A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[mvp 78]

Oh come on Bell - Don't rain on the current King of Hindsight's parade. Don't spoil the moment.

 

Holy sheeet....

[moonslav59]

Yes - a waste of time in this case.

This is what you do. I get it. You aren't alone. You assume that because an 18 year old kid was traded for a 27 year old kid with some upside as well, that whoever suggests that this still is good idea then those people would of course have traded Betts, Bogaerts, etc. for immediate wins. It is a sad way to characterize people who just don't agree with you but I guess it is what people do these days. I happen to believe that it is still possible to look at this franchise with an eye toward the future be it the immediate future or 5 years down the line. It is a balancing act and to date I have seen nothing from our management that even looks remotely like selling off the future for today.

Keep the faith though - maybe in a few years you will be able to hindsight DD's views to death.

 

No, I don't assume this, but before when these kids were 18 or 19, they were just speculative values themselves.

 

I'm not against trading 17 or 18 year olds or our top prospects.

 

I'm not big on hindsighting GMs to death.

 

I didn't with Theo or Ben. I'm into being critical or agreeing with moves made at the time they are made.

 

I will go back at times and say, I wish we still had this guy or that guy, but I never go back and say "nah nah nah nah, Kimbrel sucked- see I told you it was a bad trade". In fact, I priased Kimbrel as a top 3 closer and expect him to return to top 3 status next year.

[moonslav59]

The other bottom line is that we won the division this year, we're reasonably well set up for the short-to-intermediate future, and it's stupid to try to project anything more than about 3 years out in this sport.

 

It's entirely possible that Anderson Espinosa never makes the majors.

 

It's entirely possible he does, is a fantastic player, and Pomeranz helps us win a ring in the meantime and nobody cares.

 

It's entirely possible that Pomeranz is hurt by next opening day, never pitches again, and certain people whose motivations I comprehend but don't understand get to validate their existence by playing the told-you-so game on an Internet forum.

 

All of these are possibilities but none is more than a possibility. None of these outcomes have happened yet, so posting as if anything is a foregone conclusion is an exercise in self-delusion.

 

I can assure you every single GM, including DD, is projecting three years out.

[moonslav59]

Oh come on Bell - Don't rain on the current King of Hindsight's parade. Don't spoil the moment.

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

I hardly ever go back and blame the GM for bad signings and say "I told you so." I do go back and say I hated the signing at the time often enough-maybe too often, but not "in hindsight" which implies explaining how the player performance since the trade justifies how right I was. I don't do that at all, or iuf I do, it is very very rare.

 

You know I disliked these moves day one. Someone who is the king of hindsight does not operate my way.

 

I'm glad we have Kimbrel, Pom and Price. I have never put them down, even though many have argued they have been disappointing so far.

 

My beef was upfront...not in hindsight.

 

Look at all the moves I was against with Ben, yet I was one of the few that did not want him let go.

 

I never said, "See I told you Pablo was going to be a bad signing and he sucks now" Never said it.

 

One reason is, that I didn't think he'd suck. Another is because Ben had good reasons to do what he did, same as DD.

 

I guess I'll never get across my belief that being critical of individual moves does not mean I'm bashing the GM as a whole or operating on some sort of hindsight campaign. It's just not true.

Edited November 7, 2016 by moonslav59

[cp176]

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

I hardly ever go back and blame the GM for bad signings and say "I told you so." I do go back and say I hated the signing at the time often enough-maybe too often, but not "in hindsight" which implies explaining how the player performance since the trade justifies how right I was. I don't do that at all, or iuf I do, it is very very rare.

 

You know I disliked these moves day one. Someone who is the king of hindsight does not operate my way.

 

I'm glad we have Kimbrel, Pom and Price. I have never put them down, even though many have argued they have been disappointing so far.

 

My beef was upfront...not in hindsight.

 

Look at all the moves I was against with Ben, yet I was one of the few that did not want him let go.

 

I never said, "See I told you Pablo was going to be a bad signing and he sucks now" Never said it.

 

One reason is, that I didn't think he'd suck. Another is because Ben had good reasons to do what he did, same as DD.

 

I guess I'll never get across my belief that being critical of individual moves does not mean I'm bashing the GM as a whole or operating on some sort of hindsight campaign. It's just not true.

