Red Sox Offense – Bold Moves

[Kimmi]

I'm not sure any of us are actually fans of big contracts. But I think most of us do expect the Red Sox to have a big payroll because they have big revenue.

 

And they do have a big payroll. They had no problem going over the luxury tax limit this season. They are going to spend money. They are just not typically going to spend it on the superstars who command those big contracts. They are going to go with locking up their younger players as they did with Miley and Porcello, and go with contracts that are for fewer years at more AAV.

[Kimmi]

Smart vs $$$ is a false choice.

 

I don't think it's a smart vs $$$ choice, but rather a smart $$$ versus stupid $$$ choice. I think too many fans want to see the Sox sign the top free agents, regardless of the amount and length of the contract. The Carl Crawford type contracts are gone. The Justin Masterson type contracts are in.

 

And the bottom line is still that the strategic planning starts with the farm system and the cost-controlled players.

[iortiz]

I don't think it's a smart vs $$$ choice, but rather a smart $$$ versus stupid $$$ choice. I think too many fans want to see the Sox sign the top free agents, regardless of the amount and length of the contract. The Carl Crawford type contracts are gone. The Justin Masterson type contracts are in.

 

And the bottom line is still that the strategic planning starts with the farm system and the cost-controlled players.

 

Shields, Lester, and keeping Lackey wouldn't have hurt this team, financially. Rounding them with young talent from the farm/trades would have been my approach.

[a700hitter]

I don't think it's a smart vs $$$ choice, but rather a smart $$$ versus stupid $$$ choice. I think too many fans want to see the Sox sign the top free agents, regardless of the amount and length of the contract. The Carl Crawford type contracts are gone. The Justin Masterson type contracts are in.

 

And the bottom line is still that the strategic planning starts with the farm system and the cost-controlled players.

Masterson at 1 year $9 million was stupid $ compared to Volquez for 2 years/ $20 million.

 

Edit: or Jason Hamel at 2 years/ $20 million or A.J. Burnett 1 year/ $8.75 million.

Edited May 25, 2015 by a700hitter

[iortiz]

Masterson at 1 year $9 million was stupid $ compared to Volquez for 2 years/ $20 million.

 

... and what about Porcello? Does anybody still think that he worth 80 M?

[a700hitter]

... and what about Porcello? Does anybody still think that he worth 80 M?

Don't you worry. Ben the errand boy knows what he is doing.

[iortiz]

Don't you worry. Ben the errand boy knows what he is doing.

 

Do not take me wrong, I like Porcello at the right role (No. 3-4) and price, but trying to put him at the No. 1 slot which he has never been/performed (No. 1) and at that price (80 M) just because he is young, is plain stupid. This is just an example and a point of start of why I think this team was horrible assembled.

[User Name]

Shields, Lester, and keeping Lackey wouldn't have hurt this team, financially. Rounding them with young talent from the farm/trades would have been my approach.

 

How are you this bad at common sense? Everything is not about "now". Keeping Lackey would have clearly been smart in hindsight, but both Shields and Lester will be albatrosses by the end of their long, expensive contracts, as it almost always happens.

[User Name]

Masterson at 1 year $9 million was stupid $ compared to Volquez for 2 years/ $20 million.

 

Edit: or Jason Hamel at 2 years/ $20 million or A.J. Burnett 1 year/ $8.75 million.

 

You are such a hypocrite. Not only would any of those guys be probably getting creamed t Fenway (especially Burnett) but you would have been whining about "dumpster diving" the second any of those guys put ink to paper for this team.

[iortiz]

How are you this bad at common sense? Everything is not about "now". Keeping Lackey would have clearly been smart in hindsight, but both Shields and Lester will be albatrosses by the end of their long, expensive contracts, as it almost always happens.

 

Talking about hypocrites, didn't you want Lester and Shields as well?.

 

Also, just as Papelbon those contracts will be fine, it is not like betting in a guy like Lee as you suggested.

[iortiz]

You are such a hypocrite. Not only would any of those guys be probably getting creamed t Fenway (especially Burnett) but you would have been whining about "dumpster diving" the second any of those guys put ink to paper for this team.

Creamed like the current staff, doubt it.

 

Also, whining is your speciality, not his.

[a700hitter]

Dumpster Diving is the signing of pitchers who have been injured or who have had bad off seasons. Volquez and Hamels were not Dumpster Dives. I'm not sure why people are still operating under the incorrect perception that the AL East is such a tough division on pitchers. Newsflash, the ALE stinks. All of those pitchers would have done fine in the ALE. Yes, Burnett would have fit the definition of a Dumpster Dive, but as it turns out, he would have been a much better choice than the Dumpster Dive of Masterson.

[a700hitter]

The notion of throwing around the term "hypocrite" with regard to fans discussing the performance of a sports team is in the realm of idiocy, which is why I have him on ignore. LOL!!

[sk7326]

Masterson at 1 year $9 million was stupid $ compared to Volquez for 2 years/ $20 million.

 

Edit: or Jason Hamel at 2 years/ $20 million or A.J. Burnett 1 year/ $8.75 million.

