A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[moonslav59]

That is a very low threshold for a monster season.

 

LOL.

 

It's a decent floor, and if he fields near average, those numbers would help us a lot, but clearly it's not monstrous.

[Bellhorn04]

Beltre was the biggest mistake to let walk. In another universe, keeping Beltre might have meant not trading for Gonzalez, which could have meant keeping Rizzo.

 

Also , Beltre has largely been flat out awesome, outside of his propensity for destroying left fielders....

 

Did well with the compensation picks at least...Swihart & Bradley.

[Kimmi]

IN.

 

Also IN.

[Kimmi]

Beltre was the biggest mistake to let walk. In another universe, keeping Beltre might have meant not trading for Gonzalez, which could have meant keeping Rizzo.

 

Also , Beltre has largely been flat out awesome, outside of his propensity for destroying left fielders....

 

Agreed. Letting Beltre walk turned out to be a mistake. Theo was all about the draft picks though.

 

It's odd that when Theo signed Beltre, there were a lot of unhappy posters.

[oldtimer]

Rumors in Boston having the Sox reaching agreements with Trevor Plouffe. It looks like an insurance policy in case things with Pablo don't work out.

[moonslav59]

Rumors in Boston having the Sox reaching agreements with Trevor Plouffe. It looks like an insurance policy in case things with Pablo don't work out.

 

Athletics To Sign Trevor Plouffe

By Steve Adams | January 11, 2017 at 7:21am CDT

 

TODAY: Plouffe is expected to receive around $5MM of guaranteed money in the deal, per Jon Heyman of Fan Rag (via Twitter). There are also incentives, though details remain unknown.

[harmony]

Rumors in Boston having the Sox reaching agreements with Trevor Plouffe. It looks like an insurance policy in case things with Pablo don't work out.

http://www.overthemonster.com/2017/1/11/14237054/red-sox-miss-out-on-trevor-plouffe

[moonslav59]

http://www.overthemonster.com/2017/1/11/14237054/red-sox-miss-out-on-trevor-plouffe

 

Good article, but I'd take my chances with Rutledge, Holt and Hernandez and save the $5M.

 

I disagree on this point, "...the Red Sox did lose out on a piece that would have perfectly filled perhaps the only true “opening” left on the roster, and for an awfully low price."

 

I think pitching depth is a bigger "opening" than back-up 3B.

 

[harmony]

Good article, but I'd take my chances with Rutledge, Holt and Hernandez and save the $5M.

 

I disagree on this point, "...the Red Sox did lose out on a piece that would have perfectly filled perhaps the only true “opening” left on the roster, and for an awfully low price."

 

I think pitching depth is a bigger "opening" than back-up 3B.

 

I agree.

 

What can the Red Sox do about pitching depth?

 

In the end I'm glad my Mariners set their sights higher than Clay Buchholz.

[moonslav59]

I agree.

 

What can the Red Sox do about pitching depth?

 

In the end I'm glad my Mariners set their sights higher than Clay Buchholz.

 

The M's were busy today. I think they've gotten better, but there are some questions.

[harmony]

The M's were busy today. I think they've gotten better, but there are some questions.

Seattle GM Jerry Dipoto has been busy, making 36 trades in 15 months at the helm, including 11 trades this offseason.

 

I like that Dipoto has a plan and has executed it. I'm content to see how it plays out. Nothing is guaranteed as outcomes could range from a last-place finish to a World Series title.

 

http://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-seattle-mariners/

 

Dipoto shares a trait with Boston GM Dave Dombrowski in that neither hoards prospects. Of course, Dombrowski had more to work with in the Red Sox farm system. Dipoto worked with Dombrowski in the Boston front office for about six weeks before taking the Seattle job in late September 2015.

 

Seattle coughed up four prospects -- lefthanders Luiz Gohara, Ryan Yarbrough and Thomas Burrows, and infielder Carlos Vargas -- for two years of lefthander Drew Smyly (whose value I've compared to that of Drew Pomeranz) and four years of reliever Shae Simmons. The trade costs of Smyly and Pomeranz contrast quantity and quality if prospect rankings mean anything. Smyly and Pomeranz are projected with 2017 WAR of 2.5 and 2.0, respectively.

[moonslav59]

Seattle GM Jerry Dipoto has been busy, making 36 trades in 15 months at the helm, including 11 trades this offseason.

 

I like that Dipoto has a plan and has executed it. I'm content to see how it plays out. Nothing is guaranteed as outcomes could range from a last-place finish to a World Series title.

 

http://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-seattle-mariners/

 

Dipoto shares a trait with Boston GM Dave Dombrowski in that neither hoards prospects. Of course, Dombrowski had more to work with in the Red Sox farm system. Dipoto worked with Dombrowski in the Boston front office for about six weeks before taking the Seattle job in late September 2015.