 

I just chummed the water a little bit. Mostly just fooling around. Just so you know - i enjoy reading your posts. sometimes I actually agree with you. This is a particularly slow time of year for me thus this is what you get. For the record - I have not actually disliked any of DD's moves. Even if I did, I probably would stay quiet - It is his job. I very much enjoyed Theo when he was here but I also thought and still think that Dan Duquette did well also. In my opinion, he is much maligned. As for Ben - not so much. I do give him some credit for helping with others to build our minor league program but I have to admit that I feel much more comfortable with DD in charge. Must be something about his rumpled look I guess. what else could it be right?

I guess I get the fact that around here Larry Luchinno seems to take a beating. I have to say though for me he was part of the solution. If people feel that he was part of a problem then obviously they have some inside scoop from reputable sources that I just am not interested in. It is their opinion - I don't know the man. I'm looking forward to next year although we will keep reliving what has happened. And yes - I do feel feel that since Dick Williams is long gone, I really do wish that Mr. Francona was still with us.

[moonslav59]

I just chummed the water a little bit. Mostly just fooling around. Just so you know - i enjoy reading your posts. sometimes I actually agree with you. This is a particularly slow time of year for me thus this is what you get. For the record - I have not actually disliked any of DD's moves. Even if I did, I probably would stay quiet - It is his job. I very much enjoyed Theo when he was here but I also thought and still think that Dan Duquette did well also. In my opinion, he is much maligned. As for Ben - not so much. I do give him some credit for helping with others to build our minor league program but I have to admit that I feel much more comfortable with DD in charge. Must be something about his rumpled look I guess. what else could it be right?

I guess I get the fact that around here Larry Luchinno seems to take a beating. I have to say though for me he was part of the solution. If people feel that he was part of a problem then obviously they have some inside scoop from reputable sources that I just am not interested in. It is their opinion - I don't know the man. I'm looking forward to next year although we will keep reliving what has happened. And yes - I do feel feel that since Dick Williams is long gone, I really do wish that Mr. Francona was still with us.

 

I do too, but I didn't bash Sox brass for letting him go. He clearly had a tough time with the 2012 team, particularly in September. There were mitigating circumstances, as we all know, but I wish we still had him here.

 

I rarely partake in day-to-day manager bashing, so that's why you rarely see me on the game threads.

 

I really do try to avoid hindsight bashing, especially when it involves an unforeseen injury (like with Lackey) or steep decline (like Pablo, although he had shown decline before the signing).

 

I'm highly critical of some moves and do go back to beat the dead horse, but I rarely use the performance after the acquisition to make my point, unless I made the point at the time of the deal. Take the CC signing. I hated the deal down to my bones. I called him a "glorified platoon player" due to his terrible numbers vs lefties. I pointed out that he only played vs lefties, because the rays had nobody better to take his place. Thing were different with the Sox.

 

I did bring that up later "in hindsight", but just to show that we should have expected it from the start. I never criticized CC for sucking vs RHPs or on defense in hindsight. How could I? I never expected that anyways.

 

I loved Theo, even though I disliked many of his moves. He proved me wrong more than other GMs did. I liked Dan D and defended him for a long time. I thought Ben got blamed a little too much "in hindsight" as many fans and posters from BDC loved the HanRam & Pablo signings, then turned on Ben in a flash.

 

I have liked a few of DD's moves and disliked others. I'm far from calling for his removal. He deserves a chance to let his moves prove themselves. If Kimbrel sucks, I won't blame DD for it, because I, too, thought he'd be great: I just thought we grossly overpaid for him. If Price sucks, I could say, "I told you so", because I showed how most big signings don't even work in the early years, but I won't, because I thought Price was the best SP'er to come along in several years. I expected him to do well. If he doesn't, it's not DD's fault.

 

Spoiler alert: I may have a hard time not saying "I told you so", if Espi becomes the next Pedro.

 

I know it's a slow time in baseball. I respect the hell out of you cp, even though we disagree on several issues.

[Nick]

Well hell, I'm going to blame it all on Clay Buchholtz.

 

We traded for Peavy because Clay got hurt.

We traded for Pomeranz because Clay sucked.

 

We are so pissed at him that we game him a $13M contract and we're giddy about it.

 

That pretty much sums it up, no?

[Bellhorn04]

Well hell, I'm going to blame it all on Clay Buchholtz.

 

We traded for Peavy because Clay got hurt.

We traded for Pomeranz because Clay sucked.

 

We are so pissed at him that we game him a $13M contract and we're giddy about it.

 

That pretty much sums it up, no?

 

You do have a case against Mr. Buchholz.