 

Some externalities there. Burnett was only giving that deal to Pittsburgh. Hammel was awful when he left the friendly confines of Oakland. Volquez went to a good pitching environment, and has been bad when he has not been in one.

 

Masterson was a risk - but a pretty small one.

 

Re-signing Lester - different kettle of fish.

 

Shields has been a beneficiary of extremely good pitching environments his whole career.

[a700hitter]

Some externalities there. Burnett was only giving that deal to Pittsburgh. Hammel was awful when he left the friendly confines of Oakland. Volquez went to a good pitching environment, and has been bad when he has not been in one.

 

Masterson was a risk - but a pretty small one.

 

Re-signing Lester - different kettle of fish.

 

Shields has been a beneficiary of extremely good pitching environments his whole career.

you are minimalizing the mistake of Masterson. Forget about the money. That is not the issue. They signs and gave a rotation spot to a guy who had experienced a big loss of velocity without any reason to think that he had regained the lost velocity. They didn't do their homework. That was the big mistake.

[Palodios]

How are you this bad at common sense? Everything is not about "now". Keeping Lackey would have clearly been smart in hindsight, but both Shields and Lester will be albatrosses by the end of their long, expensive contracts, as it almost always happens.

 

Keeping Lackey wasn't just bad in hindsight... the Red Sox traded him for a pair of underperforming players that were projects. A year and a half of a #2 starter at league minimum should have pulled in a top prospect, not junk. If the Red Sox were trading for someone of his quality, the other team would be asking for Mookie, Swihart or Xander.

[cp176]

Keeping Lackey wasn't just bad in hindsight... the Red Sox traded him for a pair of underperforming players that were projects. A year and a half of a #2 starter at league minimum should have pulled in a top prospect, not junk. If the Red Sox were trading for someone of his quality, the other team would be asking for Mookie, Swihart or Xander.

 

There must have been more to the Lackey story than we were told. If he didn't want to be in Boston, then they had to take what they could get.

[a700hitter]

Keeping Lackey wasn't just bad in hindsight... the Red Sox traded him for a pair of underperforming players that were projects. A year and a half of a #2 starter at league minimum should have pulled in a top prospect, not junk. If the Red Sox were trading for someone of his quality, the other team would be asking for Mookie, Swihart or Xander.

Excellent points. Lackey was not a salary dump, nor was he a short term rental. He was our number 2 pitcher with big time post season experience who was performing well. He was scheduled to make only the league minimum in 2015. A year and a half of apitcher of his quality at league minimum should have netted a top level prospect and not a wrecked OFer hitting at the Mendoza line with a multi year contract. Kelly was a known project. Many shook their heads in disbelief at the time not just in hindsight. I was hoping that Ben knew something about Craig and Kelly that we did not know. Clearly that was not the case.

[a700hitter]

There must have been more to the Lackey story than we were told. If he didn't want to be in Boston, then they had to take what they could get.

 

For $500k, it was worth it to call his bluff and risk getting nothing, which is essentiallwhat we got for him. He may not have wanted to be here, but they should have done a better job of getting other teams bidding against each other for his services. Just because he didn't want to be here didn't mean that he wasn't a very valuable commodity.

[cp176]

For $500k, it was worth it to call his bluff and risk getting nothing, which is essentiallwhat we got for him. He may not have wanted to be here, but they should have done a better job of getting other teams bidding against each other for his services. Just because he didn't want to be here didn't mean that he wasn't a very valuable commodity.

 

I agree with you. It seemed like a strange move at the time for sure. I kept thinking that there must have been more to the story at the time.

[Spudboy]

There must have been more to the Lackey story than we were told. If he didn't want to be in Boston, then they had to take what they could get.

 

There are no substantiated reports of his discontent and desire to play somewhere else. From what I have read, he only suggested that he may retire as a negotiation ploy with the Sox. He readily said that he would play for the minimum in St. Louis.

 

I think the Sox either did not like / want him or they just f***ing blew it with him. The idea of trading away all of your pitching including #2 and #1 still makes no sense to me even if the team is confronted with negotiating into a pitcher's "decline" years.

 

Someone with some savvy could have negotiated with both Lester and Lackey. My bet is at least one of them would still be here.

 

I think the Sox just f***ed up.

[a700hitter]

I agree with you. It seemed like a strange move at the time for sure. I kept thinking that there must have been more to the story at the time.

We definitely all thought it was odd. When SBF said before the trade that he had heard Lackey wanted out of town, he was mocked. In the end, it looks like there had to be something to the rumor considering what we got in return. Ben, still should have done better, regardless of Lackey's discontent. I think what we are starting to see is that BEn is truly out of his depth in running this organization and producing a consistent winning product on the field.

[sk7326]

you are minimalizing the mistake of Masterson. Forget about the money. That is not the issue. They signs and gave a rotation spot to a guy who had experienced a big loss of velocity without any reason to think that he had regained the lost velocity. They didn't do their homework. That was the big mistake.

 

They took a calculated risk which didn't work on a guy who has set the franchise back exactly 7 starts. So now move on to something else. 21-24 is not where anyone'd like to be.

