Travis Shaw

[User Name]

As far as the jungster's long posts are concerned, my take is this: a) it's all just words on my computer screen; anything longer than 2 short paragraphs and I'm scrollin' right past it.

 

So you didn't read my analysis on a possible Red Sox 2017 roster? I am offended.

[User Name]

AS for the UN 2017 projection:

 

It all sounds good. But I think that we may all be a little star struck with Travis, Moncada, and Binintendo. Does anyone really believe that all three will be ready for 2017? Maybe 1 or 2. Maybe. It could happen, though.

 

So the Sox will grab an unspecified new #3 and the rotation will be better? Maybe you did not say that. But in any case, I just don's see this staff maturing or morphing into a solid staff that easily.

 

I think that if the Sox don't get very lucky, or drop a shitload of coin on another top of the rotation arm, we will be stuck with essentially what we saw in 2015. Drek.

 

I didn't say all three, I specified two of the three at most. And that's just as unlikely to happen as all four of Porcello, Panda, Hanley and Castillo sucking. Porcello is likely to at least be durable if not particularly effective, and Hanley looks pretty damn good at 1B. Where it says "Benintendi/Moncada" it's one of them playing as the regular, not both.

[jung]

You know there are times when it is tough to resist pointing out the obvious but for those who don't know, nobody writes for the audience....from the smallest child to professional writers the motivations for writing anything they are not forced by circumstance to write are well known and well understood. They have nothing to do with the audience. You can I guess then imagine how much I care about whether somebody scrolls past two, twenty or two hundred paragraphs but still have an appreciation for those that do read.

[Bellhorn04]

So you didn't read my analysis on a possible Red Sox 2017 roster? I am offended.

 

Not yet, but I will.

[Bellhorn04]

You know there are times when it is tough to resist pointing out the obvious but for those who don't know, nobody writes for the audience....from the smallest child to professional writers the motivations for writing anything they are not forced by circumstance to write are well known and well understood. They have nothing to do with the audience. You can I guess then imagine how much I care about whether somebody scrolls past two, twenty or two hundred paragraphs but still have an appreciation for those that do read.

 

I've been reading a lot of novels lately and some very long ones too.

 

But when it comes to editorial commentaries on things like baseball, economy is one of the principles of good writing.

[User Name]

I've been reading a lot of novels lately and some very long ones too.

 

But when it comes to editorial commentaries on things like baseball, economy is one of the principles of good writing.

 

Also, you know, factual accuracy and punctuation.

[Dojji]

If Porcello shits the bed I honestly don't see him in the BP. IMO he will end up the rest of his contract as the eternal No. 4-5 while clogging us a spot.

 

That word. you keep using that word, and in places where it barely applies if it applies at all. It seems to have some significance to you. I wonder now about your taste in footwear.

 

 

Thought you were Mexican, not Dutch, my friend

[Bellhorn04]

That word. you keep using that word, and in places where it barely applies if it applies at all. It seems to have some significance to you. I wonder now about your taste in footwear.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]301[/ATTACH]

 

Thought you were Mexican, not Dutch, my friend

 

In all fairness, I think it was 700hitter who initiated the whole 'clogging' thing. And I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one who started seeing shoes.

[jung]

I've been reading a lot of novels lately and some very long ones too.

 

But when it comes to editorial commentaries on things like baseball, economy is one of the principles of good writing.

 

Apparently you did not fully grasp my last post.....nobody and I do mean NOBODY not writing under durress writes anything for the audience...neither do you my friend. My one caviot would be that I do appreciate those that do read regardless of length while completely tolerating and understanding those that don't. Now that you felt compelled to tell us what you do or don't do in that regard....now that is interesting.

Edited April 1, 2016 by jung

[mvp 78]

Apparently you did not fully grasp my last post.....nobody and I do mean NOBODY not writing under durress writes anything for the audience...neither do you my friend. My one caviot would be that I do appreciate those that do read regardless of length while completely tolerating and understanding those that don't. Now that you felt compelled to tell us what you do or don't do in that regard....now that is interesting.

