2014 Offseason Thread

[sk7326]

If you are hoping for Cueto, you should be prepared to say goodbye to Betts or XB.

 

I am sure the Reds think that. The relevant comps I think are:

 

Price - the Rays got a mid-upper rotation young starter for 2 years of a true ace

Heyward - the Braves got two premium pitching prospects for 1 year of a good outfielder (with elite potential) for a team that is basically one outfielder away

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

The Nationals are willing to deal Zimmerman and Fister. Zimmerman I'm not too thrilled with, but if there were a possibility of a Strasburg/Fister package that'd be worth looking at, at the very least.

 

I live near DC and trust me Zimmerman has been the best of a very good staff for several years now.

[User Name]

I am sure the Reds think that. The relevant comps I think are:

 

Price - the Rays got a mid-upper rotation young starter for 2 years of a true ace

Heyward - the Braves got two premium pitching prospects for 1 year of a good outfielder (with elite potential) for a team that is basically one outfielder away

 

Shelby Miller is no longer a prospect. He's an established MLB starter.

[sk7326]

Shelby Miller is no longer a prospect. He's an established MLB starter.

 

True to a degree, but still a lot of projection left in him. He is established somewhat. I mean, he has been good, but the Cards unforgiveable mothballed him the 2013 playoffs (not unforgiveable that they shut him down, but that they burned a roster spot to do so) and have been slow to take the training wheels off.

 

Now, what is the equivalent of these two packages for a year of Cueto or Zimmermann. Is it Betts and XB, or one of the two? Or something less? i don't know. I'd think Betts or Bogaerts + something less (like a toolsy A'er) might be your ceiling.

[User Name]

If the Sox trade Betts or Bogaerts for a year of any starter, then soon enough 2012 and 2014 won't be aberrations, they'll be the norm. You can't trade away projectable, controllable talent for one-year rentals and expect to contend consistently in today's baseball landscape/economy.

[BSN07]

If the Sox trade Betts or Bogaerts for a year of any starter, then soon enough 2012 and 2014 won't be aberrations, they'll be the norm. You can't trade away projectable, controllable talent for one-year rentals and expect to contend consistently in today's baseball landscape/economy.

 

Exactly. Those 2 and Swihart should not be used in any trades. I could stomach Betts getting moved for a Sale type and still I would worry about Betts blossoming and Sale's arm going to s***. But that's it. There isn't any SP out there I'd be happy to see Xander or Swihart gone for. For me personally they are untouchable and need to be given every chance to reach their ceilings with the Sox. Anyone else I could be convinced on for good SP.

[a700hitter]

When you finish in last place twice in 3 years, that is not an aberration. It is more likely that the championship sandwiched between them was the aberration.

[Behindenemylines]

I live near DC and trust me Zimmerman has been the best of a very good staff for several years now.

 

I like Zimmermann to, but a trade for him would involve Betts because the Nats are set in the OF. I would say a trade for another pitcher happens after the Lester situation is taken care. Whether or not Lester signs will determine who they target for the other starter they need. I think that pitcher comes from the Reds, Mariners or Padres.

[a700hitter]

I am sure the Reds think that. The relevant comps I think are:

 

Price - the Rays got a mid-upper rotation young starter for 2 years of a true ace

Heyward - the Braves got two premium pitching prospects for 1 year of a good outfielder (with elite potential) for a team that is basically one outfielder away

drew Smyly is a good young starter. They also got a good young fly catcher who can steal bases.

[sk7326]

If the Sox trade Betts or Bogaerts for a year of any starter, then soon enough 2012 and 2014 won't be aberrations, they'll be the norm. You can't trade away projectable, controllable talent for one-year rentals and expect to contend consistently in today's baseball landscape/economy.

 

In the Cards case with Heyward - I see things the Cards way. Heyward is both a sensible rental and a huge upside play. (a few doable offensive adjustments from being a legitimate MVP candidate) In the case of a rental the Sox can get, it'd be much much harder to justify.

Edited November 27, 2014 by sk7326

[sk7326]

drew Smyly is a good young starter. They also got a good young fly catcher who can steal bases.

