Sox get Sale

[moonslav59]

Rutledge may have the inside track for the 25th roster spot, seeing as to how he was a Rule 5 pick that someone wanted back for some reason. ..

 

I think Rutledge and Hernandez are close enough that Hernandez will be in AAA, so Rutledge grabs the 25 spot.

[S5Dewey]

sorry. then i dont understand your original point in the post i was responding to. did you or did you not want the "best" player to pitch? so you are basing it on last season's numbers? last 2 seasons numbers? career numbers? how are we differentiating Erod, Clay, Wright, Pom in CP176's world?

as for pedro, i was being facetious. i realize our top 3 are locked in regardless how they do in ST. i was just trying to comprehend how you were going to decide on our 4 & 5 starters by stating "the BEST player should pitch". again, how are we ranking those 4? by ST numbers????

 

After I read the post that started this dust-up I decided to write a post that would express what I think should happen, and I was going to do it very logically. First I designated Sale, Price, and Porcello as our top -3-gonna-start-no-matter-what guys. That took them out of the conversation. Then I was left with Buch, Kelly, Wright and Pom to decide on for our last two, with the other two being sent to.... I dunno... purgatory, I guess. :-(

 

And do you know what? I can make a solid case for any two of those guys to be #'s 4 & 5.

Buch has got ACE stuff.

Kelly can touch 100 on the gun, sometimes with control - but sometimes not. But he finished strong at the end of 2016

Wright - Was leading the staff until he got hurt last year.

Pom - Good enough to be a #4 or #5 for almost anyone, but is untried in the pen.

 

Given what we've got I'm tempted to go with Buch and Wright as #'s 4 & 5. Kelly can come out of the pen until we need another starter. But that leaves us with Pom as a long reliever, and as Slash says, I'd hate to think we traded our best prospect for a middle reliever. But... is that a reason to not do it if it makes the team better?

 

I ended up throwing up my arms in frustration and saying, "Screw it. There IS no good answer to this."

 

What a pleasant problem to have, though.

[moonslav59]

After I read the post that started this dust-up I decided to write a post that would express what I think should happen, and I was going to do it very logically. First I designated Sale, Price, and Porcello as our top -3-gonna-start-no-matter-what guys. That took them out of the conversation. Then I was left with Buch, Kelly, Wright and Pom to decide on for our last two, with the other two being sent to.... I dunno... purgatory, I guess. :-(

 

And do you know what? I can make a solid case for any two of those guys to be #'s 4 & 5.

Buch has got ACE stuff.

Kelly can touch 100 on the gun, sometimes with control - but sometimes not. But he finished strong at the end of 2016

Wright - Was leading the staff until he got hurt last year.

Pom - Good enough to be a #4 or #5 for almost anyone, but is untried in the pen.

 

Given what we've got I'm tempted to go with Buch and Wright as #'s 4 & 5. Kelly can come out of the pen until we need another starter. But that leaves us with Pom as a long reliever, and as Slash says, I'd hate to think we traded our best prospect for a middle reliever. But... is that a reason to not do it if it makes the team better?

 

I ended up throwing up my arms in frustration and saying, "Screw it. There IS no good answer to this."

 

What a pleasant problem to have, though.

 

You mean ERod not Kelly, I bet.

[Jack Flap]

Pom - Good enough to be a #4 or #5 for almost anyone, but is untried in the pen.

 

Not to nitpick, but the pomeranian has pitched 59 career games in relief with a 2.10 ERA and WHIP under 1.00. Much as it would gall me to see him in the bullpen because of the price we paid to acquire him, I also have to admit there's pretty good reason to think he could be an asset there.

[Kimmi]

The last sentence is a tad nasty I think but oh well.

 

My last sentence was in direct response to your first sentence in the post the I was responding to, and I quote:

 

"This seems to be a damn difficult concept for some people to understand."

 

Yeah, that was a tad nasty, so cut it out.

[Kimmi]

I understand the position of the writer. Personally I think he's a little too certain about the Red Sox not needing Sale. We might need him a lot. We don't know for sure that the other starters won't be struck by injury or underperformance. You can never have enough pitching and all that.

 

The writer may have been somewhat presumptuous in some of his statements, but IMO, he hit the nail on the head, presumptions and all. Let me reiterate something he said that I have said as well. There is nothing wrong with the Sale trade in a vacuum. It's the overall direction in which Dombrowski is steering this team.

