2015 Red Sox Trade Deadline Thread

[Bellhorn04]

However we totally fd ourselves by not signing Lester. With Lester and Buch things would be so different.

 

The dicking around they did with Lester really demonstrated what a state of confusion they were in.

[a700hitter]

The dicking around they did with Lester really demonstrated what a state of confusion they were in.

He did get an awkward hug from the owners after he traded him.

[mvp 78]

The Pawtucket Red Sox are currently 20 games below .500. The Portland Sea Dogs are currently 27 games below .500. Everyone knows that the farm systems are there to produce players not titles but in this case I know that I have been inclined to think that our farm system is in a lot better shape than it actually is. Without major moves, the Red Sox are a long ways away.

 

The Paw Sox have been in the governors cup finals the past few years.

 

The rest of the top talent is in A ball for the most part.

[Spudboy]

I've said this a ton of times, The Sox really started to f*** things up when they did not make sure to sign Lester soon after the 2013 World Series. They compounded this failure by blowing up the rotation almost entirely.

 

Loosing both Lester and Lackey was avoidable and really, really bad business.

[iortiz]

I've said this a ton of times, The Sox really started to f*** things up when they did not make sure to sign Lester soon after the 2013 World Series. They compounded this failure by blowing up the rotation almost entirely.

 

Loosing both Lester and Lackey was avoidable and really, really bad business.

well said spud.

[Bellhorn04]

I've said this a ton of times, The Sox really started to f*** things up when they did not make sure to sign Lester soon after the 2013 World Series. They compounded this failure by blowing up the rotation almost entirely.

 

Loosing both Lester and Lackey was avoidable and really, really bad business.

 

And Lester and Lackey are rubbing their noses in it right now.

[NativeBostonian]

Looks like the Jays just got David Price. They're really going after it this year.

[SoxnCycles]

Looks like the Jays just got David Price. They're really going after it this year.

 

Hope it works out for them.

 

ABY.

[cp176]

The Paw Sox have been in the governors cup finals the past few years.

 

The rest of the top talent is in A ball for the most part.

 

Should have added- Salem = 8 games below .500 and in last place.

Greenville = 4 games below .500

 

Travis and Moncada were at Salem and of course were both promoted.

 

I realize that I am applying logic to an illogical situation. Maybe there is another primary franchise or two that I don't know much about but none of those 4 minor league teams can even smell .500 baseball at this point. Brilliant minds who spend their lives evaluating talent are telling us that we have one of the top farm systems in all of baseball. I realize that once again this is just my opinion but I think that the product on the field just isn't getting it done. Maybe it is about trying to sell tickets. If they continue to sit still, the Red Sox are a long ways as in years away from being good again.

[sk7326]

The Pawtucket Red Sox are currently 20 games below .500. The Portland Sea Dogs are currently 27 games below .500. Everyone knows that the farm systems are there to produce players not titles but in this case I know that I have been inclined to think that our farm system is in a lot better shape than it actually is. Without major moves, the Red Sox are a long ways away.

 

It says more about the "Crash Davis" sort of org players that are on the rosters than the prospects.

[cp176]

It says more about the "Crash Davis" sort of org players that are on the rosters than the prospects.

 

I'm sure that plays a part. But we do seem to keep adding these types of players to our rosters. There is some young talent in the org. Not enough but some. Much of the talk about them seems to be just that - a lot of talk. Once again, the guys who are performing the best aren't the household names and performance does count. Need to stay optimistic for sure but I'm not buying the big picture that everything is going to be wonderful in a short period of time because our farm system is so healthy. we are quite a ways away.

[iortiz]

For the price we are paying for Porcello, Sandoval, Castillo and Ramirez, we could have Lester, Scherzer and Nelson Cruz.

And still have enough left over to sign a decent 3b until Devers is ready...

[cp176]

Ouch - hurts when you look at it that way doesn't it.

 

As for Devers, he looks like a good young prospect. Single A is a long way away in Red Sox years though .. We have to be very careful with our young prospects. I'm a little sick of that crap too.

[a700hitter]

For the price we are paying for Porcello, Sandoval, Castillo and Ramirez, we could have Lester, Scherzer and Nelson Cruz.

And still have enough left over to sign a decent 3b until Devers is ready...

That is eye-opening. And somehow they convinced themselves in the FO that our moves were "value acquistions". Yes, they were a good value for the players. LOL!!

