A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[mvp 78]

I was with ya all the way, JF.

 

The only good thing on the old Sawxheads site was the policy that sarcastic comments were supposed to be in green.

 

That's a ridiculous idea.

[mvp 78]

Just strange that he didn't even mention the chance of Vaz winning the job.

 

He took a huge step backwards last year. I'm not surprised he's not the #1 guy.

[moonslav59]

He took a huge step backwards last year. I'm not surprised he's not the #1 guy.

 

He'd probably be #3, if he had an option left like Swihart does.

[bosoxmal]

That's a ridiculous idea.

 

Which are too hard to read for us old farts. But easy to skip over!

[moonslav59]

Which are too hard to read for us old farts. But easy to skip over!

 

One can use a darker green.

[mvp 78]

One can use a darker green.

 

I don't like that idea either!

[bosoxmal]

But, he said Swihart can challenge Leon for that role, so it isn't a "no question" situation.

 

Farrell should keep his mouth shut. Every time he opens it, we get nothing but bulls--t. He's telling us he does not know his own players. Every year he says that guy will bethis or this guy will be right fielder. He's a bad psychologist. He must know by now that Swihart isn't a catcher, yet he persists in jerking this future star from one position to another, like over night! As soon as this guy found a position he could handle, he got hurt. Farrell must have forgotten. Swihart's a good (and will get better) switch hitter. They don't grow on trees. I haven't figured out if he's stupid or just incompetent.

Edited January 20, 2017 by bosoxmal

[moonslav59]

Farrell should keep his mouth shut. Every time he opens it, we get nothing but bulls--t. He's telling us he does not know his own players. Every year he says that guy will bethis or this guy will be right fielder. He's a bad psychologist. He must know by now that Swihart isn't a catcher, yet he persists in jerking this future star from one position to another, like over night! As soon as this guy found a position he could handle, he got hurt. Farrell must have forgotten. Swihart's a good (and will get better) switch hitter. They don't grow on trees. I haven't figured out if he's stupid or just incompetent.

 

I think he was jerking Vaz more than Swi this time.

[moonslav59]

The worst, least promising or most likely to be DFA'd Sox players on the current 40 (39) man roster:

 

Brentz

 

Marrero

 

Noe Ramirez

 

Abad

 

Rutledge

 

Ysla

 

Workman

 

Kyle Martin

 

Most likely in-house players to be added to the 40 man roster before the rule 5 deadline in December:

 

SP Kyle Kendrick

 

1B Sam Travis

 

3B Matt Dominguez

 

3B Rafael Devers

 

C Dan Butler or Jordan Procyshen

 

OF Junior Lake or B Brentz (Castillo? or Craig?)

 

 

Next winter's rule 5 players:

 

Victor Acosta, Yoan Aybar, Trey Ball, Gerson Bautista, Jalen Beeks, Danny Bethea, Jordan Betts, Ty Buttrey, Jamie Callahan, Rusney Castillo, Harrison Cooney, Jake Cosart, Enmanuel De Jesus, Rafael Devers, Jhonathan Diaz, Jake Drehoff, Willis Figueroa, Pat Goetze, Daniel Gonzalez, Taylor Grover, Juan Hernandez, Darwinzon Hernandez, Bryan Hudson, Dedgar Jimenez, Raiwinson Lameda, Tzu-Wei Lin, Nick Longhi, Isaias Lucena, Austin Maddox, Danny Mars, Algenis Martinez, Kevin McAvoy, Daniel McGrath, Ritzi Mendoza, Simon Mercedes, Mike Meyers, Mike Miller, Derek Miller, Samuel Miranda, Joseph Monge, Ben Moore, Jhon Nunez, Yankory Pimentel, Jordan Procyshen, Hildemaro Requena, Jeremy Rivera, Jake Romanski, Dioscar Romero, Ramses Rosario, Chandler Shepherd, Josh Smith, Teddy Stankiewicz, Cole Sturgeon, Carlos Tovar, Sam Travis, Jantzen Witte

[moonslav59]

soxprospects.com now had ERod projected in AAA and Kelly on the ML team in the pen.