[Kimmi]

After looking over this article my thought is... I like the trade. I understand the prospects that they traded. But my thought was at the time the starting staff was good not great. I completely understand everybody's under contract for a good amount of time. But Kimmi I don't have a problem with the Sale deal. The Pomeranz deal a little. It could have been voided. They chose not. The Red Sox have enough good/ great everyday players. They lacked a proven ace. That's not a knock on Price/Porcello. It was a good article. But they didn't say was Sale could take the pressure off the bullpen. That means a little less of Branes , Kelly, getting key late inning outs. I think Sale brings a little FU when he's on the mound. I think this could take the pressure off of Price. When you lose Ortiz your O drops . They replaced it with Sale and Thornburg. More pitching pitching... It's sort of like when a dog has puppies you can't keep every puppy. Some get sold. Sad but true.. I also think stashing Erod in the minors makes no sense. He the 4 th starter . He needs the ball every fifth day. I change on this everyday . I say move Bucholtz. I say move Pomeranz so they can restock the system. But I also saw in Cafardo's article that said both of their medical reports don't look good . I disagree. I keep both until after ST. They won't . But I would.

 

As I just posted, it's not the Sale trade, per se. It's the overall decimation of the farm that I don't like.

 

I do agree with you about Sale taking some pressure off the bullpen and making it stronger. Having 3 starters that can pitch into the 7th on a regular basis is huge for the pen.

 

Too much pitching is a good problem to have.

[Kimmi]

Without the Sale deal, the Sox were Play-off contenders. With Sale on board, they could be World Series contenders. This writer seems to forget that the Sox didn't win a game against the Guardians. Does anyone think the Guardians will be easier to beat in '17 when both Carrasco & Salazar are back to join Kluber? I have this strange feeling that Sale won't be a "Luxury" when/if we have to face them again in the Post Season.

 

The playoffs are largely a crapshoot. We were already playoff contenders. Making us World Series contenders doesn't really improve our chances of winning the World Series by much. Make it to the playoffs and anything can happen. The best team does not always win.

[Bellhorn04]

The playoffs are largely a crapshoot. We were already playoff contenders. Making us World Series contenders doesn't really improve our chances of winning the World Series by much. Make it to the playoffs and anything can happen. The best team does not always win.

 

My argument would be that acquiring Sale increases our chances of making the playoffs for the next 3 years. Yes, we were already playoff contenders, but there are a lot of things that can gone wrong even when you look great on paper at the start of the year. Even acquiring Sale doesn't guarantee we'll make the playoffs. It just improves our odds.

[Kimmi]

My argument would be that acquiring Sale increases our chances of making the playoffs for the next 3 years. Yes, we were already playoff contenders, but there are a lot of things that can gone wrong even when you look great on paper at the start of the year. Even acquiring Sale doesn't guarantee we'll make the playoffs. It just improves our odds.

 

I don't disagree that acquiring Sale increases our chances of making the playoffs. I have never disagreed with the short term improvement of our team.

 

As Hugh said, would you rather be in the position of having a very good chance of making the playoffs for the next 10 years, or of having a slightly better chance of making the playoffs, but only for the next 3-4 years?

 

I go with the former.

[cp176]

My last sentence was in direct response to your first sentence in the post the I was responding to, and I quote:

 

"This seems to be a damn difficult concept for some people to understand."

 

Yeah, that was a tad nasty, so cut it out.

 

Cut what out?

[Kimmi]

Cut what out?

 

Cut out your nastiness.

[cp176]

Cut out your nastiness.

 

I'm nasty? ok - I'll certainly stop being that way. How about you?

[cp176]

sorry. then i dont understand your original point in the post i was responding to. did you or did you not want the "best" player to pitch? so you are basing it on last season's numbers? last 2 seasons numbers? career numbers? how are we differentiating Erod, Clay, Wright, Pom in CP176's world?

as for pedro, i was being facetious. i realize our top 3 are locked in regardless how they do in ST. i was just trying to comprehend how you were going to decide on our 4 & 5 starters by stating "the BEST player should pitch". again, how are we ranking those 4? by ST numbers????

 

I have no idea how I am ranking these guys. Just the eye test I guess. I think that E-Rod is a better pitcher then the other three.

[harmony]

Beyond the Box Score posted a positive take on the impact Chris Sale will have on the Red Sox rotation:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/12/15/13937042/boston-red-sox-chris-sale-rotation-preview

[Kimmi]

I'm nasty? ok - I'll certainly stop being that way. How about you?