 

Smyly had a league average FIP last season (maybe a shade better) - he is a solid guy although hard to say how projectable (compared to say, Archer). Austin Jackson is a bit of a reclamation project. I have a hard time thinking they got the upside you'd want to get from dealing a guy of Price's level.

[a700hitter]

Smyly had a league average FIP last season (maybe a shade better) - he is a solid guy although hard to say how projectable (compared to say, Archer). Austin Jackson is a bit of a reclamation project. I have a hard time thinking they got the upside you'd want to get from dealing a guy of Price's level.

They didn't want to pay the guy. Other teams know that and the Rays lose leverage. I don't know about the prospect they got.

[sk7326]

They didn't want to pay the guy. Other teams know that and the Rays lose leverage. I don't know about the prospect they got.

 

I do agree there, ownership wanted to move him. I do wonder what is going on in TB. Their brain trust left, they moved their best starter. I am not sure if their window of opportunity has passed, but I do get a sense that internally that sentiment might be there.

[Orange Juiced]

When you finish in last place twice in 3 years, that is not an aberration. It is more likely that the championship sandwiched between them was the aberration.

 

2013 was certainly an aberration. They got very good seasons from most everyone on the roster. That doesn't often happen.

[Bellhorn04]

When you finish in last place twice in 3 years, that is not an aberration. It is more likely that the championship sandwiched between them was the aberration.

 

I say let's play best 3 out of 5. Cherington & Co. need to win 2015 and 2016 to pull it out.

[sk7326]

2013 was certainly an aberration. They got very good seasons from most everyone on the roster. That doesn't often happen.

 

Well 2012 and 2014 were last place finishes that were shaped very differently.

 

2012 was a ton of injuries combined with a trade which stripped the team to its studs. They fielded a AAA team the last two months of that season. You look at how little their best players actually played in 2012. You could see - well, not a wire to wire best team in baseball in 2013 - but it was not difficult to see the Red Sox bouncing back into playoff contention in 2013. The Sox got an unforeseen season from Victorino and Uehara, but the other guys were a matter of being healthy.

 

2014 was a dusting of injury and heaping spoonfuls of underperformance up and down the roster, and the moves the Red Sox made left their rotation in tatters. The underperformance to me is largely self-correcting (I don't think any of the cases are permanent outside of Middlebrooks, which the Sandoval signing addresses) but there are serious holes in the rotation as of now which there weren't really entering 2013.

[a700hitter]

I say let's play best 3 out of 5. Cherington & Co. need to win 2015 and 2016 to pull it out.

Two last place finishes in 3 years does not represent an aberration whether or not they win the next 2 seasons.

[a700hitter]

Well 2012 and 2014 were last place finishes that were shaped very differently.

 

2012 was a ton of injuries combined with a trade which stripped the team to its studs. They fielded a AAA team the last two months of that season. You look at how little their best players actually played in 2012. You could see - well, not a wire to wire best team in baseball in 2013 - but it was not difficult to see the Red Sox bouncing back into playoff contention in 2013. The Sox got an unforeseen season from Victorino and Uehara, but the other guys were a matter of being healthy.

 

2014 was a dusting of injury and heaping spoonfuls of underperformance up and down the roster, and the moves the Red Sox made left their rotation in tatters. The underperformance to me is largely self-correcting (I don't think any of the cases are permanent outside of Middlebrooks, which the Sandoval signing addresses) but there are serious holes in the rotation as of now which there weren't really entering 2013.

 

Do we really need another post mortem on 2012 and 2014. They finished last and they sucked. 2014 was a wire to wire boring disaster. The FO did a s***** job in both seasons. No excuses please.

[User Name]

If you don't think 2012 and 2014 were aberrations taking into account the FO's entire body and work and overall bad luck involved in both trainwrecks (especially 2012) then you don't know what the word aberration means and should stop using it.

[User Name]

2013 was certainly an aberration. They got very good seasons from most everyone on the roster. That doesn't often happen.

 

But then getting bad seasons from almost everyone in the roster and a heaping of injuries to boot is the same thing in the opposite direction.