 

They still have Vaz as the back-up catcher with Swihart in AAA.

 

http://soxprospects.com/2017.htm

[mvp 78]

Well, that's what Farrell has hinted at for most of the offseason.

[moonslav59]

Well, that's what Farrell has hinted at for most of the offseason.

 

Except DD said earlier that ERod had a rotation slot (before his minor injury in winter ball), but yeah, looks like everyone expected with Kelly.

[mvp 78]

JBJ will add his name to the below list:

 

NUMBER 19

 

Howie Storie 1931

Milt Gaston 1931

Wilcy Moore 1932

Gordon Rhodes 1932

Bob Weiland 1933

Fritz Ostermueller 1934

Moe Berg 1935

Emerson Dickman 1936

Joe Cascarella 1936

Fabian Gaffke 1937

Joe Gonzales 1937

Bill Humphrey 1938

Joe Heving 1938-40

Mickey Harris 1941

Andy Karl 1943

Joe Dobson 1943

Ford Garrison 1944

Hal Wagner 1944

Nick Polly 1945

Randy Heflin 1945

Mickey Harris 1946-49

Maurice McDermott 1949-53

Leo Kiely 1954-56

Bob Porterfield 1957-58

Jerry Casale 1958-60

Tom Borland 1961

Lu Clinton 1961

Dave Philley 1962

Merlin Nippert 1962

Wilbur Wood 1963-64

Jay Ritchie 1964-65

Dan Osinski 1965

Gary Waslewski 1967-68

Syd O'Brien 1969

Don Pavletich 1970-71

Ken Tatum 1972-73

Fred Lynn 1974-80

Bob Ojeda 1981-85

Jeff Sellers 1986-88

Dana Williams 1989

Jeff Stone 1989

Dana Kiecker 1990-91

Steve Lyons 1992

Jose Melendez 1993-94

Mike Maddux 1995-96

Brian Rose 1997-2000

Rolando Arrojo 2000

Dante Bichette 2000-01

John Burkett 2002-03

Gabe Kapler 2004

John Olerud 2005

Josh Beckett 2006-12

Koji Uehara 2013-16

[moonslav59]

Is there a reason for the number change?

[moonslav59]

It's interesting to see the list of the recent prospects traded away in order of their highest soxprospects.com ranking (Last 8 months):

 

1 Moncada (Sale)

3 Espinoza (Pomeranz)

3 Margot (Kimbrel)

5 Kopech (Sale)

6 Guerra (Kimbrel)

7 Basabe (Sale)

9 Dubron (Thornburg)

12 Rijo (A Hill)

12 Shaw (Thornburg)

13 L Allen (Kimbrel)

18 Basabe (Ziegler)

20 C Asuaje (Kimbrel)

21 V Diaz (Sale)

24 Pennington (Thornburg)

40 J Almonte (Ziegler)

43 Wilkerson (A Hill)

 

 

[S5Dewey]

Here's what Farrell said when asked about the catching situation:

 

We've got three quality catchers vieing for the catching spot and the only one left with options is Swihart. We're confident that if we place either of the other two on waivers someone will scoop them up immediately.

 

My interpretation of what he said is that Swihart is going to be starting the year in Pawtucket.

[Kimmi]

Here's what Farrell said when asked about the catching situation:

 

We've got three quality catchers vieing for the catching spot and the only one left with options is Swihart. We're confident that if we place either of the other two on waivers someone will scoop them up immediately.

 

My interpretation of what he said is that Swihart is going to be starting the year in Pawtucket.

 

They could always do a 'fake' DL for Vazquez or Leon, but otherwise, it would make no sense for Swihart to start the season in the bigs ahead of Vaz or Leon. I don't think the FO would be that stupid.