 

Every sportswriter in the world writes for the audience. Shaughnessy writes to get his audience riled up. McAdam, Abraham, et al write to give the audience perspective on what is going on in the clubhouse. Gammons writes to get his audience more informed about the on-field product.

 

If a writer wrote just to amuse himself, he'd probably be out of job really quick.

[cp176]

Oh man - I'm learning to love this place. It takes a pant load of getting used to. I have never been comfortable arguing like this in print with people I just don't know. Some serious ******** gets flung around here by all of us. When I disagree with someone, I feel much more comfortable saying it to their face than posting in on a forum board. It's getting a little easier but it is still a process. Sometimes it is just tough to realize that we are really all fans of the same team.

[Dojji]

Every sportswriter in the world writes for the audience. Shaughnessy writes to get his audience riled up. McAdam, Abraham, et al write to give the audience perspective on what is going on in the clubhouse. Gammons writes to get his audience more informed about the on-field product.

 

If a writer wrote just to amuse himself, he'd probably be out of job really quick.

 

Exactly, and make no mistake, no one here is writing solely for their own amusement either.

[cp176]

Back to baseball, I posted this well thought out look into the future, and would like to engage in some healthy discussion about it.

 

going forward - position players

 

c- Vasquez

1B - Travis

2B - Pedroia

3B- Moncada

SS - Bogaerts

starting outfield-

Benintendi - JBJ - Betts

DH - Ramirez

 

Shaw probably figures in here as well - !B - DH - 3B

 

Some serious trades will also happen to include any number of players that we might all hate to see go but will give us the starting rotation that we want.

[mvp 78]

Oh man - I'm learning to love this place. It takes a pant load of getting used to. I have never been comfortable arguing like this in print with people I just don't know. Some serious ******** gets flung around here by all of us. When I disagree with someone, I feel much more comfortable saying it to their face than posting in on a forum board. It's getting a little easier but it is still a process. Sometimes it is just tough to realize that we are really all fans of the same team.

 

None of us here think we're keyboard warriors. As others have said numerous times, we just talk as if we're shooting the s*** at the bar before a game. 99.9% of the time the posts aren't personal and it's not meant to be taken seriously.

[Dojji]

going forward - position players

 

c- Vasquez

1B - Travis

2B - Pedroia

3B- Moncada

SS - Bogaerts

starting outfield-

Benintendi - JBJ - Betts

DH - Ramirez

 

Shaw probably figures in here as well - !B - DH - 3B

 

Some serious trades will also happen to include any number of players that we might all hate to see go but will give us the starting rotation that we want.

 

I doubt it actually, I think it's unlikely that the only way we address staffing problems is by promoting rookies. I anticipate at least one significant trade at the deadline, probably for an outfielder, or alternatively for a third baseman and move shaw into left. I also anticipate that we will probably be looking to sign either corner outfielder, or a starting pitcher, or both, in the offseason.

[cp176]

AS for the UN 2017 projection:

 

It all sounds good. But I think that we may all be a little star struck with Travis, Moncada, and Binintendo. Does anyone really believe that all three will be ready for 2017? Maybe 1 or 2. Maybe. It could happen, though.

 

So the Sox will grab an unspecified new #3 and the rotation will be better? Maybe you did not say that. But in any case, I just don's see this staff maturing or morphing into a solid staff that easily.

 

I think that if the Sox don't get very lucky, or drop a shitload of coin on another top of the rotation arm, we will be stuck with essentially what we saw in 2015. Drek.

 

I might be a little star struck for sure but I have to think that using Moncada, Benintendi and Travis at the same time on the field together is not a stretch at all. They might even provide an upgrade over what we have out there right now. I like Holt but really - he is our starting left fielder?

I like Shaw and think that he has earned his opportunity but will he become the everyday third baseman of the future?

Hanley at first base?