[Dojji]

I can assure you every single GM, including DD, is projecting three years out.

 

and it's stupid to try to project anything more than about 3 years out in this sport.

 

anything more than about 3 years.

 

more than 3.

 

more.

 

Just sayin'

[moonslav59]

Well hell, I'm going to blame it all on Clay Buchholtz.

 

We traded for Peavy because Clay got hurt.

We traded for Pomeranz because Clay sucked.

 

We are so pissed at him that we game him a $13M contract and we're giddy about it.

 

That pretty much sums it up, no?

 

Interesting view, but can I add the trade of Stephen Fife for Erik Bedard because Buch got hurt in 2011?

[moonslav59]

MLBTR projects...

 

EE to BOS at $92M/4 (or $23M x 4)

 

Chapman to NYY $90M/5

 

J Turner to LAD $85M/5 (I'll take 5 from Turner over 4 from EE.)

 

Jansen to Cubs $64M/4 (I'll take Jansen at $74M/4 over EE at $92M/4.)

 

Fowler to STL $64M/4

 

Hellickson to TX $60M/4 (shows the state of the SP'er market)

 

Melancon to SFG $52M/4

 

Bautista to TOR $51M/3

 

Ramos to HOU $50M/4

'

R Hill to NYY $50M/3

 

Weiters to ATL $39M/3

 

M Saunders to BAL $33M/3

 

Napoli to CLE $28M/2

 

Morales to TOR $26M/2

 

G Holland to WSH $18M/2

 

Ziegler to BOS $16M/2

 

Beltran $14M/1

 

M Holliday to TEX $10M/1

 

Uehara didn't make their top 50!

 

I know it's not as simple as this, but if I had the choice and these contracts are legit, I'd spend the $94M/2 EE and $16M/2 Ziegler on...

 

A) Jansen $64M/4 & R Hill $50M/3

 

Melancon $52M/4, Ziegler $16M/2, Beltran $14M/1, Valbuena $14M/2 & Koji

 

C) $85M/5 Turner & Beltran $14M/1 (maybe we could still afford Ziegler or Koji)

 

Any of these options look better than just EE & Ziegler?

 

[cp176]

I'm changing course here. I like Beltran for one and since you didn't put in a team that he is projected to go to - I'm going to pencil in Boston for them.

[oldtimer]

I'm changing course here. I like Beltran for one and since you didn't put in a team that he is projected to go to - I'm going to pencil in Boston for them.

 

At 40 years old, we should have a good chance of getting Beltran for one year with an option year. Switch hitter, decent power, smart and a good clubhouse presence. Good for DH role. Might not get a QO and be in the top group in his category so might not cost a first round draft choice as EE would. Lot to like about bringing him on.

 

I like Moon's plan C with Beltran and Turner. Solves two of our mot glaring deficiencies at reasonable cost. Opens up our existing squad to some possible trade candidates from third for possible RP's.

[cp176]

Beltran I get (or actually EE possibly)

 

Signing a third baseman without a major trade for totr pitching I would not get. Some of us of course might see third base as a problem that needs to be upgraded. I just absolutely believe that there are ample in house options to cover this one. There are just too many variables that we don't have answers to just yet. I see it this way-

1. dh bat gets signed - you need something that looks a little more like a sure thing than trying to piece meal it from within.

2. relief pitching upgrade

3. major trade for starting pitching.

[oldtimer]

Beltran I get (or actually EE possibly)

 

Signing a third baseman without a major trade for totr pitching I would not get. Some of us of course might see third base as a problem that needs to be upgraded. I just absolutely believe that there are ample in house options to cover this one. There are just too many variables that we don't have answers to just yet. I see it this way-

1. dh bat gets signed - you need something that looks a little more like a sure thing than trying to piece meal it from within.

2. relief pitching upgrade

3. major trade for starting pitching.

 

I get that signing Turner at big bucks and probably losing a draft choice is a bit of a flyer. It would represent a real improvement at 3rd but the cost is high and it might not even be possible. The idea of DH with Beltran is solid and clearly we need to be involved in signing probably 2 RP's of quality. SP is a flyer like 3rd base, in that it will be costly in $ and talent and such trades are also risky. SP's can be fragile.

[Bellhorn04]

MLBTR projects...

 

Chapman to NYY $90M/5

 

 

$90M for a reliever. We are really through the looking glass if that happens.