[Bellhorn04]

Two last place finishes in 3 years does not represent an aberration whether or not they win the next 2 seasons.

 

I'm not a statistics expert, but I know enough to know that you need a bigger sample than 3 to identify an aberration.

[a700hitter]

I'm not a statistics expert, but I know enough to know that you need a bigger sample than 3 to identify an aberration.

Aberrations are very infrequent occurrences, not something that happens twice in three years. Two Division Championsips and Two last place finishes by this ownership. Are they aberrations or not?

[Bellhorn04]

Aberrations are very infrequent occurrences, not something that happens twice in three years. Two Division Championsips and Two last place finishes by this ownership. Are they aberrations or not?

 

As I said, I'm not a stats expert, so I don't know if a sample size of 13 years is large enough to identify an aberration. The word aberration is being tossed around here without too much concern for its actual technical meaning. I'm not even sure why it even matters that we determine whether 2012-2014 or 2013 are 'the aberration'.

 

All that aside, so as not to duck your question, in my opinion, yes, the two division titles and the two last place finishes would meet the very informal definition of aberration I think is being used here.

[User Name]

As I said, I'm not a stats expert, so I don't know if a sample size of 13 years is large enough to identify an aberration. The word aberration is being tossed around here without too much concern for its actual technical meaning. I'm not even sure why it even matters that we determine whether 2012-2014 or 2013 are 'the aberration'.

 

All that aside, so as not to duck your question, in my opinion, yes, the two division titles and the two last place finishes would meet the very informal definition of aberration I think is being used here.

 

Actually, you're right on the money, as you are with pretty much everything not Nava related Bellhorn.

[seabeachfred]

Do we really need another post mortem on 2012 and 2014. They finished last and they sucked. 2014 was a wire to wire boring disaster. The FO did a s***** job in both seasons. No excuses please.

 

Whether these are excuses, rationalizations and lame reasons, the fact that in 2012 and 2014 the Boston Red Sox stunk like a sewer at high tide. Nothing can be used to excuse it. The FO did a totally s***** job both off seasons to get us in that unsavory position but I wonder if fans and posters here would trade two such years for one like 2013 over a period of a decade? I think some might but not me. There is no excuse in hell to warrant the Red Sox finishing last two out of the last three seasons, but I see the front office once again choking on their own words and trying to buy a title the way they tried and FAILED miserably in 2011, and now after BSN filled me in on Boras and Scherzer the pitching dominoes will all be hanging like over-ripe fruit on a tree until one of those morsels falls. In the meantime we have visions of Buchholz and DeLaRosa and Webster dancing in our heads until the fruit falls. Sorry, those visions should have been nightmares.

[sk7326]

Whether these are excuses, rationalizations and lame reasons, the fact that in 2012 and 2014 the Boston Red Sox stunk like a sewer at high tide. Nothing can be used to excuse it. The FO did a totally s***** job both off seasons to get us in that unsavory position but I wonder if fans and posters here would trade two such years for one like 2013 over a period of a decade? I think some might but not me. There is no excuse in hell to warrant the Red Sox finishing last two out of the last three seasons, but I see the front office once again choking on their own words and trying to buy a title the way they tried and FAILED miserably in 2011, and now after BSN filled me in on Boras and Scherzer the pitching dominoes will all be hanging like over-ripe fruit on a tree until one of those morsels falls. In the meantime we have visions of Buchholz and DeLaRosa and Webster dancing in our heads until the fruit falls. Sorry, those visions should have been nightmares.

 

2012 was a failure of the baseball operations people. 2014 was much more a failing of the players and manager themselves. Two very different diagnoses. And a 90-72 season (2011) is many things, but a "miserable failure" is not one of them.

 

It's almost as absurd as saying Terry Francona became a stupid person in 2011 after getting 89 wins with smoke and mirrors and Darnell McDonald starting games for a major league baseball team the very season before (and magically becoming smart again in 2013 and 2014) ... oh wait

Edited November 28, 2014 by sk7326

[a700hitter]

As I said, I'm not a stats expert, so I don't know if a sample size of 13 years is large enough to identify an aberration. The word aberration is being tossed around here without too much concern for its actual technical meaning. I'm not even sure why it even matters that we determine whether 2012-2014 or 2013 are 'the aberration'.