JBJ in the outfield?

 

I understand where you are coming from for sure but I have to say that I think those young guys might be just as good now as well as going forward when looking at who we have out there right now. I'm hoping that I am not too star struck over JBJ, Shaw, Ramirez. I know that I am not star struck over Holt who is a great utility player replaceable if need be by any number of others.

[cp176]

None of us here think we're keyboard warriors. As others have said numerous times, we just talk as if we're shooting the s*** at the bar before a game. 99.9% of the time the posts aren't personal and it's not meant to be taken seriously.

 

Here's to that - I'd buy the beer for 99% of the people that post here. Note - not 100%

[Dojji]

That's true CP, but don't forget to learn the lessons of guys like Garin Cecchini, who we were convinced was going to take over at third base at some point and maybe even be the next Wade boggs then he literally disappeared completely from one year to the next. it's the nature of prospects to fluctuate in value, sometimes severely. The guy you think you're going to have and the guy you wind up with are two different players a lot of the time.

[cp176]

I doubt it actually, I think it's unlikely that the only way we address staffing problems is by promoting rookies. I anticipate at least one significant trade at the deadline, probably for an outfielder, or alternatively for a third baseman and move shaw into left. I also anticipate that we will probably be looking to sign either corner outfielder, or a starting pitcher, or both, in the offseason.

 

Key word you used - only. Not my choice. My suggestion is that that lineup is possibly as good as the one we will start our current season with.

[mvp 78]

Here's to that - I'd buy the beer for 99% of the people that post here. Note - not 100%

 

I wouldn't buy a beer for Thunder either.

 

1. He wouldn't drink it.

2. I don't need to get a police record because of Talksox.

[Dojji]

I'm LDS, so no beer for me either.

[cp176]

That's true CP, but don't forget to learn the lessons of guys like Garin Cecchini, who we were convinced was going to take over at third base at some point and maybe even be the next Wade boggs then he literally disappeared completely from one year to the next. it's the nature of prospects to fluctuate in value, sometimes severely. The guy you think you're going to have and the guy you wind up with are two different players a lot of the time.

 

Absolutely correct. I understand this. I'm not optimistic enough to think that DD is done making moves with this current lineup. Price and Kimbrel IMO were great signings and will make us better. I think that we will continue to see changes of this nature going forward.

[cp176]

I'm LDS, so no beer for me either.

 

 

saving me $ - ty

[a700hitter]

First off, it's unlikely they all suck, but let's assume they all do.

 

The current obligations for the 2017 Red Sox amount to 148 million, with Ortiz retiring, Uehara leaving, Buchholz leaving, Hanigan leaving, and Tazawa leaving.

 

Castillo has options, so he stays in the minors. Porcello moves to the BP in a swingman role, and the one of Panda/Hanley who sucks less stays, the other is cut/traded eating most of his salary (the Sox have eaten big contracts before, so it's safe to assume they would now). Assuming a 190 million soft cap, 10 million in arb raises, and holes in the outfield, 1st or third, the BP and the rotation, this is what a Red Sox offseason MAY look like:

 

C Cristian Vasquez

1B Sam Travis

2B Dustin Pedroia

3B Travis Shaw

SS Xander Bogaerts

LF Andrew Benintendi/Yoan Moncada

CF Jackie Bradley Jr

RF Mookie Betts

DH Hanley Ramirez

 

SP

David Price

Eduardo Rodriguez

FA/trade (3/45, options include Buch himself, depending on his platform year, Doug Fister, CJ Wilson, Andrew Cashner, Jesse Chavez, etc)

Joe Kelly

(Battle between Porcello, Wright, Brian J, Henry Owens, etc)

 

 

RP

Craig Kimbrel

Carson Smith

(LH setup man from FA, options include Brian Matusz, Eric O'Flaherty, Manny Parra at 3/18)

Matt Barrnes

Tommy Layne/Robbie Ross Jr

Noe Ramirez/Brandon Workman/winner of ST battle

Rick Porcello

 

Bench:

Blake Swihart (backup catcher, they have him learn other positions)

Brock Holt

Chris Young

(FA 1B/OF like Garret Jones)

 

That's around a 183 million payroll, and a possible contender, health permitting. That's just my take on it, and obviously it's just a fantasy scenario, but it proves that the Sox aren't "clogged" anywhere. At all.

