Wade Miley: Not bad actually

[SoxnCycles]

Signing Price would fill a need, and I think it would be a great signing for about 3 years. My concern is what happens in the 5th or 6th years and later if/when he becomes an albatross? Eating a contract of that size is not something that teams can readily do. We would likely be stuck with handing him the ball every 5th day even though he was no longer getting the job done. That same contract would likely keep the team from signing another player to fill another need.

 

Price sucks.

[cp176]

Signing Price would fill a need, and I think it would be a great signing for about 3 years. My concern is what happens in the 5th or 6th years and later if/when he becomes an albatross? Eating a contract of that size is not something that teams can readily do. We would likely be stuck with handing him the ball every 5th day even though he was no longer getting the job done. That same contract would likely keep the team from signing another player to fill another need.

 

There is a very good chance that you might be right on this one. I certainly would not bet my own money against your position. The key for me would be the potential for that great success over the next three years. I would like to see them take that risk. That being said, I also would like to see them explore all options to improve their pitching via the trade market. There will not be room on the roster for all of the young talent that we have coming along if it is as good as advertised.

[Kimmi]

Price sucks.

 

LOL

 

All this debating about Price is probably a moot point anyway.

[cp176]

I don't think that this great debate centers just around Price. Others out there will come with a similar price tag.

[Kimmi]

There is a very good chance that you might be right on this one. I certainly would not bet my own money against your position. The key for me would be the potential for that great success over the next three years. I would like to see them take that risk. That being said, I also would like to see them explore all options to improve their pitching via the trade market. There will not be room on the roster for all of the young talent that we have coming along if it is as good as advertised.

 

I understand wanting that potential for the short term. I also understand the need to sometimes take the plunge and hand out a large contract. I'm not going to complain if Price is signed. I just hope that in doing so, we don't find the team unable to compete for several years in the near future. OTOH, it's also possible that Price performs well for the length of the entire contract.

 

I usually prefer signing a player through FA versus trading away prospects, but this is a time where it might make more sense to try for someone like Sale or Gray via trade. We have the pieces to do so, and as you mentioned, some of those pieces will be blocked. Additonally, pitchers like Sale and Gray are younger and cost-controlled for several years.

[Kimmi]

I don't think that this great debate centers just around Price. Others out there will come with a similar price tag.

 

That is true. I have no doubt that Dombrowski will acquire a top starting pitcher, and it will cost us one way or another.

[Bellhorn04]

This was not the sole reason or even the main reason that Hanley was signed. However, having some back up for Papi, just in case, was another reason why his signing made sense.

 

No, I know that. This comes from Dojji saying 'Everyone and their grandmother knows the real reason he's here is to take over at DH when Big Papi retires.'

[Kimmi]

No, I know that. This comes from Dojji saying 'Everyone and their grandmother knows the real reason he's here is to take over at DH when Big Papi retires.'

 

Ah, okay. No doubt that was part of the plan, and would have been great if only Hanley had cooperated. LOL

[mvp 78]

That is true. I have no doubt that Dombrowski will acquire a top starting pitcher, and it will cost us one way or another.

 

I'd prefer to lose a pick or just cash. Not interested in losing any of our top prospects atm.

[cp176]

I understand wanting that potential for the short term. I also understand the need to sometimes take the plunge and hand out a large contract. I'm not going to complain if Price is signed. I just hope that in doing so, we don't find the team unable to compete for several years in the near future. OTOH, it's also possible that Price performs well for the length of the entire contract.

 

I usually prefer signing a player through FA versus trading away prospects, but this is a time where it might make more sense to try for someone like Sale or Gray via trade. We have the pieces to do so, and as you mentioned, some of those pieces will be blocked. Additonally, pitchers like Sale and Gray are younger and cost-controlled for several years.

 

If I had to make the choice between signing a free agent like a Price or Grienke long term or trading for a Sale, Gray, or Harvey, as long as my big 3 of Betts, Bogarts, and E-Rod were protected I would trade for the youth yesterday. Thank goodness it isn't either or and that I'm not the one making the decisions!

[a700hitter]

I understand wanting that potential for the short term. I also understand the need to sometimes take the plunge and hand out a large contract. I'm not going to complain if Price is signed. I just hope that in doing so, we don't find the team unable to compete for several years in the near future. OTOH, it's also possible that Price performs well for the length of the entire contract.

