2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[Kimmi]

That's a pretty big statement, because it implies that Ben is as good as Theo. To me Theo is strong in both areas, long term development and player acquisitions.

 

Look at the solid, conservative additions he is making.

 

Can't help but notice where both Lester and Lackey have ended up.

 

It's probably a bit of an overstatement. Ben is no Theo.

 

That said, Theo, like Ben, got a LOT of criticism when he was here for his free agent signings and trades. His strength at the time, like Ben's, appeared to be the farm system and long term development. But once he got out from under the stranglehold of Lucchino, his talent in player acquisitions became evident.

 

The team is at the point where the young core is in place. It's at the point where a few key acquisitions could make the team a contender for several years. Ben was not given the chance to see that through.

[Kimmi]

The point is that FanGraph literally aren't worth the effort it takes to concoct them. So any one quoting them to prove a point may just as well be quoting any Tom, Dick or Harry. BTW the Vegas reference is what is called a metaphor.

 

In terms of telling me how good the team is on paper, I'm going to trust Fangraphs over Tom, Dick, or Harry.

 

The fact that the Sox are projected to win 92 games proves the point that they should be contenders because they have the talent, not because of the lack of talent in the rest of the division.

[Kimmi]

Now you don't know that either about Larry only overruling Ben when he wanted to make a splash. The idea that Ben the "Good" was responsible for all the good things and Larry the "Evil" one is responsible for all the bad sounds like as a fairy tale. BTW who gave Ben the Good the job in the first place.

 

I'm basing my opinion on the consensus of several baseball executives. You're basing your opinion on your dislike of Ben.

[Kimmi]

Meh. Theo has zero WS with Cubs. Ben had one.

 

Until Theo wins in Chicago, I won't be envious.

 

Good point. I guess that makes Ben the man.

[Kimmi]

You can't have it both ways. You throw bouquets at Ben for the moves you like and blame LL or JH for the moves you don't like. That doesn't sound like a rational operating model. Ben was either making the moves and the recommendations or LL was running the show. If you claim that LL was making the personnel decisions, basically Ben was a puppet, not the GM.

 

@ Username with the douchery comment. You are the biggest douche here. You need to stop. I hope that wasn't a subtle insult or veiled in any way.

 

@Username -- as far as your accusation of making things up, I am just assuming that Ben had the responsibilities of a GM. I am not the one cherry-picking the bad moves to exonerate him or elevate him. That is making stuff up. Also, please respect the ignore feature and stop taking free potshots at me that I don't see unless someone else posts them. It is not in the spirit of the ignore feature. The Ignore feature is not there to give the ignored poster free reign to take unanswered potshots.

 

As I said before, I believe that Porcello was a Ben move. Almost everyone thinks that Porcello was a bad move. I also believe that the Lackey trade was a Ben move. To date, that move has been terrible.

 

Ben is by no means a perfect GM. None of them are. However, he gets far more criticism than he deserves and not enough credit what he he has done.

[Kimmi]

Seriously, you're too smart to be dealing with these morons on a daily basis.

 

I know that some here do not like you, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.

[User Name]

Why is a700's vagina so sandy though? I didn't single him out. I guess he feels called out because he is, in fact, a douche (the biggest one here), and because what I speak is true.

 

I only realized he was talking about my posts because I saw Kimmi quote him. Respect the ignore feature my ass. Go away and stop making s*** up with your bitch-ass buddies.

[a700hitter]

As I said before, I believe that Porcello was a Ben move. Almost everyone thinks that Porcello was a bad move. I also believe that the Lackey trade was a Ben move. To date, that move has been terrible.

 

Ben is by no means a perfect GM. None of them are. However, he gets far more criticism than he deserves and not enough credit what he he has done.

I get your position. The moves that you like you think were Ben moves and the moves that you don't like you attribute to others. I think that is unreasonable.

[Bellhorn04]

I get your position. The moves that you like you think were Ben moves and the moves that you don't like you attribute to others. I think that is unreasonable.

 

But she just attributed Porcello and the Lackey trade to Ben.

[a700hitter]

But she just attributed Porcello and the Lackey trade to Ben.

She likes the Porcello move and has long argued about understanding the rationale of the Lackey trade.

[User Name]

But she just attributed Porcello and the Lackey trade to Ben.

 

Reading comprehension? On my talksox?

[a700hitter]

She likes the Porcello move and has long argued about understanding the rationale of the Lackey trade.

Almost very move made last year was bad. She is dividing the moves up along the lines of those she likes (Ben Moves) and those that she doesn't like (LL moves), but to clarify they are all bad. She just expects the Ben moves to work out.

[Elktonnick]

I'm basing my opinion on the consensus of several baseball executives. You're basing your opinion on your dislike of Ben.

