Travis Shaw

[Dojji]

Right now most teams wouldn't pick up sandoval to fill a hole in a parking lot, much less at third base. You might as well get whatever minimal value you can from him off the bench and try to push the union to install a fitness exception to guaranteed contracts (call it the Sandoval rule -- if you report to camp unable to do your job and you are not injured in the conventional sense, the team shouldn't be expected to pay you as if you are able to do the job) Edited March 31, 2016 by Dojji

[mvp 78]

Also, teams that start the season with a lot of question marks (3b, LF, C, Carson Smith, Koji, Porcello, Kelly, ERod) don't typically run the table over the course of a season.

[mvp 78]

Yeah I don't see this happening unless you eat most of his contract or you give up top prospects in a possible trade. Pablo has very little value these days.

 

I'd eat 75% of the contract, but wouldn't give up any valuable prospects.

[Spudboy]

Why would it be a surprise if the Sox make the playoffs?

 

Questionable decisions aside, it's still a very good team.

 

And Ben once again says "you're welcome".

 

You are the eternal optimist. I hope that you are correct.

[Dojji]

Also, teams that start the season with a lot of question marks (3b, LF, C, Carson Smith, Koji, Porcello, Kelly, ERod) don't typically run the table over the course of a season.

 

No, history suggests we'll have great luck on maybe 2 of those, 2 are going to fall apart entirely, and the results of the rest will be a mixed bag given average luck. We'd need to have average or better results across the board to be a major contender.

[sk7326]

Really the key questions become:

 

1. Is their run scoring at least as good as last year? I say yes. Shaw has very little to do to clear Panda's production level. Hanley is a solid bet to provide better value than our 1Bs last year. LF was a bit of a train wreck last year, so again there is not much improvement necessary.

 

2. Is their run prevention better? Yes. There was improvement across all areas of run prevention.

 

For me the over/under is at about 84 wins. If the summah is ruined, it will be towards the end of it.

[iortiz]

Really the key questions become:

 

1. Is their run scoring at least as good as last year? I say yes. Shaw has very little to do to clear Panda's production level. Hanley is a solid bet to provide better value than our 1Bs last year. LF was a bit of a train wreck last year, so again there is not much improvement necessary.

 

2. Is their run prevention better? Yes. There was improvement across all areas of run prevention.

 

For me the over/under is at about 84 wins. If the summah is ruined, it will be towards the end of it.

 

Hi sk, IYO what have you would have done to put a 90 W team on the field?

[jd98]

Why would it be a surprise if the Sox make the playoffs?

 

Questionable decisions aside, it's still a very good team.

 

And Ben once again says "you're welcome".

 

Was that in response to Henry saying "Thanks for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of my money"

[jung]

It will boil down to what it always boils down to for every ML baseball team....do they have enough starting pitching to make the other team assets work to the tune of a WC spot. They will complete with the MFY for that honor as neither will compete with the Jays, and the Rays will not finish in the basement only because that spot is reserved for the O's who could not pitch their way out of a paper bag and don't have anybody that can get on base. You can check all you want, you won't find many teams that can win games on 1 run HR's.

 

The MFY are as usual well designed for that stinking slum of a building of theres and that is truly their strength. Keep their LF hitting upright for a season and they are instantly competitive. So its us and them for a WC. You can see your way to what they are trying to accomplish as there is some sense to the way that team is constructed....its old.....but its what can work in that stinking park.

 

We are a bit more helter skelter. Lots of potential. But in truth the issue is who starts after Price and gets something done for a season. Eddie really hurt in that regard and no real telling when he is coming back. Even if Eddie were pitching it really for him is can he throw all three of his pitches successfully in the same stint. Porcello seemingly can't throw more than one good Sinker per 6 innings or at least has not shown he can yet this spring. Until he does, he is highly suspect. Buch is Buch and Kelly is our new Buch until he proves otherwise. So for the moment we are Price and pray for rain unlike the O's who have to pray for rain every day.

