2014 Offseason Thread

[Palodios]

So, he is going to build a winner with all prospects and Lester -- is that the plan? There are ways to build a winner faster. It seems that he is indulging his wet dream of building a team from scratch with all home grown players drafted by him. That takes a long time at the expense of the fans enjoyment. I know what he is doing and it is taking a long time and it is yet to bear fruit. 2015 is a put up or shut up year for Theo. The prospects are ready and he has Lester. He has no more excuses. It's his time of reckoning.

 

I agree that this is the year that he needs to show some results. Shelling out 155 on Lester means that you're in win-now mode.

 

However, I think Theo wanted to build a core for the team's future before dropping money and prospects. Every World Series team has those homegrown guys. Pablo/Bumgarner/Posey. Jeter/Rivera/Posada. Lester/Ellsbury/Pedroia. Pujols/Molina/Wainright. Theo has built a core of Rizzo, Castro, Soler, Fowler, Lester, Bryant, Baez, and Russell. There is so much talent -- its time to see what that team does with it.

[Kimmi]

I think most people agree that Shields would have made any team better, regardless any rationale thought or decision behind. It seemed like a lot of teams were interested, and all of them for sure have their GOOD/BAD rationale/projection behind, time will tell. In our case, he is 2 or 3 steps ahead of any of our arms.

 

 

He would likely make most teams better in the short term. You also have to figure in the back years of the contract. Would the cost of the contract be worth it over the length of the contract? And what might the FO know about him that we don't know? Maybe Shields told them at the winter meetings that he much preferred playing on the west coast and that his heart really wasn't in signing with an east coast team. Just because your rationale tells you they should sign Shields, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

[a700hitter]

Oh stop with the "ready-made excuse". You have no way of knowing for sure why Shields signed with the Padres, or knowing for sure what other kinds of offers he received. It's not making excuses anyway. .

I never make up excuses for the FO, but others do. You are right that we do not know the reasons for Shields signing with SD, so others shouldn't use those unknowable reasons as a copout excuse when we evaluate our off season acquisitions in light of the fact that we did not get Shields or Lester or Shields.

[Kimmi]

I never make up excuses for the FO, but others do. You are right that we do not know the reasons for Shields signing with SD, so others shouldn't use those unknowable reasons as a copout excuse when we evaluate our off season acquisitions in light of the fact that we did not get Shields or Lester or Shields.

 

 

I think you misunderstood my post. I am saying that they are not ready made excuses. I am saying that what you are calling excuses could be very valid reasons why the Sox did not sign Shields. I thought the Sox should have tried to sign him at the price that San Diego got him for, but since they didn't, I am wondering why they didn't. There must be a good reason, and I will try to rationalize their decision. This does not mean I'm making excuses.

 

Whether Shields pitches great or not, and I will give the FO the benefit of the doubt. I think they have a good idea of what they're doing.

[a700hitter]

I think you misunderstood my post. I am saying that they are not ready made excuses. I am saying that what you are calling excuses could be very valid reasons why the Sox did not sign Shields. I thought the Sox should have tried to sign him at the price that San Diego got him for, but since they didn't, I am wondering why they didn't. There must be a good reason, and I will try to rationalize their decision. This does not mean I'm making excuses.

 

Whether Shields pitches great or not, and I will give the FO the benefit of the doubt. I think they have a good idea of what they're doing.

Or maybe they just undervalued him or overvalued the players we did sign. Those too could be the reasons why we did not sign Shields. We can never know one way or another. The only valid and most provable of arguments is whether the Red Sox would have been better off with or without these players. The "why" we didn't sign him leads the argument down the path of unprovable, unknowable and unreliable excuses. Edited February 10, 2015 by a700hitter

[iortiz]

He would likely make most teams better in the short term. You also have to figure in the back years of the contract. Would the cost of the contract be worth it over the length of the contract? And what might the FO know about him that we don't know? Maybe Shields told them at the winter meetings that he much preferred playing on the west coast and that his heart really wasn't in signing with an east coast team. Just because your rationale tells you they should sign Shields, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

We'll never know, but time will tell if they took the best strategy with this squad.

[User Name]

Oh stop with the "ready-made excuse". You have no way of knowing for sure why Shields signed with the Padres, or knowing for sure what other kinds of offers he received. It's not making excuses anyway. It's trying to understand the rationale behind a decision, or in this case, a non-decision.

 

As I posted before, I thought the Sox should have been in on Shields at that price. But since they weren't, I'm not going to bash the FO, but rather try to understand why they weren't interested. They do have a good rationale behind their decision, whether you agree with it or not.

 

Also, Shields having a big season in San Diego would not necessarily translate to Shields having a big season in Boston.

 

The Yankees could have really used Shields. Perhaps more than the Sox given their health question marks. If they didn't sign him at that price, you know there's something there we don't see.

[User Name]

He would likely make most teams better in the short term. You also have to figure in the back years of the contract. Would the cost of the contract be worth it over the length of the contract? And what might the FO know about him that we don't know? Maybe Shields told them at the winter meetings that he much preferred playing on the west coast and that his heart really wasn't in signing with an east coast team. Just because your rationale tells you they should sign Shields, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

 

No no no, you've gotta it all wrong. We're the Red Sox. We're a large market team, we gotta win goddamn now and f*** the future.....but i reserve the right to whine like a little bitch if the future happens to suck because the team spent stupidly to win RIGHT GODDAMN NOW.