 

You're basing your opinion on what Abrahams wrote since he quoted anonymous sources. It says a lot that this supposed consensus didn't have the courage to permit their names being mentioned. You have no idea who they may be.

[Elktonnick]

In terms of telling me how good the team is on paper, I'm going to trust Fangraphs over Tom, Dick, or Harry.

 

The fact that the Sox are projected to win 92 games proves the point that they should be contenders because they have the talent, not because of the lack of talent in the rest of the division.

 

There is no scientific basis for that trust which is okay. It is easy to trust a meaningless projection which has no statistical validity other then it supports your bias.

[a700hitter]

You're basing your opinion on what Abrahams wrote since he quoted anonymous sources. It says a lot that this supposed consensus didn't have the courage to permit their names being mentioned. You have no idea who they may be.

Be honest, you have hated Ben since he slighted you when he dropped you from his Christmas card list.

[mvp 78]

Good point. I guess that makes Ben the man.

 

His boobs looked great in October 2013. It's just too bad that they completely struck out last offseason. Even an average offseason would have saved his job.

[Elktonnick]

Be honest, you have hated Ben since he slighted you when he dropped you from his Christmas card list.

Actually it was a fight we had over dinner. He told me he didn't like my wife's lasagna. Can't like anyone who doesn't like Italian cuisine.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Elktonnick

[Kimmi]

Almost very move made last year was bad. She is dividing the moves up along the lines of those she likes (Ben Moves) and those that she doesn't like (LL moves), but to clarify they are all bad. She just expects the Ben moves to work out.

 

Where have you been all season and all offseason? I have been defending the Panda signing til I'm blue in the face. I didn't like it, but I have said many times that I understand the rationale behind it and that there is no way it should have been so bad last season. I even compared the rationale to the signing of Price. So stop with the nonsense.

 

Theo, Ben, Hazen, Hoyer - they are all cut from the same cloth. They all have the same baseball philosophy, which is one I happen to completely agree with. To me, there are types of moves that fit that philosophy and there are those that don't. There are moves that seem like 'Ben' moves and there are those that don't. Perhaps I think that 'Ben' moves should work out because I agree with his philosophy.

[Kimmi]

You're basing your opinion on what Abrahams wrote since he quoted anonymous sources. It says a lot that this supposed consensus didn't have the courage to permit their names being mentioned. You have no idea who they may be.

 

I don't have any idea who they are, but I still put more faith in their opinions than I put in the posters here who have no inside knowledge, and who are basing their opinions on nothing more than their dislike of Ben.

 

Baseball executives almost always remain anonymous when they are stating things about other teams.

[Elktonnick]

I don't have any idea who they are, but I still put more faith in their opinions than I put in the posters here who have no inside knowledge, and who are basing their opinions on nothing more than their dislike of Ben.

 

Baseball executives almost always remain anonymous when they are stating things about other teams.

 

One could say the same about your views about Ben, the Good, and Larry, the Bad. Your only basis for believing Abraham is because what he wrote is in line with your bias. Since the alleged executives he quoted are unnamed one has no ability to question their motives.

 

It is easy for an anonymous source to say anything whether they believed it themselves or not. They do not have to take responsibility for their statements. They are gratuitous. And don't say that these baseball executives are giving a reporter such as Abraham their honest opinion. Baseball executives are notoriously disingenuous with the press. BTW, based on my years of experience, the organizations for which I was associated placed very little credence in anonymous sources. We hardly ever acted on them.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Elktonnick

[a700hitter]

Where have you been all season and all offseason? I have been defending the Panda signing til I'm blue in the face. I didn't like it, but I have said many times that I understand the rationale behind it and that there is no way it should have been so bad last season. I even compared the rationale to the signing of Price. So stop with the nonsense.

 

Theo, Ben, Hazen, Hoyer - they are all cut from the same cloth. They all have the same baseball philosophy, which is one I happen to completely agree with. To me, there are types of moves that fit that philosophy and there are those that don't. There are moves that seem like 'Ben' moves and there are those that don't. Perhaps I think that 'Ben' moves should work out because I agree with his philosophy.

It seems to me that you often talk out of both sides of your mouth with the "I can understand the rationale behind the deal." Usually you make that argument to exonerate the GM from criticism, because you argue that the deal was only bad in hindsight. Just for the record, I don't think any GM makes any significant deal without some rationale. After all, he has to sell it to his boss. I don't think they are picking names out of a hat. That doesn't change a bad deal into a good deal imo.

 

I don't want to misinterpret what you have been saying so let me see if I can get this right for proper context for future discussions. Feel free to edit.

 

Sandoval -- you didn't like the deal, but you could see the rationale so not a bad move by Ben?