 

Should be enough to compete with the hated MFY and their little shoe box. The Yanks have better balance in their rotation and playing in the shoe box a logical way to get to the back end of their pen and turn it into a game wining asset in a number of games. Whereas 4 days out of 5 we might be out of more games before we can get to our back end and Smith needs to be OK. No telling how it will come out between the two teams.

[a700hitter]

Why would it be a surprise if the Sox make the playoffs?

 

Questionable decisions aside, it's still a very good team.

 

And Ben once again says "you're welcome".

Questionable decisions? They were complete failures. LOL!!

[User Name]

I think she means the designation of Shaw as 3B and Holt as main part of a LF platoon, not the albatross contracts.

[sk7326]

Hi sk, IYO what have you would have done to put a 90 W team on the field?

 

I think 95 wins is very much within this team's potential outcomes. But for me the questions?

 

1. Rotation - it is better because of Price. While I think Porcello will go back to being a durable, useful pitcher, who could maybe justify his salary (through John Lackey-ish consistency) - it is clearly an open question. Buchholz gets hurt a lot. Joe Kelly is probably being pressed into a job he is not qualified for - he is the classic tweener, and nothing so far changes that. But I don't see the 95 Braves rotation here.

 

2. LF Defense - on paper, Holt and Young should do a good job. But we have seen over and over again that left field defense in Fenway has basically nothing to do with actually being a conventional good outfielder. It brought a really good outfielder to his knees (Crawford), while working nicely for, ummmm - less nimble sorts (uhh, Jim Rice).

 

3. Pitch Framing - Vasquez is a wizard at it. Swihart is not, or at least was not a year ago. Our pitchers could use all the help they can get.

 

4. Bullpen Management - While Dombrowski has improved the arm quality in the pen, Farrell has fewer options than a manager would normally have. Given Koji's age and his recent health, Farrell not only has a finite number of innings, he probably has a finite number of throwing sessions. If you're going to warm up Uehara, you're going to put him in. If you get him loose with the Red Sox up a run and they score 7 runs - you're going to burn Uehara on an 8 run lead. Will Farrell be able to count on Uehara for back to back days? Kimbrel is younger - but is also similarly inflexible. He has (like most modern closers) precious few 8th inning appearances. He's your 9th inning guy - but he's not going to be anything else. It's a little trickier for Farrell to negotiate - and it might make it harder for Farrell to manage the staff aggresively during some of the mid-rotation starts.

 

5. Farrell himself. John Farrell in 2013 was exactly what this team needed. The Red Sox in 2012 had this ungodly run of poor luck, injuries and whatnot. They also replaced a manager of tremendous integrity (and you can argue Tito's time ran its course - does not change that he was a decent person) with a guy who was kind of a dick and fancied himself a Bill Parcells-Phil Jackson voodoo wizard. While simply replacing Bobby V with a normal human being did not have the majority of impact for the 2013 title - it mattered. But I think there have been real issues with how Farrell has managed his coaches (last year the hitting emphases seemed all wrong for a large part of the season - sacrificing power for contact as if we were playing in Yellowstone National Park), and whether he is doing the best things by his young players.

 

6. Hanley. Can he get back to hitting again? Can he get back to patience, having a good approach and not giving away so many outs - which he did at a career worst level last year. I refuse to believe he lost it that quickly - and his fundamentals do not reflect a guy who has lost bat speed.

 

I think the Red Sox had a very strong offseason and did a lot of the things they needed to do in terms of roster improvement. But a lot of their improvement has to come from within.

[User Name]

I think 95 wins is very much within this team's potential outcomes. But for me the questions?

 

1. Rotation - it is better because of Price. While I think Porcello will go back to being a durable, useful pitcher, who could maybe justify his salary (through John Lackey-ish consistency) - it is clearly an open question. Buchholz gets hurt a lot. Joe Kelly is probably being pressed into a job he is not qualified for - he is the classic tweener, and nothing so far changes that. But I don't see the 95 Braves rotation here.