I think you are borrowing trouble. If he is performing well in the first two years, will you be actively worried about the back end of his contract? I like to live in the moment when it come to sports. That is just me. I am not criticizing you for worrying about the future. Different strokes. I save my worries for my real life. Baseball is fun for me, and if the idiot owners want to throw around their money like it is Monopoly money, that is their business and their worries. The financial aspect of sports is so far out of hand that average people just can't relate to it. I am not worried about the Red Sox running out of money or going out of business. They will find a way to be very profitable, and they have a huge advantages and resources compared to other franchises, so I am not worried about them crippling the team with bad contracts. And really, how much worse could they do than 3 last place finishes.

[a700hitter]

I'd prefer to lose a pick or just cash. Not interested in losing any of our top prospects atm.

People who think that we can get Sonny Gray or Matt Harvey or Strasburg without giving up Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart are not being realistic. If we don't go the FA route, people will have to stomach losing one of those three guys.

[cp176]

People who think that we can get Sonny Gray or Matt Harvey or Strasburg without giving up Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart are not being realistic. If we don't go the FA route, people will have to stomach losing one of those three guys.

 

Trying to deal Swihart in a package excluding Betts, Bogaerts and E-Rod is realistic. Might not happen but it is a possibility.

[a700hitter]

Trying to deal Swihart in a package excluding Betts, Bogaerts and E-Rod is realistic. Might not happen but it is a possibility.

Agreed, but any trade for a top pitcher would cost one of those three. If the FO, will not part with either Bogaerts or Betts, we can rule out getting Harvey, because the Mets are set at catcher for the future with d'Arnaud and Plawecki.

[cp176]

Agreed, but any trade for a top pitcher would cost one of those three. If the FO, will not part with either Bogaerts or Betts, we can rule out getting Harvey, because the Mets are set at catcher for the future with d'Arnaud and Plawecki.

 

 

I agree. Something big has to happen within the next year or two though if the likes of Moncada, Guerra, Devers, Benintendi, and Margot continue to progress. They are young as a group but some of them aren't all that young. I'm really still not sold on JBJ and Castillo long term and as much as I admire Pedroia, what do you do with your top propect in Moncada? All kinds of packages could be put together but I am with you on the Mets probably not dealing with us.

[Kimmi]

I'd prefer to lose a pick or just cash. Not interested in losing any of our top prospects atm.

 

That is typically my preference as well. However, I think that presently, the team has a deep enough farm that we can deal from areas of strength without sacrificing our future. I am not condoning trading Betts or Bogaerts.

[Kimmi]

I think you are borrowing trouble. If he is performing well in the first two years, will you be actively worried about the back end of his contract? I like to live in the moment when it come to sports. That is just me. I am not criticizing you for worrying about the future. Different strokes. I save my worries for my real life. Baseball is fun for me, and if the idiot owners want to throw around their money like it is Monopoly money, that is their business and their worries. The financial aspect of sports is so far out of hand that average people just can't relate to it. I am not worried about the Red Sox running out of money or going out of business. They will find a way to be very profitable, and they have a huge advantages and resources compared to other franchises, so I am not worried about them crippling the team with bad contracts. And really, how much worse could they do than 3 last place finishes.

 

I will not be actively worried about the back end of the contract if he is signed. I will enjoy every minute of him pitching like an ace for us and hopefully leading us to another championship. IMO, if he leads us to another championship in the first part of his contract, then he will have been worth the contract, much like I think the Peavy or Iglesias trade was worth it. That said, signing Price does not guarantee even a playoff berth, much less a WS ring.

 

As I said, as a fan, I will be thrilled if the Sox sign Price. That is not mutually exclusive with my right to shudder at the same time.

 

As far as how much worse they could do than 3 last place finishes, they could have 3 last place finishes with no championship in between. But even if they have three 4th place finishes because they are strapped by large contracts, is that really any better?

[Kimmi]

People who think that we can get Sonny Gray or Matt Harvey or Strasburg without giving up Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart are not being realistic. If we don't go the FA route, people will have to stomach losing one of those three guys.

 

While you might be right, that is not necessarily true. You have no idea what other GMs might be willing to take.

 

I will say that if a trade involves Betts or Bogaerts, then I would say no. I would hate to part with Swihart as well, but he is someone that I could part with if Vazquez shows that he is healthy.

[Kimmi]

I agree. Something big has to happen within the next year or two though if the likes of Moncada, Guerra, Devers, Benintendi, and Margot continue to progress. They are young as a group but some of them aren't all that young. I'm really still not sold on JBJ and Castillo long term and as much as I admire Pedroia, what do you do with your top propect in Moncada? All kinds of packages could be put together but I am with you on the Mets probably not dealing with us.