[Kimmi]

Once again, Matthew Kory nails it in the following article:

 

Dave Dombrowski and the Three Year Window

 

He likens our team after the 3 year window to 'a beach house on the edge of an eroding cliff'. LOL

[Emp9]

Once again, Matthew Kory nails it in the following article:

 

Dave Dombrowski and the Three Year Window

 

He likens our team after the 3 year window to 'a beach house on the edge of an eroding cliff'. LOL

 

Well, he seems to fit a certain narrative. He tells us things we already know ( 3 yr window. I think most of us knew that before he did), mixed with things I personally don't agree with. Example: "So if the Kimbrel deal was a planet too far for Cherington, the Sale trade is in another galaxy entirely." I doubt this statement very much. Look, we already know, and have known for some time now, that we were not going to be able to extend every homegrown player we brought up. We weren't going to keep every prospect we had, even under Cherington that wouldn't have happened. The White Sox called the Red Sox on Sale btw, not the other way around. And just speaking for myself, I'm still pleased as punch we had so many graduates stick as we have had to date.

 

And what's Mookie supposed to say, really? He's not even Arb Eligible yet. He might as well of asked Benintendi about an extension.

[Nick]

I'm a Swihart fan....but

 

Why in the hell would he be in contention to catch if he was unsuitable last year? He comes back to play left field. What the f***? Love the Sox but sometime we look like f***ing clowns.

 

What, his defense got better through osmosis while recovering from his injury? IF DD wants Swhihart to be a catcher, then he belongs in the minors to horn his craft. WTF john.?

[moonslav59]

Once again, Matthew Kory nails it in the following article:

 

Dave Dombrowski and the Three Year Window

 

He likens our team after the 3 year window to 'a beach house on the edge of an eroding cliff'. LOL

 

I do agree the Kimbrel trade would not have happened under Cherry, but I do think he was going to do some wheeling and dealing with his prospects. (Key words his prospects)

 

He certainly doesn't do Espi for Pom.

 

He might have done Price (or Cueto).

 

I do think he might have done Sale.

 

 

It does seem like a 3-4 year window might be right, but a lot can happen in 3 years.

[Hugh2]

People can speculate all they want but the reality is we have zero ideal what this team would look like if Ben C. never left.

 

Here is some food for thought. Despite his reputation, there was once a time when DD hoarded prospects and built up a great system. If the Sox had zero farm system and were still a last place team I suspect DD would take a completely different approach and would have held onto all the....oh well I guess we wouldn't have any chips.

 

After 2013 the team completely fell apart, for all we know, Ben C. could have changed gears and have been a wheeler and dealer himself. I'm not saying I think he would have only that we have a small window to really judge him. Look at what Theo did when he want to Chicago, he took a different approach his first few years as G.M. there than he had here in Boston.

[Emp9]

I think it's reasonable to suspect that BC wouldn't have made the Kimbrel or the Pom trade. I think having BC stick on as GM (No DD), we'd most likely have at least 2 more top 100 prospects in our system left over no matter what the circumstances would have been. The Pom trade definitely doesn't happen in this scenario, so Espinoza ( unless a part in the Sale trade of course ) would still be here. I also don't think he'd have traded Margot plus 3 others for Kimbrel, but we'd probably be looking for a Closer right now as we speak. Or if these trades did happen under BC or something equally similar, he'd have made sure we gotten back more than just Kimbrel or more than just Pomeranz. Probably more than just Sale too, the more I think about it. I do think BC was going to have to make a big trade eventually and it would've been for a TOTR SP (not Pomeranz, think Sale).

[Dojji]

One of the first and most obvious rules of being a GM is to meet the needs of ownership. That means making the right decisions and following the correct strategy, and executing it in such a way, that ownership's needs are met.

 

Ben Cherington's overall strategy was geared towards a small market team that can afford to be patient and accept rebuilding years. The Boston Red Sox are not a small market team. Winning now matters in this city and it matters with this ownership. He was a poor GM who did not adjust his thinking to the situation or prioritize the needs of the ownership over the needs of the franchise, and that's why he's gone.