 

2. LF Defense - on paper, Holt and Young should do a good job. But we have seen over and over again that left field defense in Fenway has basically nothing to do with actually being a conventional good outfielder. It brought a really good outfielder to his knees (Crawford), while working nicely for, ummmm - less nimble sorts (uhh, Jim Rice).

 

3. Pitch Framing - Vasquez is a wizard at it. Swihart is not, or at least was not a year ago. Our pitchers could use all the help they can get.

 

4. Bullpen Management - While Dombrowski has improved the arm quality in the pen, Farrell has fewer options than a manager would normally have. Given Koji's age and his recent health, Farrell not only has a finite number of innings, he probably has a finite number of throwing sessions. If you're going to warm up Uehara, you're going to put him in. If you get him loose with the Red Sox up a run and they score 7 runs - you're going to burn Uehara on an 8 run lead. Will Farrell be able to count on Uehara for back to back days? Kimbrel is younger - but is also similarly inflexible. He has (like most modern closers) precious few 8th inning appearances. He's your 9th inning guy - but he's not going to be anything else. It's a little trickier for Farrell to negotiate - and it might make it harder for Farrell to manage the staff aggresively during some of the mid-rotation starts.

 

5. Farrell himself. John Farrell in 2013 was exactly what this team needed. The Red Sox in 2012 had this ungodly run of poor luck, injuries and whatnot. They also replaced a manager of tremendous integrity (and you can argue Tito's time ran its course - does not change that he was a decent person) with a guy who was kind of a dick and fancied himself a Bill Parcells-Phil Jackson voodoo wizard. While simply replacing Bobby V with a normal human being did not have the majority of impact for the 2013 title - it mattered. But I think there have been real issues with how Farrell has managed his coaches (last year the hitting emphases seemed all wrong for a large part of the season - sacrificing power for contact as if we were playing in Yellowstone National Park), and whether he is doing the best things by his young players.

 

6. Hanley. Can he get back to hitting again? Can he get back to patience, having a good approach and not giving away so many outs - which he did at a career worst level last year. I refuse to believe he lost it that quickly - and his fundamentals do not reflect a guy who has lost bat speed.

 

I think the Red Sox had a very strong offseason and did a lot of the things they needed to do in terms of roster improvement. But a lot of their improvement has to come from within.

 

This post needs to be framed and hung somewhere in plain sight for all of us to see.

[Northern Star]

This post needs to be framed and hung somewhere in plain sight for all of us to see.

 

I've got an Aerosmith song to play you.

[User Name]

I've got an Aerosmith song to play you.

 

I've got a Tool song to play you back.

[cp176]

I think she means the designation of Shaw as 3B and Holt as main part of a LF platoon, not the albatross contracts.

 

Don't forget the Kimbrel signings for prospects as well.

[iortiz]

I think 95 wins is very much within this team's potential outcomes. But for me the questions?

 

1. Rotation - it is better because of Price. While I think Porcello will go back to being a durable, useful pitcher, who could maybe justify his salary (through John Lackey-ish consistency) - it is clearly an open question. Buchholz gets hurt a lot. Joe Kelly is probably being pressed into a job he is not qualified for - he is the classic tweener, and nothing so far changes that. But I don't see the 95 Braves rotation here.

 

2. LF Defense - on paper, Holt and Young should do a good job. But we have seen over and over again that left field defense in Fenway has basically nothing to do with actually being a conventional good outfielder. It brought a really good outfielder to his knees (Crawford), while working nicely for, ummmm - less nimble sorts (uhh, Jim Rice).

 

3. Pitch Framing - Vasquez is a wizard at it. Swihart is not, or at least was not a year ago. Our pitchers could use all the help they can get.