 

I agree CP. I do not follow the farm system as closely as you do, so I don't know exactly what the value is on each of our prospects, nor do I know exactly how far each of them is away from the major league level. But I do know that we have enough pieces that we could put together a very desirable package for a #1 pitcher without having to deal Betts or Bogaerts and without mortgaging our entire future.

[a700hitter]

I will not be actively worried about the back end of the contract if he is signed. I will enjoy every minute of him pitching like an ace for us and hopefully leading us to another championship. IMO, if he leads us to another championship in the first part of his contract, then he will have been worth the contract, much like I think the Peavy or Iglesias trade was worth it. That said, signing Price does not guarantee even a playoff berth, much less a WS ring.

Acquisition of a big star can only be evaluated in hindsight, but failed acquisitions like Hanley, Pablo, and Porcello are given a pass by you if you agreed with the strategy when the deals were made? Am I getting you wrong on this?

 

As I said, as a fan, I will be thrilled if the Sox sign Price. That is not mutually exclusive with my right to shudder at the same time.

i never said that the two were mutually exclusive. In fact, I acknowledged that there are different strokes for different folks. Speaking only for myself, I never worry about billionaire's money. But that is just me. I figure that they know how to look after their money without my help or advice.

 

As far as how much worse they could do than 3 last place finishes, they could have 3 last place finishes with no championship in between. But even if they have three 4th place finishes because they are strapped by large contracts, is that really any better?

i also never worry about the Red Sox being financially strapped. If they blow their budget for a couple of years, they have the financial strength to make it through the worst contracts. What would be the worst-- a 5 year dog of a contrac? That is not going to bankrupt them. It might force them into luxury tax territory, but they are not going to be forced to adopt an austerity budget. The Red Sox can whether a few years of bad contracts and still be successful. They are not the Kansas City Royals. So, no I don't worry about that, but you are free to worry about it. It is your right.

[a700hitter]

While you might be right, that is not necessarily true. You have no idea what other GMs might be willing to take.

 

I will say that if a trade involves Betts or Bogaerts, then I would say no. I would hate to part with Swihart as well, but he is someone that I could part with if Vazquez shows that he is healthy.

If DD can net us a number 1 pitcher while keeping Bogaert, Betts and Swihart, I tip my hat to him. I hope he can do it. I can't see it happening unless the pitcher is going into the last year of his contract like Pedro was when we got him for Tony Armas Jr and Pavano.

[mvp 78]

People who think that we can get Sonny Gray or Matt Harvey or Strasburg without giving up Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart are not being realistic. If we don't go the FA route, people will have to stomach losing one of those three guys.

 

Yeah, those are some horrible keyboard GMs. The trick is just knowing which player is overvalued. Owens?

[cp176]

Package up Owens with Swihart and one other and you get a pretty good possible swap group with somebody.

[cp176]

Is there someone on here who truly thinks that we can work a trade for an ace without moving at least one of our big four - Betts, Bogaerts, E-Rod, or Swihart? If there is someone who feels this way, I guess I missed their postings. I think most know that to get you have to give. The trick is to move the pieces that can be replaced without causing major problems. My bet=Swihart.

[cp176]

Is there someone on here who truly thinks that we can work a trade for an ace without moving at least one of our big four - Betts, Bogaerts, E-Rod, or Swihart? If there is someone who feels this way, I guess I missed their postings. I think most know that to get you have to give. The trick is to move the pieces that can be replaced without causing major problems. My bet=Swihart.

 

I guess the answer is obvious. Most of the people posting here are realists.

[Kimmi]

Acquisition of a big star can only be evaluated in hindsight, but failed acquisitions like Hanley, Pablo, and Porcello are given a pass by you if you agreed with the strategy when the deals were made? Am I getting you wrong on this?

 

Yes, you are getting me wrong on this.

[Kimmi]

i also never worry about the Red Sox being financially strapped. If they blow their budget for a couple of years, they have the financial strength to make it through the worst contracts. What would be the worst-- a 5 year dog of a contrac? That is not going to bankrupt them. It might force them into luxury tax territory, but they are not going to be forced to adopt an austerity budget. The Red Sox can whether a few years of bad contracts and still be successful. They are not the Kansas City Royals. So, no I don't worry about that, but you are free to worry about it. It is your right.

