailed out by the unlikeliest of possible moves that nobody would have envisioned before it happened and would not have happened at all if not for the change in ownership in LA is just part of some cycle? I don't buy that. The Sox lucked out big time and would still today be throttled by that mess they were in were it not for the LA bail out.

 

I don't think they will hold onto all of their prospects either. However, if they have their wits about them, they will organizationally be built to make better decisions about those prospects, separate the wheat from the chaff better and faster, and flesh off the chaff to somebody that is not as quick on their feet as they. In return they will only take the broken down vet with an ugly contract when they are backed into the position of having to do so.

 

It is not a paradigm shift. You are using that term not me. It is simply better business.

 

You can not look at how they got into that mess and determine it was by process. It was a lack of process. Becket was extended at a time when the Sox were flush with cash....that was a close to a red flag to just spending money because you have it as you can find. AGons was Theo's propensity to fall in love with a player and then move heaven and earth to eventually get his man. Henry is lucky he did not find his yacht headed for San Diego in that deal. Crawford was the classic, "oh lets just toss one more log on this fire" deal, I think finally recognized around baseball as a move you better make very carefully and after a boatload of due diligence has been reviewed very carefully. Before Crawford it was one more log (Jenks) and then one more log etc. There was no paradigm governing those disparate deals unless you want to call an undue influence from marketing holding baseball operations by the throat a paradigm. It was simply bad business which has since been replaced by good business once Henry climbed down out of the clouds and put an end to that mess.

 

Jenks was throwing bodies at the bullpen on a short deal - it didn't work. That is the nature of relief pitching. The trade helped, but the farm was being replenished anyway. The Red Sox got help from the LA deal, no doubt - although the LA deal did not magically make their best players healthy. That can't be underrated.

 

The Crawford deal was a mistake - the Gonzalez deal less so (though certainly a risk). Really in retrospect, the biggest mistakes management made in their planning for their years was severely misreading how broken down Youk was, as well as just not having enough pitching. Although, when you cycle through as much injury on the mound as the Red Sox had, few teams can absorb that.

[marklmw]

jung, can't you make your posts a bit more condensed? I wanna read what you have to say, but not if every post is a goddamned thesis.

I second that Jung ... I want to hear what you have to say.

[jung]

And what were the Sox going to do without Youk.....Will???? That has worked now hasn't it. Youk could have given the Sox what Will gave the Sox at least for that last year. Youk may have been on the way out but finally fell to the total idiocy of Bobby V. Bobby V, maybe the final straw that broke the camel's back and finally maybe lead Henry to understand that something was badly broken in the way his organization worked. He had Theo out of there by then but he still relied too heavily on Larry and Larry was still finding ways to unduly influence the rest of the organization. He is the team President. So he does wield a good deal of power as does any President. But Larry does not allow people to do their jobs unless you leash him and keep him leashed. Larry is a great pit bull and Henry will never IMO be without Larry because in business you need somebody to be the pit bull, a job Henry does not want to do. But whether Henry likes it or not he has to keep Larry leashed and Henry is the only guy that can have his hand on the other end of that leash.

[marklmw]

And what were the Sox going to do without Youk.....Will???? That has worked now hasn't it. Youk could have given the Sox what Will gave the Sox at least for that last year. Youk may have been on the way out but finally fell to the total idiocy of Bobby V. Bobby V, maybe the final straw that broke the camel's back and finally maybe lead Henry to understand that something was badly broken in the way his organization worked. He had Theo out of there by then but he still relied too heavily on Larry and Larry was still finding ways to unduly influence the rest of the organization. He is the team President. So he does wield a good deal of power as does any President. But Larry does not allow people to do their jobs unless you leash him and keep him leashed. Larry is a great pit bull and Henry will never IMO be without Larry because in business you need somebody to be the pit bull, a job Henry does not want to do. But whether Henry likes it or not he has to keep Larry leashed and Henry is the only guy that can have his hand on the other end of that leash.

 

Middlebrooks showed such promise and he still may yet. Great teams have a balance of veterans and rookies and players in between the two. The Sox are getting younger which will serve them well going forward since in their case younger does not mean less talented. JBJ!

[jung]

Middlebrooks showed such promise and he still may yet. Great teams have a balance of veterans and rookies and players in between the two. The Sox are getting younger which will serve them well going forward since in their case younger does not mean less talented. JBJ!

 

Agreed, but I doubt we are blind enough to not realize that Will was rushed into the hole left by Youk, a hole Will was not quite ready to fill. But the Sox had no choice. They were not as yet completely cognizant of the gigantic mistake they had made in hiring V and felt they had have some balance in the way they handled him. First they slapped V's wrist over the ST incidents and then they supported him with Youk. So Youk was outta' here.

 

Larry reciting revisionist history now is just Larry being Larry. BC was Farrell's proponent within the Sox organization and even if you buy into the idea that the whole organization wanted Farrell, it was no excuse for hiring the idiot they hired. My God, most of us threw up as soon as it happened and we are just people posting at a web site for crying out loud!

[redsoxrules]

jung, can't you make your posts a bit more condensed? I wanna read what you have to say, but not if every post is a goddamned thesis.

 

LOL, I've been wanting to say this myself

[mvp 78]

jung, can't you make your posts a bit more condensed? I wanna read what you have to say, but not if every post is a goddamned thesis.

 

It's not the length that's the problem, it's that he meanders from point to point and doesn't have a cohesive argument.

[User Name]

It's not the length that's the problem, it's that he meanders from point to point and doesn't have a cohesive argument.

 

My phone has a small screen. When i'm reading posts on it length IS a problem, but fair enough.

[SoxSport]

I hope Boras is successful in putting Drew and Ells out of reach for Cherington. That will unblock SS and CF for X and JBJ. And give Middlebrooks more time to mature at 3B.

 

I also think it would be a mistake to deal Lackey. Not with Buchholz so fragile. Even Peavy should be kept, because you never have enough pitching. The guy they need to get rid of is Dempster--to the NL. They must have another young starter who can ERA below 5. I read they view Workman as a starter. Plus they have Doubront. Plenty of starting pitching--keep it--except for Dempster.

[SoxSport]

The two times the Dodgers broke 90 wins in the last 6 years, they led the league in attendance. The years they have scuffled, they have scuffled at the box office. The fan base is fickle, but they'll show up to see a winner. Helps to have a great ballpark and tradition.

 

They bought Greinke--that was the major difference. Plus Puig and Ramirez. The Red Sox trade didn't have much impact.

 

Look for them to try to get Price. There could be a major bidding war for Price with the Yankees. Cable TV West vs cable TV East. LOL.

[marklmw]

There have been rumors that Tampa might take offers for David Price. Could Tampa do a sign & trade?

[jacksonianmarch]

They cannot, I believe, due to the CBA. I believe that any player inked to a new deal cannot be dealt before June 1.

[Station 13]

They cannot, I believe, due to the CBA. I believe that any player inked to a new deal cannot be dealt before June 1.

 

without his permission.

 

edit: Price isn't a FA so he can be traded anytime. FA signing requires players' permission if he is traded before June 1.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Station 13

[marklmw]

When we look at Roster Projections for 2014 I have this feeling that 2 players that will see some MLB action next year are Brentz and Vasquez. Only a feeling ... no fact UN no fact. Anyone else think this way.