 

4. Bullpen Management - While Dombrowski has improved the arm quality in the pen, Farrell has fewer options than a manager would normally have. Given Koji's age and his recent health, Farrell not only has a finite number of innings, he probably has a finite number of throwing sessions. If you're going to warm up Uehara, you're going to put him in. If you get him loose with the Red Sox up a run and they score 7 runs - you're going to burn Uehara on an 8 run lead. Will Farrell be able to count on Uehara for back to back days? Kimbrel is younger - but is also similarly inflexible. He has (like most modern closers) precious few 8th inning appearances. He's your 9th inning guy - but he's not going to be anything else. It's a little trickier for Farrell to negotiate - and it might make it harder for Farrell to manage the staff aggresively during some of the mid-rotation starts.

 

5. Farrell himself. John Farrell in 2013 was exactly what this team needed. The Red Sox in 2012 had this ungodly run of poor luck, injuries and whatnot. They also replaced a manager of tremendous integrity (and you can argue Tito's time ran its course - does not change that he was a decent person) with a guy who was kind of a dick and fancied himself a Bill Parcells-Phil Jackson voodoo wizard. While simply replacing Bobby V with a normal human being did not have the majority of impact for the 2013 title - it mattered. But I think there have been real issues with how Farrell has managed his coaches (last year the hitting emphases seemed all wrong for a large part of the season - sacrificing power for contact as if we were playing in Yellowstone National Park), and whether he is doing the best things by his young players.

 

6. Hanley. Can he get back to hitting again? Can he get back to patience, having a good approach and not giving away so many outs - which he did at a career worst level last year. I refuse to believe he lost it that quickly - and his fundamentals do not reflect a guy who has lost bat speed.

 

I think the Red Sox had a very strong offseason and did a lot of the things they needed to do in terms of roster improvement. But a lot of their improvement has to come from within.

So you see a realistic 84 W team with a potential to win 95? Well that could be true if your last line comes true, otherwise we are going to be clogged.

[User Name]

No, it's a realistic 84 win team with the potential of winning as little as 78 (with a 2012 redux) or as many as 95 (with a 2013 redux).

 

There's a wide range of outcomes for this team. Also, you're using "clogged" in a nonsensical way here. Clogged with what? Dead money? This is the Boston Red Sox, and they're getting out from under some contracts and could terminate a couple more. They have a limit, but they still have the capacity to spend. Roster? That's not even an issue for reasons stated here ad-anuseum.

 

They can pretty much fix this on-the-fly for next season when probably one (perhaps two) of Benintendi, Travis or Moncada is ready for primetime, and they have a clearer picture of what their pitching actually is. Next year is a weak market for pitching, but they already have an ace, and just need to build around him. Most of the heavy lifting to finish this team's nucleus is done.

Edited April 1, 2016 by User Name?

[Elktonnick]

Why would it be a surprise if the Sox make the playoffs?

 

Questionable decisions aside, it's still a very good team.

 

And Ben once again says "you're welcome".

If the Sox make the playoffs it will be Dombrowski not Cherrington who will get the credit. Dombrowski still has a long way to go before he can undo the damage Cherrington has done with his ridiculous contracts.

[iortiz]

If Hanley, Porcello, Panda and Castillo suck, what are they going to do?

[User Name]

If Hanley, Porcello, Panda and Castillo suck, what are they going to do?

 

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.

[jung]

Actually Professor Ben says thank you. May he have a long and happy career in academia.

[iortiz]

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.

While Boston is a big market team I think you are overrating their payroll flexibility. On the other hand while it's unlikely that they all suck, they have serious question marks at least in 3/4 of them.

[User Name]

While Boston is a big market team I think you are overrating their payroll flexibility. On the other hand while it's unlikely that they all suck, they have serious question marks at least in 3/4 of them.

 

Not at all. They're putting out a 200 million payroll this year. It's possible (and plausible actually) they fill all of their holes for next year while actually decreasing payroll. If two of the contracts can be salvaged (Porcello/Hanley being the most likely), they just need a couple of their young elite propects to take their next step in what amounts to natural progression to finish off this team's core. Then the spending will be minimal.

[sk7326]

If Hanley, Porcello, Panda and Castillo suck, what are they going to do?