[a700hitter]

Red Sox Designate Daniel Nava

By Jeff Todd [July 30, 2015 at 2:38pm CDT]

 

The Red Sox have designated outfielder/first baseman Daniel Nava for assignment, Alex Speier of the Boston Globe reports on Twitter. He lost as spot as the club moved to add bullpen depth to its active roster.

 

Nava, 32, put up strong results in fairly extensive playing time over each of the last three seasons, racking up 1,261 plate appearances with a .278/.364/.403 slash. But injuries and performance issues have kept him grounded in 2015. He’s put up a meager .152/.260/.182 line in only 78 turns at bat.

 

Despite the recent struggles, it wouldn’t be surprised to hear of another team with interest at giving Nava a bench spot. But his $1.85MM salary is a major obstacle, so it will take some effort for Boston to find him a new home. (Otherwise, he’ll likely clear waivers and remain under team control.)

 

And I am sure that no one will claim him again and he will be assigned to Pawtucket.

[Kimmi]

Although, as Yankee fans should readily agree this year, sometimes guys who appear to be a lot of dead money can have big turnarounds.

 

+1

 

Nothing more needed to be said, but since a post has to have at least 3 characters, well, there you go.

[Kimmi]

Not keeping Lester was the ultimate s*** move and someone should've been fired just for that. That move alone makes hoping a hard thing to do. Getting Hanley and Sandoval reinforced this thinking for me. Yes they are good players but they represent winning now wheras all your other moves represent building for the future, not now. They get rid of Lester but acquire Sandoval, Hanley and Porcello. Huh? Not only does it not make sense but you get rid of a beloved figure who has been as steady a player as can be, doesn't get injured, was willing to take a home town cut and had plenty of years on him. Instead we get a player who we already kicked off the team years before in Hanley and Sandoval who talked s*** to his ex team the Giants. Hanley can't play D which I thought was a priority. The whole thing just makes no sense.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that not keeping Lester was a big time screw up. I don't think that the Sox should have matched the Cubs offer, but it really should have never reached that point. The Sox could have had him signed for a 5 year deal in the neighborhood of $110 million if they did so in the spring. Messing around with Lester was a terrible strategy.

[Kimmi]

I should not have hit the reply with quote button. I really wasn't responding to your comment. I will say though that once again, I do not think that there is a "plan". Abandon fing ship would be a good one for Cherington right now. Outside of the players whom we have already seen debut, nothing makes me that the talent that we have in our double A and or triple A programs is much better than anyone elses. Probably everybody else just sucks too I guess.

 

There is always a plan CP. Always. It might not make sense to us and we might not know exactly what it is, but there's a plan.

 

In the broadest terms, the plan is and has been to build a team around a strong core of young players AND to keep the team competitive while those young players develop. It worked in 2013. Not so much in the other years.

[Kimmi]

It's easy to criticize the FO for not handing out the big contracts for the likes of Scherzer, etc. However, I know from experience that when such a contract turns bad, and it almost assuredly will, that the FO would receive just as much criticism for signing such a "stupid" contract. You can't have it both ways.

 

If you want the big name free agent pitcher, that's all well and fine. You just have to be ready to suffer the consequences later. And those consequences can be rather grave, meaning several years of a terrible team with no way to fix it.

[BigPapi]

It's easy to criticize the FO for not handing out the big contracts for the likes of Scherzer, etc. However, I know from experience that when such a contract turns bad, and it almost assuredly will, that the FO would receive just as much criticism for signing such a "stupid" contract. You can't have it both ways.

 

If you want the big name free agent pitcher, that's all well and fine. You just have to be ready to suffer the consequences later. And those consequences can be rather grave, meaning several years of a terrible team with no way to fix it.

 

Unfortunately, they already gave out a sizeable contract extension to a trash can in Porcello.

[Northern Star]

Know what I saw someone call Porcello today? Poorsigning. AHAHAHAHAHA

[Northern Star]

It's easy to criticize the FO for not handing out the big contracts for the likes of Scherzer, etc. However, I know from experience that when such a contract turns bad, and it almost assuredly will, that the FO would receive just as much criticism for signing such a "stupid" contract. You can't have it both ways.

 

If you want the big name free agent pitcher, that's all well and fine. You just have to be ready to suffer the consequences later. And those consequences can be rather grave, meaning several years of a terrible team with no way to fix it.