 

Hanley -- You didn't like the deal, but we needed offense so you could see the rationale (not a bad move by Ben). With regard to both of these moves, these were LL moves so Ben is blameless based on Peter Abrahams' stated consensus of unnamed sources?

 

Porcello extension -- you admit that it is a bad deal at the present time, but you understand the rationale and think that this deal will produce good value. You are convinced that unlike Pablo and Hanley, that this was a Ben deal. No proof on that one.

 

Lackey -- I am confused on this one. You think that it looks like a terrible deal right now, but again you could see the rationale at the time of the deal, so not Ben's fault. You are still hopeful that this trade will produce value.

Edited January 27, 2016 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

I don't have any idea who they are, but I still put more faith in their opinions than I put in the posters here who have no inside knowledge, and who are basing their opinions on nothing more than their dislike of Ben.

 

Baseball executives almost always remain anonymous when they are stating things about other teams.

The Abraham's statement doesn't say which of the bad moves may have come from above. They all look bad at the present.

[Northern Star]

I'm starting a campaign to rename the LF foul pole the Hanley Pole in recognition of his sterling efforts in left field.

[Kimmi]

One could say the same about your views about Ben, the Good, and Larry, the Bad. Your only basis for believing Abraham is because what he wrote is in line with your bias. Since the alleged executives he quoted are unnamed one has no ability to question their motives.

 

It is easy for an anonymous source to say anything whether they believed it themselves or not. They do not have to take responsibility for their statements. They are gratuitous. And don't say that these baseball executives are giving a reporter such as Abraham their honest opinion. Baseball executives are notoriously disingenuous with the press. BTW, based on my years of experience, the organizations for which I was associated placed very little credence in anonymous sources. We hardly ever acted on them.

 

And yet, this is still more to base my opinion on than those who are bashing Ben have.

[Kimmi]

It seems to me that you often talk out of both sides of your mouth with the "I can understand the rationale behind the deal." Usually you make that argument to exonerate the GM from criticism, because you argue that the deal was only bad in hindsight. Just for the record, I don't think any GM makes any significant deal without some rationale. After all, he has to sell it to his boss. I don't think they are picking names out of a hat. That doesn't change a bad deal into a good deal imo.

 

I don't want to misinterpret what you have been saying so let me see if I can get this right for proper context for future discussions. Feel free to edit.

 

Sandoval -- you didn't like the deal, but you could see the rationale so not a bad move by Ben?

 

Hanley -- You didn't like the deal, but we needed offense so you could see the rationale (not a bad move by Ben). With regard to both of these moves, these were LL moves so Ben is blameless based on Peter Abrahams' stated consensus of unnamed sources?

 

Porcello extension -- you admit that it is a bad deal at the present time, but you understand the rationale and think that this deal will produce good value. You are convinced that unlike Pablo and Hanley, that this was a Ben deal. No proof on that one.

 

Lackey -- I am confused on this one. You think that it looks like a terrible deal right now, but again you could see the rationale at the time of the deal, so not Ben's fault. You are still hopeful that this trade will produce value.

 

Seriously, stop with the nonsense. I don't have time for nonsense.

[a700hitter]

Seriously, stop with the nonsense. I don't have time for nonsense.

Okay, no reply because you want to keep your goalposts mobile. LOL! You can never be wrong if you never take a stance.

[Kimmi]

The Abraham's statement doesn't say which of the bad moves may have come from above. They all look bad at the present.

 

Not true. The trade for Rodriquez is looking pretty good.

 

Porcello was a good deal, though I know no one here will agree with me.

 

Also, as the saying goes, sometimes the best deals are the ones that aren't made.

 

And don't forget about the awesome farm system.

[jung]

Nobody will agree because Porcello was not a good deal....one could only call it that in the context of the horror of Hanley/Panda and toss Castillo in there for good measure. Porcello is about somewhere between $12-$15m worth of pitcher but the Sox are paying $20m per. Most ML players especially once they hit FA are overpaid at that point but you can only extend that logic so far. Extending it to the Porcello's of the world is a farce.

 

Go pay $20k for even $15k worth of a plain Jane, kind of the mundane car and see if you end up happy with that.

[Elktonnick]

And yet, this is still more to base my opinion on than those who are bashing Ben have.

 

Your entire position rests on an illusion or better said a delusion. It is based on the premise that all the bad moves were some one else's fault and the all the good ones weren't. Again, you can't escape the one irrefutable fact, the person in the best position and the only one whose opinion counts fired Ben.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Elktonnick

[SoxHop]

So Taz, Koji, Kimbrel for the last three innings. Is Smith our next best relief other than a specialist? Saw that his 2015 was pretty good.