 

Well for two of them, that question is already answered. For Porcello - the Red Sox bought some insurance with Price - at least some insurance that if Porcello stinks, the team can work around it somewhat. Hanley - well, there are some answers there too, but I actually am not worried about him.

 

I pegged 84 wins with some substantial upside - and talked about improvement from within being necessary. It is necessary, but it's also pretty projectable.

 

1. Bogaerts and Betts are excellent bets to improve. You have a reasonable possibility of two Top 20 players without having to do anything.

2. Bradley is almost certainly not the guy who went on that hot streak at the end of last season. But he showed some evidence of being a bonsai Mike Napoli - take a ton of pitches, ride a major BABIP-related roller coaster, strike out a ton while walking enough to keep the OBP from cratering. With his glove, that is a solid starter.

3. Swihart will be better. With the rock bottom replacement value for the position - Swihart does not have to do a ton to be a very positive force. He was obviously raw when the Sox discovered him, but he has learned stuff quickly. There is real "Port Authority Knockoff Quality Buster Posey" ability there, and we saw some glimpses last season. If he fails. then it's Vasquez whose WORST case scenario is living a nomadic life traveling from ML town to ML town wearing a "Will Catch For Food" sign on him and living off of continuous annual gigs as some pitcher's personal receiver.

4. Rick Porcello will almost certainly not be that terrible again. His post-DL appearances showed a perhaps better window. He will PROBABLY not justify his salary - but he should be a useful pitcher, capable of turning around 200 innings where he leaves the Sox with a decent chance to win.

5. The closer will be more stable - simply because Uehara is still a really good reliever and can backup Kimbrel if something bad happens.

Edited April 1, 2016 by sk7326

[jung]

The key to future success in baseball is to stop trying to fill holes through the FA market. It no longer works. MLB has steadily changed the playing field so that it does not work and if you continue to fight that you just fall into the trap that MLB has set for you. It won't work for the Yankees. it won't work for us. It won't work for anybody. You simply end up with too much garbage mixed in with players that actually might remotely be worth half of what they make and you quietly sink into the basement as a result, not exactly because of what you spent because of what you spent on.

 

The only way to deal with FA in the market MLB has made is to keep your powder dry for those opportunities that arise that are truly prime player opportunities, not the best guy available in some year...because that is the practical side of the trap MLB has set. It not only yields too many busts but it simply lets the FO off the hook. "But according to the numbers he was the best available at the time". Right and that is apparently where your due diligence stopped. Any flyers you take on the cheap end of FA are fine. Go ahead, knock your mind out...who cares. But it is the guys that you take that are both reaches and costly that really burn you. Just about any player that fits that "best available at the time" profile fits.

 

Price is on the wrong side of that philosophical approach but what else was DD to do under the circumstances. Pitching rules. We had NOBODY that was a staff leader and the nuts and bolts of a baseball team has not changed. If you don't have a staff leader, guys that are not capable try to fill that vacuum and you end up with a mess. Kimbrel is closer to the way you want to use the FA market now. Pen arms are IMO relative bargains for one thing depending on what all else you have going on in the roster. That said if you have done the job right in your drafting of pitchers and the way you use your higher draft picks when you have them, you should end up with more guys that can populate your pen. That is the other problem with drafting a bunch of dink and dunkers. What do you do with them if they can't start?

 

Keep your powder dry for those really prime opportunities in the FA market. They will be rare but if you have been patient and have kept your powder dry you will have the horses to get your man.

 

This also means you have to build a real farm system with players feeding into the ML club in a fairly steady stream including a few decent arms. You have to do whatever you have to do to at least salt away a couple of up and coming arms...not these dinkers and dunkers that we have typically been satisfied with that never pan out....looking at you Mr Owens...You are going nowhere son.