 

Seattle coughed up four prospects -- lefthanders Luiz Gohara, Ryan Yarbrough and Thomas Burrows, and infielder Carlos Vargas -- for two years of lefthander Drew Smyly (whose value I've compared to that of Drew Pomeranz) and four years of reliever Shae Simmons. The trade costs of Smyly and Pomeranz contrast quantity and quality if prospect rankings mean anything. Smyly and Pomeranz are projected with 2017 WAR of 2.5 and 2.0, respectively.

 

I think Smyly has some good potential. He's already shown he can pitch well.

[Slasher9]

That is a very low threshold for a monster season.

 

so this is the "realistic view" thread. so that's my realistic view. where did i post Monster Season in this thread?

your a richard. simple as that. that i will post in every thread and it will always be truth.

[moonslav59]

I think there's a good chance Pablo has a very good season (over .825 or so).

 

There's also a chance he comes in around his 2014 season: .740 and average fielding.

 

I just hope he stays healthy and doesn't end up sub .725.

[moonslav59]

What worries me most about Pablo now is how he hits vs LHPs.

 

It used to be his fielding, but I'm hoping being in better shape will improve that.

 

I'm also a little worried about injury. In my opinion (no studies to back me up), I feel athletes who train very hard (especially for the first time) are more susceptible to injury.

 

[cp176]

Interesting theory of yours. I would like to think that a professional athlete had to train fairly hard at some point. It's for sure that over training does often lead to injury. For me it is a pick your poison situation. I would take my chances with the guy who has literally worked his ass off. I'm hoping that whoever has worked with him is good enough to realize that nutrition and rest are just as important as the hard work. They should be. It's a good story.

[moonslav59]

Interesting theory of yours. I would like to think that a professional athlete had to train fairly hard at some point. It's for sure that over training does often lead to injury. For me it is a pick your poison situation. I would take my chances with the guy who has literally worked his ass off. I'm hoping that whoever has worked with him is good enough to realize that nutrition and rest are just as important as the hard work. They should be. It's a good story.

 

I agree.

 

I've battled with weight issues since my early 20's. I have found that when I have been out of shape for a long time but then work hard to finally get back into shape, I seem more susceptible to tweaking a hammy or my back doing something very ordinary. Usually it's a muscle or some area that did not get a lot of attention during the workouts. (Note" I've had back issues both when in shape and not in shape.)

[mvp 78]

In reference to what to do about Panda on 10/11/16 from this very thread.

 

You "Castillo" Panda or trade him if he has a spring revival.

[mvp 78]

On the very same day you wanted to "Castillo" Panda or trade him away, I posted the following:

 

Panda will be the opening day 3b.

 

Price will have a better season than in 2016.

 

Moncada doesn't make the opening day roster.

 

Sox pick up 2 new relief arms and make a substantial one year offer to Koji.

 

Tazawa and Ziegler move on.

 

Buchholz has his option picked up.

 

The Sox don't bring in any new starting pitchers.

 

Kopech is converted to a bullpen arm.

[mvp 78]

Posts 21 and 38 of this very thread, FYI.

[cp176]

I agree.

 

I've battled with weight issues since my early 20's. I have found that when I have been out of shape for a long time but then work hard to finally get back into shape, I seem more susceptible to tweaking a hammy or my back doing something very ordinary. Usually it's a muscle or some area that did not get a lot of attention during the workouts. (Note" I've had back issues both when in shape and not in shape.)

 

Pablo is entering through a fairly decent window where he could be really productive. 5,6, 7 + years depending on injury of course. At some point in time, all "older" athletes have to pay a price for out past I think. I have stayed fairly fit for the last 50 years but the aches and pains just happen. I don't think that anyone is immune. back, hips, knees, shoulders ... all moving parts. The older I get, the more I tend to think about the quality of life I lead as opposed to just extending it.

[moonslav59]

In reference to what to do about Panda on 10/11/16 from this very thread.

 

So? What's your point?

 

I got schooled and soon after posted this:

 

Didn't Craig have 5 years?

 

I think you're right.

 

We may have to eat his contract or hope he becomes some sort of use- even if as a platoon DH.

Edited January 12, 2017 by moonslav59

[mvp 78]

So? What's your point?

 

I got schooled and soon after posted this:

 

Didn't Craig have 5 years?

 

I think you're right.

 

We may have to eat his contract or hope he becomes some sort of use- even if as a platoon DH.

 

My point is that back in the fall you wanted him nowhere near 3B, so don't pat yourself on the back because "you wanted him at 3B back then and people gave you s*** for it but now want him at 3B too." It's just not true. You didn't want him at 3B.

[moonslav59]

Posts 21 and 38 of this very thread, FYI.

 

When I said people's opinions on Pablo have changed, that does not imply mine wasn't one of the "people".

 

When I said I listed Pablo as a 3B possibility last fall, I was not implying I was some sort of genius for doing so. The guy was on our roster and getting paid $19M a year.