 

It's not a matter of wanting a big pitcher, it's NEEDING one in today's game. If you don't have any coming through, then get ready to open the checkbook. It certainly is a problem when Scherzer gets a crazy overpay like this, and it's 99% sure to hurt them. But that's the state we're in. I agree in principle with ownership's reluctance to hand out big money to aging pitchers, but in practice it's a different story.

[sk7326]

It's not a matter of wanting a big pitcher, it's NEEDING one in today's game. If you don't have any coming through, then get ready to open the checkbook. It certainly is a problem when Scherzer gets a crazy overpay like this, and it's 99% sure to hurt them. But that's the state we're in. I agree in principle with ownership's reluctance to hand out big money to aging pitchers, but in practice it's a different story.

 

That's simply incorrect. The Giants won on one good starter and the Royals have been winning with zero. The Red Sox won 3 postseason series without obvious rotation edges in any of them. The pitching has been a problem, yes - but it is as much because of the failures of the supporting elements.

[Northern Star]

That's simply incorrect. The Giants won on one good starter and the Royals have been winning with zero. The Red Sox won 3 postseason series without obvious rotation edges in any of them. The pitching has been a problem, yes - but it is as much because of the failures of the supporting elements.

 

Instead of giving me a one-off season with the Royals, go back at least 20 years and tell me how many teams won the Series without good pitching.

[sk7326]

Instead of giving me a one-off season with the Royals, go back at least 20 years and tell me how many teams won the Series without good pitching.

 

You are moving the goalposts - who said run prevention was not important? I was just noting whether it had to come from some sort of mythic level of pitching you NEED.

 

Royals didn't have it - the Giants largely didn't. 2006 Cardinals (genuine fluke since they were a mediocre team), 2002 Angels (good run prevention but Jarrod Washburn in a year he would not repeat).

 

Also winning the Series is largely about matchups, health and luck - underdogs win it all the time, the best, most balanced team often does not win ... given how often a good team can lose 3 in a row over a 6 month season this is not any sort of surprise.

[a700hitter]

That's simply incorrect. The Giants won on one good starter and the Royals have been winning with zero. The Red Sox won 3 postseason series without obvious rotation edges in any of them. The pitching has been a problem, yes - but it is as much because of the failures of the supporting elements.

 

One good starter that won 3 games in the World Series. They clearly had a stud number 1 and the rest may not have been #1's but they didn't have four #5s. You are moving the goal posts. No one has said that we need a mythic level of pitching. What you can't have is a pitching staff with a 4+ ERA. That would not compete. That is the best that our collection of 4s and 5s could have been expected to produce. They did far worse, but this group had no chance of being good enough even if they didn't underperforming. If your pitching is 4+ ERA it is unlikely that you will compete.

[Bellhorn04]

The Royals have the best record in the AL. They have a 3.68 team ERA. But check out the starter/reliever split:

 

Starters 4.35

Relievers 2.18

 

So sk7326 is certainly correct that the Royals are succeeding despite a weak starting rotation.

[a700hitter]

Y

The Royals have the best record in the AL. They have a 3.68 team ERA. But check out the starter/reliever split:

 

Starters 4.35

Relievers 2.18

 

So sk7326 is certainly correct that the Royals are succeeding despite a weak starting rotation.

i am referring to overall pitching performance. Team pitching needs to pitch to an ERA under 4. Royals pitching is under that mark. They are doing it with a lights out bullpen. They are an anomaly. The only thing the split shows me is that their pitching strength will not be sustainable year over year unless they get some good starters, because it is very difficult for a bullpen to produce these excellent results with any consistency. The Royals approach is not a strategy for consistent success which is why they are making bold moves to go for it all this year picking up Cueto for the stretch run. They know that August can wear down bullpens and that their starter will have to be putting up more quality starts. Edited July 31, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

Mike Leake to the Giants

[Bellhorn04]

Yi am referring to overall pitching performance. Team pitching needs to pitch to an ERA under 4. Royals pitching is under that mark. They are doing it with a lights out bullpen. They are an anomaly.

 

Anomaly is kind of a key word here. With their 2015 'strategy', the Sox may have been trying to replicate a 'formula for success' when in fact they were trying to replicate an anomaly - a formula that usually fails.