[iortiz]

No no no, you've gotta it all wrong. We're the Red Sox. We're a large market team, we gotta win goddamn now and f*** the future.....but i reserve the right to whine like a little bitch if the future happens to suck because the team spent stupidly to win RIGHT GODDAMN NOW.

 

Weren't u all for Shields?

[a700hitter]

Weren't u all for Shields?

He's such an obnoxious punk. Please don't quote him if at all possible. He offers nothing worthwhile.

[Dojji]

The Yankees could have really used Shields. Perhaps more than the Sox given their health question marks. If they didn't sign him at that price, you know there's something there we don't see.

 

James Shields is 3 wins, 6 losses, with a 5.46 ERA in the postseason.

 

That's why he signed with the Padres, who are happy when they get to the postseason and have no postseason demands, much less expectations, and not with a team that has pretty solid confidence in making the postseason with other assets but needs something to put them over the top in October -- because James Shields is literally the exact opposite of that guy.

 

The only reason half these people wanted the guy is he was the last probable chance for the team to Do Something Interesting this offseason (IE, spend/waste tens of millions on a player they don't want, may not need, and lock down on their roster for years and years, just to mollify fans that want offseason action).

Edited February 10, 2015 by Dojji

[iortiz]

He's such an obnoxious punk. Please don't quote him if at all possible. He offers nothing worthwhile.

 

Sorry Ted, my bad never happen again my friend.

 

Shields wouldn't hurt anybody mostly at that price (75). At 85, still it would have been a bargain to me and likely would have made it done (... and just in case you would have wanted to incentive him). Nobody is saying, spend like drunken sailors like he is presenting. As usual he is taking things out of context.

 

Anyways... problem is AND it has been mostly in recent years... they didn't spend wisely, again IMO; while they opened the wallet at O, the pitching is soooooo thin and full of ?s.... again. For nth time, I would have signed Lester and Shields even if that had meant not landing Panda and/or HR. In that scenario you would have had Vic/Nava/Castillo, Betts, Cespedes. XB,

Peddy, Napoli/Craig, WM/Holt, Vazquez.. Still this O looks pretty strong to me. On the other hand the Rotation would have been Lester, Shields, Masterson, Kelly, Buch/Miley. Something like this was pretty affordable. IMO this looks more balanced. Sure It's about how you see your strategy and/or projections, but come on nobody is spending like drunken sailors in this scenario, nor putting in risk any future.

Edited February 10, 2015 by iortiz

[User Name]

James Shields is 3 wins, 6 losses, with a 5.46 ERA in the postseason.

 

That's why he signed with the Padres, who are happy when they get to the postseason and have no postseason demands, much less expectations, and not with a team that has pretty solid confidence in making the postseason with other assets but needs something to put them over the top in October -- because James Shields is literally the exact opposite of that guy.

 

The only reason half these people wanted the guy is he was the last probable chance for the team to Do Something Interesting this offseason (IE, spend/waste tens of millions on a player they don't want, may not need, and lock down on their roster for years and years, just to mollify fans that want offseason action).

 

His postseason numbers are not it, since it's a SSS and he experienced success initially in his playoff career. It's more along the lines of not giving a pitcher with HR issues and that depends on defensive efficiency more than ever with a declining K rate big money for his 34-37 seasons.

[Spudboy]

I am just glad that Shields did not sign with the Yankees or with another AL East team for that matter. Edited February 10, 2015 by Spudboy

[a700hitter]

I am just glad that Shield did not sign with the Yankees or with another AL East team for that matter.

Yes. That would have impacted the balance of power in the ALE.

[Dojji]

His postseason numbers are not it, since it's a SSS and he experienced success initially in his playoff career. It's more along the lines of not giving a pitcher with HR issues and that depends on defensive efficiency more than ever with a declining K rate big money for his 34-37 seasons.

 

Not sure I buy that. Shields isn't particularly home run prone, and his K rate is within his historic range. He's still striking out about as many as he did in his age 26 and 27 season. And since he's literally never missed a scheduled start I can't imagine that durability is a factor here.

 

And I do suspect that the fact that he came up very small at the biggest moment of his life last year played a big role in explaining the level of (dis)interest shown by the big market playoff hopeful teams. If James Shields had had a single average game of the starts he made in the Series, not even an ace type game, just don't get *skinned alive* in the World Series, his team would have WON. The man pitched 9 world series innings and gave up 7 runs. He coughed up a World Series win for the team that was paying him 8 digits. I don't think it's sane to beleive that big market teams wouldn't pay attention to that. You just don't spend that much money on a postseason maybe.