 

BC was replaced because the dignity and pride of the Boston Red Sox franchise collapsed under Ben Cherington. The prestige BC cost us with his overly-passive approach, and worse, his repeated decisions that took on dead money for no gain, took money out of ownership's pocket. In a smaller market BC's strategy would have been a good one, but this is a large market that needs to win to maintain peak profibability, and BC was not meeting ownershi's needs in this era.

 

The first year of DD it's clear that he has an ownership mandate to restore the prestige of the big league team first and foremost -- so he did. ANd to his credit, unlike Cherington, he has done a good job so far of getting the right man, sometimes, especially for big market franchises, that's a lot more important than avoiding an overpay. When a team like the Red Sox or Yankees opens their wallet or empties their reserves, it's more important that the guy they get performs than how much he costs. Especially when the #1 goal is a return to relevance.

 

Sustainability is only ever the goal when there's something to sustain, after all, and Theo did the same thing to rebuild the roster with a 2 year string of deals when he came in as well (and then did the same again in Chicago).

 

DD now has 3 years to rebuild the farm system and move from a win-now model to a win-sustainably model. He's one of the more ingenious GM's in the business, I don't know why you guys are so unalterably convinced he won't manage to make that transition.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Dojji

[moonslav59]

One of the first and most obvious rules of being a GM is to meet the needs of ownership. That means making the right decisions and following the correct strategy, and executing it in such a way, that ownership's needs are met.

 

Very true, and I am certain Ben's "5 year plan" as I called it was approved by ownership just as DD's 3 year plan is now.

 

Ben Cherington's overall strategy was geared towards a small market team that can afford to be patient and accept rebuilding years. The Boston Red Sox are not a small market team. Winning now matters in this city and it matters with this ownership. He was a poor GM who did not adjust his thinking to the situation or prioritize the needs of the ownership over the needs of the franchise, and that's why he's gone.

 

Small market teams don't sign Pablo & HanRam in one day. Heck, they barely sign the Chris Young's and Mitchmoreland's of the world. Had Pablo and HanRam played well in 2015, BC would probably still be here. BC's biggest mistakes beyond the Lester fiasco was his FA signings. Even the Vic, Dempster, Napoli signings ended up being one year shine and then decline deals. Those were not "small market" deals either, but they contributed to BC's departure, even though the ring in 2013 might have added a year to his tenure in Boston.

 

I truly believe BC's plan was solid, but the execution was lacking and he was removed just before a major step was about to take place. I am firmly convinced he was going to build up the pitching in before 2016. In 2015, he realized the FA class was much better in 2016, so he went for two bats instead. They both sucked in 2015, yet without HanRam's contributions in 2016, we might not have looked like the turn around team we appeared to be last year. What if Price had bombed like the 2015 HanRam or the 2015-2016 Pablo? Would we be saying DD failed to meet the needs of ownership?

 

I do not think BC would have done the Kimbrel or Pom deals, but he would have gotten a closer somehow. It's not like Kimbrel is a feather in DD's hat so far either. Guerra's fall from grace and the massive rise of closer FA contracts have made that deal look better, but he was not the only closer acquired that winter. I am 100% positive BC would have signed at least one of the big FA SP'ers and would have dealt a significant amount of prospects for a quality vet or two. I didn't see many great deals go down by other teams that last BC winter that I thought, wow, I wish BC wasn't so stingy with his prospects and would have one upped the offer. I think BC might have even made the Sale trade last summer, instead of the Pom trade.

 

There's no way of knowing, but I do not think ownership was behind a plan to hoard prospects indefinitely. There was a plan to adjust course and do some wheeling and dealing at the time DD stepped in.

 

The poor performances by BC's free agent signings did him in. I'm not even so sure we can blame the Lester fiasco on BC. It very well could have been LL and the supposed rule of not signing any old pitchers long term that was lifted just in time for DD to step in and look like an innovator. Had that rule been lifted with BC in charge, who knows...

 

BC was replaced because the dignity and pride of the Boston Red Sox franchise collapsed under Ben Cherington. The prestige BC cost us with his overly-passive approach, and worse, his repeated decisions that took on dead money for no gain, took money out of ownership's pocket. In a smaller market BC's strategy would have been a good one, but this is a large market that needs to win to maintain peak profibability, and BC was not meeting ownershi's needs in this era.