 

No system of managing a MLB franchise will yield a winner every year. Won't even yield a competitor many years, not a real one anyway. Cards have done it best but they are downright Bellachekian for a MLB club, cutting bait at will. They have the farm system to do it. Again this is what MLB wanted and now it has it. In those years where you find yourself with high draft picks based on a poor showing you really want to try to pull in real arms...real pitching talent if you can....don't take these, best available at our spot in the draft pitchers when every good arm is gone before you can draft because we already see what they turn out to be. Should always be looking for pitching but especially in any year where you have high picks. Take the dink and dunk pitchers in the draft when you are happy you have had a "successful" draft. Another who cares....knock your mind out.

Edited April 1, 2016 by jung

[User Name]

You're not a talent evaluator. Stop pretending you are. You keep whining about a bunch of players, mentioning things they don't struggle with, while glossing over the things they do struggle with, and it's like nails on a chalkboard. Stop.

[iortiz]

He is pointing out his opinion U?, relax man. Actually I find out some jung's points interesting.

[iortiz]

The key to future success in baseball is to stop trying to fill holes through the FA market. It no longer works. MLB has steadily changed the playing field so that it does not work and if you continue to fight that you just fall into the trap that MLB has set for you. It won't work for the Yankees. it won't work for us. It won't work for anybody. You simply end up with too much garbage mixed in with players that actually might remotely be worth half of what they make and you quietly sink into the basement as a result, not exactly because of what you spent because of what you spent on.

 

The only way to deal with FA in the market MLB has made is to keep your powder dry for those opportunities that arise that are truly prime player opportunities, not the best guy available in some year...because that is the practical side of the trap MLB has set. It not only yields too many busts but it simply lets the FO off the hook. "But according to the numbers he was the best available at the time". Right and that is apparently where your due diligence stopped. Any flyers you take on the cheap end of FA are fine. Go ahead, knock your mind out...who cares. But it is the guys that you take that are both reaches and costly that really burn you. Just about any player that fits that "best available at the time" profile fits.

 

Price is on the wrong side of that philosophical approach but what else was DD to do under the circumstances. Pitching rules. We had NOBODY that was a staff leader and the nuts and bolts of a baseball team has not changed. If you don't have a staff leader, guys that are not capable try to fill that vacuum and you end up with a mess. Kimbrel is closer to the way you want to use the FA market now. Pen arms are IMO relative bargains for one thing depending on what all else you have going on in the roster. That said if you have done the job right in your drafting of pitchers and the way you use your higher draft picks when you have them, you should end up with more guys that can populate your pen. That is the other problem with drafting a bunch of dink and dunkers. What do you do with them if they can't start?

 

Keep your powder dry for those really prime opportunities in the FA market. They will be rare but if you have been patient and have kept your powder dry you will have the horses to get your man.

 

This also means you have to build a real farm system with players feeding into the ML club in a fairly steady stream including a few decent arms. You have to do whatever you have to do to at least salt away a couple of up and coming arms...not these dinkers and dunkers that we have typically been satisfied with that never pan out....looking at you Mr Owens...You are going nowhere son.

 

No system of managing a MLB franchise will yield a winner every year. Won't even yield a competitor many years, not a real one anyway. Cards have done it best but they are downright Bellachekian for a MLB club, cutting bait at will. They have the farm system to do it. Again this is what MLB wanted and now it has it. In those years where you find yourself with high draft picks based on a poor showing you really want to try to pull in real arms...real pitching talent if you can....don't take these, best available at our spot in the draft pitchers when every good arm is gone before you can draft because we already see what they turn out to be. Should always be looking for pitching but especially in any year where you have high picks. Take the dink and dunk pitchers in the draft when you are happy you have had a "successful" draft. Another who cares....knock your mind out.

I think it is time to put a salary cap like in the NFL but I don't know if this could work out for baseball. While some teams can afford "easily" those payrolls, the salaries for some players are going way out of hands. Not sure how much this tendency is going to last.

Edited April 1, 2016 by iortiz

[User Name]

He is pointing out his opinion U?, relax man. Actually I find out some jung's points interesting.

 

jung is a big boy, he can talk for himself. Stick to your own discussions please.