 

I don't worry about their money, but despite what some fans think, the Sox do not have unlimited finances. It is also unlikely that they are going to continually go above the luxury tax limit, as the penalties get steeper with each consecutive year. If signing Price does not financially prohibit the Sox from filling their other needs, then it's all good. If, OTOH, it does prohibit them from fielding a competive team in 5 years or so, then it will be an issue.

[Kimmi]

If DD can net us a number 1 pitcher while keeping Bogaert, Betts and Swihart, I tip my hat to him. I hope he can do it. I can't see it happening unless the pitcher is going into the last year of his contract like Pedro was when we got him for Tony Armas Jr and Pavano.

 

There are all kinds of possibilities for a trade that do not necessarily involve one of those three. Maybe the Sox do look for a pitcher going into the last year of his contract, then try to extend him, much like they did with Porcello. Maybe there is a team trying to unload a contract like Papelbon's and would be willing to take less in prospects if the Sox take the "throw in" player, like they did with Beckett/Lowell. Maybe some team is looking for a DH and would want Hanley as part of a deal, if the Sox ate most of the contract. Maybe a team is in complete rebuild and would rather have prospects 1-2 years away rather than MLB ready players.

 

Look at what the Jays gave up for Donaldson. While I don't agree that Beane was fleeced in that deal, the Jays did not have to give up as much as most thought it would take to get Donaldson.

 

I'm not expecting to get a player for nothing. It will cost the Sox one way or another to get a top starting pitcher. I just think there are ways that it can be done that don't involve Betts or Bogaerts, though I'm sure most GMs will begin by asking for one of them.

 

As CP says, Swihart is a more likely candidate to be traded because we have Vazquez and Hanigan, and while that would be a tough pill to swallow, it wouldn't be as tough as giving up Betts or Bogaerts.

[a700hitter]

There are all kinds of possibilities for a trade that do not necessarily involve one of those three. Maybe the Sox do look for a pitcher going into the last year of his contract, then try to extend him, much like they did with Porcello. Maybe there is a team trying to unload a contract like Papelbon's and would be willing to take less in prospects if the Sox take the "throw in" player, like they did with Beckett/Lowell. Maybe some team is looking for a DH and would want Hanley as part of a deal, if the Sox ate most of the contract. Maybe a team is in complete rebuild and would rather have prospects 1-2 years away rather than MLB ready players.

 

Look at what the Jays gave up for Donaldson. While I don't agree that Beane was fleeced in that deal, the Jays did not have to give up as much as most thought it would take to get Donaldson.

 

I'm not expecting to get a player for nothing. It will cost the Sox one way or another to get a top starting pitcher. I just think there are ways that it can be done that don't involve Betts or Bogaerts, though I'm sure most GMs will begin by asking for one of them.

 

As CP says, Swihart is a more likely candidate to be traded because we have Vazquez and Hanigan, and while that would be a tough pill to swallow, it wouldn't be as tough as giving up Betts or Bogaerts.

Unless the pitcher is in the final year before free agency or a team is looking to dump the salary of 30+ year old pitcher (e.g. Shields who is not a #1), I can't see many possibilities of getting a #1 pitcher without giving up a package that includes Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart in return. If DD can swing a deal without including one of them, I would be thrilled.

 

As for Donaldson, I disagree. IMO, Beane most got fleeced.

Edited October 19, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

I don't worry about their money, but despite what some fans think, the Sox do not have unlimited finances. It is also unlikely that they are going to continually go above the luxury tax limit, as the penalties get steeper with each consecutive year. If signing Price does not financially prohibit the Sox from filling their other needs, then it's all good. If, OTOH, it does prohibit them from fielding a competive team in 5 years or so, then it will be an issue.

I guess that I just have a different perspective on it. I view the management of the Red Sox budget as an aspect of their job about which I have no knowledge or expertise so I don't concern myself with it. Clearly, it is a very important aspect of their job, and I just have to have faith that they are not putting themselves in a bad financial situation. I can judge talent on the field and I can evaluate whether it is a good or bad team on the field, so I limit my conversations and criticisms to what I see on the field. As critical as you think I am of the FO, in some ways I am more patient and cut them more slack than you do. I don't criticize them unless the product on the field is substandard. I don't criticize them for the future of their finances and the possible negative results of their overspending. It is your right (as you said) to do so, but I will trust them to take care of their money. I don't know enough about their balance sheet to offer an informed opinion. I do know enough to offer an opinion on the acquisitions of Hanley and Pablo regarding what they bring to the team on the field. At this point, the grade on them is a big "F" and can see it improving only to a "C".