 

No where was I trying to "pat myself on the back".

[moonslav59]

My point is that back in the fall you wanted him nowhere near 3B, so don't pat yourself on the back because "you wanted him at 3B back then and people gave you s*** for it but now want him at 3B too." It's just not true. You didn't want him at 3B.

 

I never said "I wanted him at 3B" last fall.

 

You can't read, dude.

 

I said I included him in the 3B mix, and implied that people seemingly squawked at even mentioning his name in the same breath as Shaw.

[mvp 78]

I never said "I wanted him at 3B" last fall.

 

You can't read, dude.

 

I said I included him in the 3B mix, and implied that people seemingly squawked at even mentioning his name in the same breath as Shaw.

 

But saying that you want him traded or "Castillo'd" is not leaving him in the mix?

[moonslav59]

But saying that you want him traded or "Castillo'd" is not leaving him in the mix?

 

I listed him as a possible 3Bman many times to start this thread.

 

Most of the time I listed our 3B slot as Pablo/Shaw or Shaw/Pqablo with Hernandez, Holt and Rutledge listed as depth at times.

 

Sure I wanted him replaced. Everyone knew trading him was not really an option, except for maybe a Jamie Shields-like near equal salary dump type trade. I never suggested we could trade him when his stock was near zero with that contract looming.

 

In theory, he was going to be in the mix until we traded or signed a better 3Bman, but I never pretended that was the Sox plan. I never expected a Frazier trade or a Turner signing. I didn't even expect us to go after Plouffe, like recent rumors hinted at.

 

The fact was, to me, that Pablo was in the mix at 3B, so I listed him as a close to equal chance as Shaw at 3B. I never tried to imply I was some sort of genius for just listing a $19M guy as an option. I never claimed I said I wanted him at 3B in the fall. I disliked both Shaw and Pablo, but money constraints wouldn't allow us to get everything I wanted. I knew that and said so many times. I've never believed we can just buy anything we want.

 

I suggested an option might be to "Castillo" him, so we could free up $19M. That's not "taking him out of the mix". He's in the mix until it happens for real. It turns out I (and others) were wrong about being able to "Castillo him" because he had 5+ years of ML service and could refuse a demotion.

 

Just because I suggested many possible replacements for Pablo at 3B from last fall to the point where our budget and lack of prospects no longer allowed for acquiring a 3Bman, doesn't mean I never considered him "in the mix". I certainly never said anything resembling this: "...so don't pat yourself on the back because "you wanted him at 3B back then..."

 

Just because I observed people's opinions changing, I have not said or implied that at some point "I wanted him at 3B". That's just false, and you know it. Of course, you'll never admit to the falsehood.

 

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

Pablo is entering through a fairly decent window where he could be really productive. 5,6, 7 + years depending on injury of course.

 

I'd guess his true window is more likely 2-4 years before his decline crosses the plus-minus line.

 

Much has been made of his long and steady decline before even signing with us, but I agree, his age still leaves the window open for some good years.

[mvp 78]

I listed him as a possible 3Bman many times to start this thread.

 

Most of the time I listed our 3B slot as Pablo/Shaw or Shaw/Pqablo with Hernandez, Holt and Rutledge listed as depth at times.

 

Sure I wanted him replaced. Everyone knew trading him was not really an option, except for maybe a Jamie Shields-like near equal salary dump type trade. I never suggested we could trade him when his stock was near zero with that contract looming.

 

In theory, he was going to be in the mix until we traded or signed a better 3Bman, but I never pretended that was the Sox plan. I never expected a Frazier trade or a Turner signing. I didn't even expect us to go after Plouffe, like recent rumors hinted at.

 

The fact was, to me, that Pablo was in the mix at 3B, so I listed him as a close to equal chance as Shaw at 3B. I never tried to imply I was some sort of genius for just listing a $19M guy as an option. I never claimed I said I wanted him at 3B in the fall. I disliked both Shaw and Pablo, but money constraints wouldn't allow us to get everything I wanted. I knew that and said so many times. I've never believed we can just buy anything we want.

 

I suggested an option might be to "Castillo" him, so we could free up $19M. That's not "taking him out of the mix". He's in the mix until it happens for real. It turns out I (and others) were wrong about being able to "Castillo him" because he had 5+ years of ML service and could refuse a demotion.

 

Just because I suggested many possible replacements for Pablo at 3B from last fall to the point where our budget and lack of prospects no longer allowed for acquiring a 3Bman, doesn't mean I never considered him "in the mix". I certainly never said anything resembling this: "...so don't pat yourself on the back because "you wanted him at 3B back then..."

 

Just because I observed people's opinions changing, I have not said or implied that at some point "I wanted him at 3B". That's just false, and you know it. Of course, you'll never admit to the falsehood.

 

 

 

 

 

It's ok. I understand you don't like to admit when you're wrong. Facts don't matter to Mr Cheatriots.

[Spudboy]

lol