 

I disagree. BC made some unbelievably dramatic moves. The Dodger dump was about as anti-passive as any deal in the history of the Red Sox. It was ballsy. It was one of the most impact trades in my lifetime. We dumped Theo's Pablo in CC. We dumped the malcontent in Beckett, and we gave up AGon who has just about barely earned his salary since the trade. It was a fantastic deal that was a major reason we won in 2013 and were able to rebuild the farm while fielding teams on paper that should have competed much better than they did in 2014 and 2015..

 

 

The first year of DD it's clear that he has an ownership mandate to restore the prestige of the big league team first and foremost -- so he did. ANd to his credit, unlike Cherington, he has done a good job so far of getting the right man, sometimes, especially for big market franchises, that's a lot more important than avoiding an overpay. When a team like the Red Sox or Yankees opens their wallet or empties their reserves, it's more important that the guy they get performs than how much he costs. Especially when the #1 goal is a return to relevance.

 

Lifting the ban on signing aging stud SP'ers certainly changed the dynamic of the GM's plans.

 

 

Sustainability is only ever the goal when there's something to sustain, after all, and Theo did the same thing to rebuild the roster with a 2 year string of deals when he came in as well (and then did the same again in Chicago).

 

Theo also mentioned the mistakes he made in Boston near the end by not keeping a proper balance and thinking FAs are the answer to every problem. I really thought BC was following the principles that Theo was doing with the Cubs. The difference was that BC missed on his FA signings and Theo nailed them.

 

I might add that the jury is still out on DD'd ballsy moves to acquire Kimbrel and Price. The Sale deal, to me anyways, looked like a no brainer. Maybe under BC, we'd have Cueto, Clippard, Thornburg and Sale and more with the prospects used to get Kimbrel.

 

Again, it's hard to project what might have been, but I think Emp is right, we'd probably have 2 more top 100 prospects and still be a top contender.

 

 

DD now has 3 years to rebuild the farm system and move from a win-now model to a win-sustainably model. He's one of the more ingenious GM's in the business, I don't know why you guys are so unalterably convinced he won't manage to make that transition.

 

When has he shown he can build a farm? It's not easy, and the rules have changed to make it even harder than it was before.

 

I'm happy with what DD has done. I love our roster right now, but I'm not kidding myself. The DD prospect purge is going to cost us later. I'm fine with the trade-off, but it was indeed a trade off- make no mistake about it.

 

We'll have to become the Dodgers East to keep winning beyond 4-5 years from now or get incredibly lucky with low draft picks and a more restrictive international FA market.

 

[Kimmi]

Well, he seems to fit a certain narrative. He tells us things we already know ( 3 yr window. I think most of us knew that before he did), mixed with things I personally don't agree with. Example: "So if the Kimbrel deal was a planet too far for Cherington, the Sale trade is in another galaxy entirely." I doubt this statement very much. Look, we already know, and have known for some time now, that we were not going to be able to extend every homegrown player we brought up. We weren't going to keep every prospect we had, even under Cherington that wouldn't have happened. The White Sox called the Red Sox on Sale btw, not the other way around. And just speaking for myself, I'm still pleased as punch we had so many graduates stick as we have had to date.

 

And what's Mookie supposed to say, really? He's not even Arb Eligible yet. He might as well of asked Benintendi about an extension.

 

What he wrote is mostly his opinion, nothing more. I just happen to agree with pretty much everything he said. Had Cherington remained GM, I think he was at the point where he would have traded away some of his prospects to better the current team, but he would not have depleted the farm. He would have struck more of a balance between the current team and preserving the future.

 

I think what irks me is that Theo and Ben spent years building one of the best farm systems in baseball, and in less than two years, Dombrowski has stripped it. I believe Keith Law's latest ranking was #16. Perhaps it wouldn't bother me so much if they were Dombrowski's prospects, in which case I would feel that he had more of a 'right' to deal them away.