 

All that aside, so as not to duck your question, in my opinion, yes, the two division titles and the two last place finishes would meet the very informal definition of aberration I think is being used here.

 

Fair enough. If you consider both the Division Championships and the last place finishes as aberrations, you are being consistent. I don't think either are aberrations. Our difference on this point is purely semantic. If we called the failures an aberration, but not the division championships that would be somewhat logically inconsistent.

Edited November 28, 2014 by a700hitter
typo

[seabeachfred]

2012 was a failure of the baseball operations people. 2014 was much more a failing of the players and manager themselves. Two very different diagnoses. And a 90-72 season (2011) is many things, but a "miserable failure" is not one of them.

 

It's almost as absurd as saying Terry Francona became a stupid person in 2011 after getting 89 wins with smoke and mirrors and Darnell McDonald starting games for a major league baseball team the very season before (and magically becoming smart again in 2013 and 2014) ... oh wait

 

I have no idea why you brought in Francona when I never mentioned him once in my post. As for the 2011 season it WAS a miserable failure because that record might look good on paper keep in mind that the Red Sox suffered the biggest collapse in baseball history that September. We went from 1.5 games in first place on the first of that month to a hideous 8-22 mark that month, not only dropping out of first place but failing to make the playoffs at all. It doesn't matter who was at fault, the result was the same. When it counted most we sucked. You know I coined a phrase on another board that might be just timely for this discussion and whenever losing teams and disappointing seasons are discussed and here goes......

 

Defeat has all sorts of excuses, rationalizations and worthless meanings and statements but

victory doesn't have any of these, nor do they need it because victory speaks for itself.

[a700hitter]

2012 was a failure of the baseball operations people. 2014 was much more a failing of the players and manager themselves. Two very different diagnoses. And a 90-72 season (2011) is many things, but a "miserable failure" is not one of them.

 

It's almost as absurd as saying Terry Francona became a stupid person in 2011 after getting 89 wins with smoke and mirrors and Darnell McDonald starting games for a major league baseball team the very season before (and magically becoming smart again in 2013 and 2014) ... oh wait

Has Franconia ever been accused of not being stupid? I don't think he could make that argument himself with a straight face.

[example1]

When talking about their multiple last place finishes I think it's important to think about how they happened. I would argue that their approach to both was similar--once they determined that they were out of the running they took the opportunity to make significant changes to the team. From a statistical point of view it isn't a trend, but it makes sense.

 

Some seasons just aren't going to be winners; when that happens the question is whether they should aggressively blow up the team and give up on the season, or aim to not finish last. I personally don't think they should care whether they finish last or 3rd or 4th if they're not competitive enough to win. Ultimately I'd rather they have the better draft pick. Both times they got pick #7 and used those last few months to strip their team and retool. In 2012 it was the Adrian Gonzalez salary dump (responsible for their spending this year). This year they will transition to a relatively new group on offense and a rebuilt rotation.

 

I understand the perspective that they should always try to finish as high as possible in the standings for the fans' sake. I just don't think it's strategically the best play. Hopefully they are now set up for a really nice run over the next few years. They have what appears to be a very solid offensive core with good depth at most positions. They also have enough money (thanks to their salary dump in 2012) to continue aggressively pursuing Lester even after landing Sandoval and Hanley. If they land Lester they will be in a pretty good position, in need of another #2 (ideally a #1a), but with all the pieces to make a deal: multiple MLB caliber outfielders (Cespedes, Bradley Jr, Craig, Victorino, Nava), 5-6 solid MLB ready young arms (RDL, Ranaudo, Webster, Barnes, etc.,), and a few blue-chip prospects (Owens, Swihart, Devers, Margot). I think they could put together a package for anyone who any team makes available. Yes, they need to make a deal, but they can afford to overpay and not be hurt longterm. Add a guy like Zimmerman or Hamels or Iwakuma and their rotation is suddenly pretty good.