[moonslav59]

Beltran I get (or actually EE possibly)

 

Signing a third baseman without a major trade for totr pitching I would not get. Some of us of course might see third base as a problem that needs to be upgraded. I just absolutely believe that there are ample in house options to cover this one. There are just too many variables that we don't have answers to just yet. I see it this way-

1. dh bat gets signed - you need something that looks a little more like a sure thing than trying to piece meal it from within.

2. relief pitching upgrade

3. major trade for starting pitching.

 

I'm not saying I want to sign Turner, and the only way I see that working out is if we end up trading Moncada and/or Devers with one of our existing starters for a TOR SP'er (maybe Moncada, Pom, Dubon, Basabe and Johnson for Quintana/Sale and Robertson).

[Bellhorn04]

4/92 for EE actually seems fairly reasonable by today's standards.

[moonslav59]

4/92 for EE actually seems fairly reasonable by today's standards.

 

Papi made $16M.

 

Where's the precedent for this amount for a DH, let alone a 34 year old DH for 4 years?

 

This is a big spike- just as Chapman's projection would be.

[Bellhorn04]

Papi made $16M.

 

Where's the precedent for this amount for a DH, let alone a 34 year old DH for 4 years?

 

This is a big spike- just as Chapman's projection would be.

 

Papi was an incredible bargain, I'm just starting to realize that. His total salaries with the Red Sox over 14 years were about 160 million.

 

The 4 years is what makes EE's projection somewhat reasonable. He's been a 4 WAR player 5 years running despite huge negative defensive numbers.

 

I'm not saying it'll happen. DD has already signaled it probably won't, I guess.

[oldtimer]

Papi made $16M.

 

Where's the precedent for this amount for a DH, let alone a 34 year old DH for 4 years?

 

This is a big spike- just as Chapman's projection would be.

 

Doesn't Chapman have an ongoing domestic violence charge against him?

[Bellhorn04]

Doesn't Chapman have an ongoing domestic violence charge against him?

 

No, charges dropped, MLB gave him a 30 day suspension, done deal.

[Jack Flap]

I'm heartened by the early Beltran rumors. Give him a 1-year deal with an option, keep the 1st round pick, and call it a day.

[Eddy Ballgame]

I'm heartened by the early Beltran rumors. Give him a 1-year deal with an option, keep the 1st round pick, and call it a day.

 

My guess is that Beltran "plan A." I think he makes the most sense as well.

[Spudboy]

Papi made $16M.

 

Where's the precedent for this amount for a DH, let alone a 34 year old DH for 4 years?

 

This is a big spike- just as Chapman's projection would be.

 

Papi was stuck in the AL and got paid decent money for a "part time player".

 

EE has the ability to play a position full time so he can be marketed to both leagues.

 

Papi may have set the precedent for pay at DH in Boston, but comparisons to EE are apples to oranges in my view. EE is also much younger now that Ortiz was the past few years.

[Spudboy]

Papi made $16M.

 

Where's the precedent for this amount for a DH, let alone a 34 year old DH for 4 years?

 

This is a big spike- just as Chapman's projection would be.

 

EE is more than a DH and will command more money.

 

The Chapman money is insane and can not be used in any comparison.

[Spudboy]

My guess is that EE stay in Toronto or goes to a New York team.

 

Beltran does make sense on a short deal.

[moonslav59]

EE may be able to play 1b FT, but I doubt any teams signs him to do it.

 

With Moncada and Devers banging on the door and Travis and Dubon maybe having a longer shot at cracking our line-up in the next year or so, I think, if anything, we go short term at DH. Only Young comes off the books next winter, so we're talking significant prospect blockage coming up. It doesn't make sense signing EE to 4-5 years.

 

Short term options other than Beltran may be Holliday or Morales.

[moonslav59]

Good read from soxprospects.com...

 

http://news.soxprospects.com/2016/11/fallwinter-league-roundup-kopech.html

 

 

 

podcast....

 

http://news.soxprospects.com/2016/11/podcast-ep-108-2016-rankings-special.html

[Nick]

EE may be able to play 1b FT, but I doubt any teams signs him to do it.

 

With Moncada and Devers banging on the door and Travis and Dubon maybe having a longer shot at cracking our line-up in the next year or so, I think, if anything, we go short term at DH. Only Young comes off the books next winter, so we're talking significant prospect blockage coming up. It doesn't make sense signing EE to 4-5 years.

 

Short term options other than Beltran may be Holliday or Morales.

 

And no position player comes off in 2018