 

Dombrowski is reaping the benefits of someone else's hard work.

[Kimmi]

I do agree the Kimbrel trade would not have happened under Cherry, but I do think he was going to do some wheeling and dealing with his prospects. (Key words his prospects)

 

He certainly doesn't do Espi for Pom.

 

He might have done Price (or Cueto).

 

I do think he might have done Sale.

 

 

It does seem like a 3-4 year window might be right, but a lot can happen in 3 years.

 

I agree that Cherington would have dealt away some of his prospects. His long term vision was coming to fruition. He should have been given the chance to see it through. What deals he might or might not have done, I don't know. But I can say with almost 100% certainty that we would have had a contending team last year, a contending team this year, and we would still have a strong farm.

[Kimmi]

One of the first and most obvious rules of being a GM is to meet the needs of ownership. That means making the right decisions and following the correct strategy, and executing it in such a way, that ownership's needs are met.

 

Ben Cherington's overall strategy was geared towards a small market team that can afford to be patient and accept rebuilding years. The Boston Red Sox are not a small market team. Winning now matters in this city and it matters with this ownership. He was a poor GM who did not adjust his thinking to the situation or prioritize the needs of the ownership over the needs of the franchise, and that's why he's gone.

 

BC was replaced because the dignity and pride of the Boston Red Sox franchise collapsed under Ben Cherington. The prestige BC cost us with his overly-passive approach, and worse, his repeated decisions that took on dead money for no gain, took money out of ownership's pocket. In a smaller market BC's strategy would have been a good one, but this is a large market that needs to win to maintain peak profibability, and BC was not meeting ownershi's needs in this era.

 

The first year of DD it's clear that he has an ownership mandate to restore the prestige of the big league team first and foremost -- so he did. ANd to his credit, unlike Cherington, he has done a good job so far of getting the right man, sometimes, especially for big market franchises, that's a lot more important than avoiding an overpay. When a team like the Red Sox or Yankees opens their wallet or empties their reserves, it's more important that the guy they get performs than how much he costs. Especially when the #1 goal is a return to relevance.

 

Sustainability is only ever the goal when there's something to sustain, after all, and Theo did the same thing to rebuild the roster with a 2 year string of deals when he came in as well (and then did the same again in Chicago).

 

DD now has 3 years to rebuild the farm system and move from a win-now model to a win-sustainably model. He's one of the more ingenious GM's in the business, I don't know why you guys are so unalterably convinced he won't manage to make that transition.

 

I very much disagree with most of this post.

[moonslav59]

I agree that Cherington would have dealt away some of his prospects. His long term vision was coming to fruition. He should have been given the chance to see it through. What deals he might or might not have done, I don't know. But I can say with almost 100% certainty that we would have had a contending team last year, a contending team this year, and we would still have a strong farm.

 

Agreed.

 

And, on paper, we should have been much better, if not contending, in 2015 as well.

 

People are assuming it was BC's plan to never trade a top prospect. I think that is a false narrative.

 

I also think the lifting of the ban on signing aging SP'ers and LL's removal just as DD took over as GM has to be a consideration when viewing the context from which each GM was working under.

[moonslav59]

MLBTR...

 

Drew Pomeranz told reporters (including Tim Britton of the Providence Journal) that he received a stem-cell injection in his left elbow after last season concluded. The southpaw said he felt some “minor elbow discomfort” last year but is now feeling healthy as he enters his pre-Spring Training preparations. Pomeranz’s health was a major source of controversy last season, as Padres GM A.J. Preller was issued a 30-day suspension for failing to disclose medical information about Pomeranz to the Red Sox before Boston acquired the lefty for top pitching prospect Anderson Espinoza. Speaking of Pomeranz, Red Sox president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski told the Boston Globe’s Pete Abraham and other reporters that the two sides are getting close to a deal to avoid an arbitration hearing. Pomeranz filed for a $5.7MM salary while the Sox countered with a $3.6MM offer.