Other than a few differences of opinion, this roster approach is plausible. As Pete said, I don't know if Benintendi, Moncado and Shaw will all be ready in 2017, but I think 2 of them will be ready for major roles. I don't see Porcello's stuff playing in the bullpen. If he continues to suck so bad that he can't hold down a rotation spot, I think he will have to be bought out and sent packing -- a large bitter pill to swallow.

[a700hitter]

Lol.

 

Talksox Place.

 

Only Ted will get the reference, I bet.

I am old enough to get it. LOL!

[User Name]

I might be a little star struck for sure but I have to think that using Moncada, Benintendi and Travis at the same time on the field together is not a stretch at all. They might even provide an upgrade over what we have out there right now. I like Holt but really - he is our starting left fielder?

I like Shaw and think that he has earned his opportunity but will he become the everyday third baseman of the future?

Hanley at first base?

JBJ in the outfield?

 

I understand where you are coming from for sure but I have to say that I think those young guys might be just as good now as well as going forward when looking at who we have out there right now. I'm hoping that I am not too star struck over JBJ, Shaw, Ramirez. I know that I am not star struck over Holt who is a great utility player replaceable if need be by any number of others.

 

The point of the post flew right over your head though. I was just painting a scenrio where the Sox put a competitive team forward next year while reducing payroll, and assuming all four of the main Cherington contracts (Hanley, Castillo, Porcello, Panda) are sunk costs. I was just trying to prove neither payroll nor the roster are "clogged" as people here are wont to say. Obviously what's actually going to happen is that they'll salvage a couple contracts, and make some trades/FA signings to help the active roster.

[User Name]

Other than a few differences of opinion, this roster approach is plausible. As Pete said, I don't know if Benintendi, Moncado and Shaw will all be ready in 2017, but I think 2 of them will be ready for major roles. I don't see Porcello's stuff playing in the bullpen. If he continues to suck so bad that he can't hold down a rotation spot, I think he will have to be bought out and sent packing -- a large bitter pill to swallow.

 

I'm talking about LRP. And remember that I also penciled him in the 5th starter battle. Again, this is just a fantasy exercise where the Sox field a competitive team regardless of the contract or roster situation, and actually reduce payroll. The sox may decide to bite the bullet and increase payroll, maybe they trade for a #2 type guy using all of the prospect depth they've hoarded, and maybe one of the pitching prospects takes the next step forward. The truth is, that the nucleus of the Sox figures to be pretty good in the near future, and with some smart moves, they should be able to field contending teams from here on forward. The key here is not handing out any more stupid contracts basically.

[Dojji]

I think they'd be wise to go kinda easy on that prospect depth. A lot of it is in the low minors, we already are a little shy on real big league frontline replacement talent. I mean you do what you need to do to win championships if you can, but there's a limit to how far you want to tax a farm system.

[User Name]

I think they'd be wise to go kinda easy on that prospect depth. A lot of it is in the low minors, we already are a little shy on real big league frontline replacement talent. I mean you do what you need to do to win championships if you can, but there's a limit to how far you want to tax a farm system.

 

I personally don't think more than one of Benintendi/Moncada/Travis heads North with the team next year. The more plausible scenario is that Porcello and Hanley earn and keep their roster spot, and Rusney improves enough to keep his roster spot as well. There's also the possibility that Pablo loses some weight and becomes at least playable at 3B. There's just a very wide range of outcomes here.

[Kimmi]

Those thank yous to Ben will have to wait about 6 months.

 

Of course they will.

 

It will actually take even longer to know the full effect of Ben's impact to this team.