 

Don't make a mistake, I wanted Shields if the team and Shields could come together on a decent price. His durability makes him an asset, he's put together two borderline ace type seasons in a row in KC, and I don't think this is The Year for us regardless of what Shields does or doesn't do. Just my $.02 on why signing with the Padres rather than the Sox or Yanks makes sense to me.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Dojji

[User Name]

Not sure I buy that. Shields isn't particularly home run prone, and his K rate is within his historic range. He's still striking out about as many as he did in his age 26 and 27 season. And since he's literally never missed a scheduled start I can't imagine that durability is a factor here.

 

And I do suspect that the fact that he came up very small at the biggest moment of his life last year played a big role in explaining the level of (dis)interest shown by the big market playoff hopeful teams. If James Shields had had a single average game of the starts he made in the Series, not even an ace type game, just don't get *skinned alive* in the World Series, his team would have WON. You just don't spend that much money on a postseason maybe. Just my $.02 but that's why signing with the Padres rather than the Sox or Yanks makes sense to me.

 

His 1.16 HR/9 away from the friendly confines of Kaufman (sp?) stadium begs to disagree. His K rate has also lowered (albeit slightly) for three years running, which can be viewed as a trend, with 2014 also being lower than his career average. The postseason flop may have helped, but executives aren't dumb enough to fall for the SSS trap when they have a much larger body of work to analyze when making a decision.

[Dojji]

Potseason isn't just any SSS. There are guys that can maintain a high level of production in the postseason, and the fact that Shields did the exact opposite is something teams with playoff ambitions would pay attention to. When you're paying ace money for a guy and you already have a fair chance to make the postseason anyway, that lack of ability to rise above himself on the big stage is something teams will pay a disproportionate amount of attention to.

[User Name]

By that logic, giving the consensus best pitcher on the planet that huge extension was a huge mistake for the Dodgers, since Kershaw has terrible postseason numbers. And don't even get me started on David Price, who's not going to get a huge contract next off-season since the importance of post-season sample is equal to, or can even trump, entire bodies of work. You're arguing for something that doesn't make sense Dojji.

[Spudboy]

I think that it probably comes down to the Sox stated philosophy / policy not to make a big investment in a pitcher over 30. The guy is 33 now.

 

No way in hell do I believe that Ben really is satisfied with the current rotation for all of 2015.

[iortiz]

I think that it probably comes down to the Sox stated philosophy / policy not to make a big investment in a pitcher over 30. The guy is 33 now.

 

No way in hell do I believe that Ben really is satisfied with the current rotation for all of 2015.

 

Me neither and of course he will not accept it on public, but some here and there are drinking that kool aid.

[Spudboy]

Me neither and of course he will not accept it on public, but some here and there are drinking that kool aid.

 

Oye!

 

I don't think anyone on Talksox is swallowing any Kool Aide here. Most of us are still scratching our heads and waiting for Ben's next move.

[iortiz]

Oye!

 

I don't think anyone on Talksox is swallowing any Kool Aide here. Most of us are still scratching our heads and waiting for Ben's next move.

Yeah, but some think that this squad is good enough going forward since they think we could grab a pitcher in the trade deadline and/or promote a prospect.

[User Name]

Yeah, but some think that this squad is good enough going forward since they think we could grab a pitcher in the trade deadline and/or promote a prospect.

 

So they couldn't? Are you for real?

[iortiz]

so they couldn't, what?

[mvp 78]

Interesting read concerning James Shields. Looking at similar players, maybe history was the reason the Sox didn't want him?

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-great-james-shields-docks-in-san-diego-a-j-preller-and-the-padres-travel-ceaselessly-into-the-past-again/

[mvp 78]

@PeteAbe: Mookie Betts, equipment bag slung over his shoulder, just strolled into the #RedSox clubhouse. About 15-20 of the 40-man roster already here

 

!!!!

[Palodios]

Mookie Madness returns!!!!!!

[sk7326]

Me neither and of course he will not accept it on public, but some here and there are drinking that kool aid.

 

I don't see that. What I see are some guys (count me here for what its worth) who see this rotation as something that can be good enough to not kill this team while the starting pitching trade market opens itself up.

 

Now, I wish we had kept Lester. His contract demands were fair, and the probability of the contract being a net plus was solid to me. But he is gone. So you move to the next thing - would signing Max Scherzer and James Shields for $45-$50M be able to be a net improvement on last year's rotation. Personally, I think the answer was yes - but not by THAT much, and certainly not commesurate with the AAV difference. Scherzer probably offset Lester, but Shields big trait given the change of environment was going to be durability.

 

So once you decide Scherzer and Shields were not worth the price and years - what is next? Where is that crackerjack Top 2 guy to land? The guys they DID land were about as good as you were going to get from the "everybody else" pile when you consider that A) most teams are doing well financially and most teams cannot credibly wave the white flag on the 2015 season in December. The only way that trading partners will show up is when teams start to fall out of the chase. Past history is no real guidepost here because the Red Sox did not have A) the job opening and the varied portfolio of tradeable stuff.

 

I don't love this course of action - but I am not sure there was any alternative one given the scene after Lester went west.

[User Name]

You are trying to apply logic where logic need not apply. It's easier to be miserable about the team and then claim you were right if they flounder, because you warned us and now it's your right to go nuclear on everyone or right if they succeed because "stars aligned" or some other inane pre-fabricated explanation.