[a700hitter]

Someone with some savvy could have negotiated with both Lester and Lackey. My bet is at least one of them would still be here.

 

I think the Sox just f***ed up.

Key word ^ savy.

[a700hitter]

They took a calculated risk which didn't work on a guy who has set the franchise back exactly 7 starts. So now move on to something else. 21-24 is not where anyone'd like to be.

They didn't need to take a calculated risk. They had a known cheap commodity. They shouldn't have taken risks and payroll in return. They should have received a solid prospect. There's no sugar-coating this one.

[User Name]

They took a calculated risk which didn't work on a guy who has set the franchise back exactly 7 starts. So now move on to something else. 21-24 is not where anyone'd like to be.

 

On point.

[iortiz]

Key word ^ savy.

 

Yup, it's not a bad luck thing. It's not about optimism or pesimism either. The talent at pitching is not there. It's pretty simple actually. Our FO took a very serious risk with this staff and furthermore, they recently threw a lot of money to a mediocre arm just because he is young or whatever the assessment is behind. Honestly, I do not see any team in a rush trying to throw 80 M to Porcello these days.

 

Let's see how this ends up, but if we do not make the playoffs again, IMO we need to change the philosophy/strategy and the men behind it for once and for all.

[Bellhorn04]

They took a calculated risk which didn't work on a guy who has set the franchise back exactly 7 starts. So now move on to something else. 21-24 is not where anyone'd like to be.

 

Benny took quite a few calculated risks with this rotation.

[Kimmi]

Keeping Lackey wasn't just bad in hindsight... the Red Sox traded him for a pair of underperforming players that were projects. A year and a half of a #2 starter at league minimum should have pulled in a top prospect, not junk. If the Red Sox were trading for someone of his quality, the other team would be asking for Mookie, Swihart or Xander.

 

I have to disagree with the idea that trading Lackey for Kelly and Craig was bad at the time that it happened. It looks bad as of this moment, but it wasn't a bad trade going in, and it might end up not being a bad trade in the end.

 

1. Ben was looking for major league ready players, not prospects. With both the Lester and Lackey trades, he wanted players that could help the team contend this year.

 

2. Too many people are looking at only the short term (this year) in this deal. Kelly is a cost-controlled player until 2018 and Craig is under contract until 2017, with an option for 2018. The deal was made not only with 2015 in mind, but also for the longer term.

 

3. Kelly was a 26 year old pitcher who can hit 97 mph. He has some upside, and he is cheap. He pitched fairly well with the Cardinals.

 

4. At the time of the trade, our outfield was a mess. We did not have Castillo. Victorino's health is always a concern. Betts had all of 10 games under his belt and wasn't hitting that well in that small sample. JBJ couldn't hit his way out of a paper bag. Sizemore was gone. Hanley wasn't signed yet. Holt was cooling off. The Sox needed some outfield depth. Craig was not just an excessive piece. And the fact that he can play 1B didn't hurt.

 

5. Before his injury, Craig was a very good hitter. He is not that old. It is not unrealistic to think that if he got healthy, he could rebound to close to what he was in 2012 or 2013. If he did rebound, his contract would be considered cheap.

 

6. The Sox have taken fliers on players like Craig before. Victorino, who played very well in 2013. Stephen Drew. Beltre. They worked out.

 

Yes, the trade looks bad right now, but the rationale in making the trade at the time is very sound.

[SoxnCycles]

I have to disagree with the idea that trading Lackey for Kelly and Craig was bad at the time that it happened. It looks bad as of this moment, but it wasn't a bad trade going in, and it might end up not being a bad trade in the end.

 

1. Ben was looking for major league ready players, not prospects. With both the Lester and Lackey trades, he wanted players that could help the team contend this year.

 

2. Too many people are looking at only the short term (this year) in this deal. Kelly is a cost-controlled player until 2018 and Craig is under contract until 2017, with an option for 2018. The deal was made not only with 2015 in mind, but also for the longer term.

 

3. Kelly was a 26 year old pitcher who can hit 97 mph. He has some upside, and he is cheap. He pitched fairly well with the Cardinals.

 

4. At the time of the trade, our outfield was a mess. We did not have Castillo. Victorino's health is always a concern. Betts had all of 10 games under his belt and wasn't hitting that well in that small sample. JBJ couldn't hit his way out of a paper bag. Sizemore was gone. Hanley wasn't signed yet. Holt was cooling off. The Sox needed some outfield depth. Craig was not just an excessive piece. And the fact that he can play 1B didn't hurt.

 

5. Before his injury, Craig was a very good hitter. He is not that old. It is not unrealistic to think that if he got healthy, he could rebound to close to what he was in 2012 or 2013. If he did rebound, his contract would be considered cheap.

 

6. The Sox have taken fliers on players like Craig before. Victorino, who played very well in 2013. Stephen Drew. Beltre. They worked out.

 

Yes, the trade looks bad right now, but the rationale in making the trade at the time is very sound.

 

"Short term" is an understatement.

Some can't see past yesterday's game.