 

Explain to me how you make a snide remark regarding other people's inability to understand a concept, I respond in kind, but I'm the nasty one.

 

FTR, I'm about as far from nasty as anyone can be. I'm extremely sweet and loveable.

[cp176]

Explain to me how you make a snide remark regarding other people's inability to understand a concept, I respond in kind, but I'm the nasty one.

 

FTR, I'm about as far from nasty as anyone can be. I'm extremely sweet and loveable.

 

Evidently we share some common traits. I am one soft talking, fun loving, all around good guy. Tell you what - earlier I wished you a Merry Christmas. I am upgrading that to a Happy New Year as well!

[moonslav59]

Beyond the Box Score posted a positive take on the impact Chris Sale will have on the Red Sox rotation:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/12/15/13937042/boston-red-sox-chris-sale-rotation-preview

 

Kind of avoided taking about the long term effects.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't disagree that acquiring Sale increases our chances of making the playoffs. I have never disagreed with the short term improvement of our team.

 

As Hugh said, would you rather be in the position of having a very good chance of making the playoffs for the next 10 years, or of having a slightly better chance of making the playoffs, but only for the next 3-4 years?

 

I go with the former.

 

Sure, hypothetically speaking it would be great to have a very good chance of making the playoffs for the next 10 years, but it's not realistic. Maintaining a winning team is only going to get more difficult. When you've got great young players like Mookie and Bogaerts and JBJ it's terrific, but how are you going to pay them all when they get past their control years? Even their later arbitration years are going to be expensive.

 

And if you finish high a few years in a row you get low draft picks.

 

The system is set up for parity. The Red Sox organization obviously feels they need to capitalize on their window of opportunity.

[moonslav59]

Sure, hypothetically speaking it would be great to have a very good chance of making the playoffs for the next 10 years, but it's not realistic. .

 

Realistically, I think before the trades, we were set up to do just that- have a very good chance to make the playoffs for the next 10 years. We had ML ready prospects, mid level prospects and far away prospects plus a core of young studs and 2 vet aces- one for 4 years and one for 7 years.

[moonslav59]

The Red Sox organization obviously feels they need to capitalize on their window of opportunity.

 

Clear as day, and I'm more than fine with their evaluation of the situation.

 

Making the playoffs 9 or 10 out of the next 10 seasons is very nice, but just show me the ring, baby! I like that better.

 

I suffered through enough of the bridesmaid decades.

[Bellhorn04]

Realistically, I think before the trades, we were set up to do just that- have a very good chance to make the playoffs for the next 10 years. We had ML ready prospects, mid level prospects and far away prospects plus a core of young studs and 2 vet aces- one for 4 years and one for 7 years.

 

You can't project 10 years without a lot of massive assumptions.

[moonslav59]

You can't project 10 years without a lot of massive assumptions.

 

Of course, but I can't imagine any team being better set up for a 10 year stretch of competitiveness than we were before the Kimbrel trade and assuming we still signed Price.

 

Nothing is certain in MLB, even making the playoffs next year.

[a700hitter]

Of course, but I can't imagine any team being better set up for a 10 year stretch of competitiveness than we were before the Kimbrel trade and assuming we still signed Price.

 

Nothing is certain in MLB, even making the playoffs next year.

The Kimbrel trade destroyed a 10 year run of competitiveness? Is that what you are saying?

[moonslav59]

The Kimbrel trade destroyed a 10 year run of competitiveness? Is that what you are saying?

 

Not alone, of course not.It was the starting point of nearly emptying the farm.

 

Before the Kimbrel trade was also before the Espi, Hill, Moncada and Shaw trades,

Edited December 16, 2016 by moonslav59

[southpaw777]

I agree, but they may move up to Travis status not Moncada, Kopech, Espi & Margot status.

 

Yup, just have to be a little patient before we start proclaiming the future is "doomed"

Which travis? Shaw or Sam? But really, the jury is still out on both, although Shaw may very well be what we saw. Sam Tavis may still turn out to be a 300BA with 20+ HR in MLB.

[southpaw777]

I don't disagree that acquiring Sale increases our chances of making the playoffs. I have never disagreed with the short term improvement of our team.

 

As Hugh said, would you rather be in the position of having a very good chance of making the playoffs for the next 10 years, or of having a slightly better chance of making the playoffs, but only for the next 3-4 years?

 

I go with the former.

 

Who says those are our only options? Only a few of you.

Some of us believe that the farm system still has a number of potentially good future mlb players. That, along with good draft/development, signing some homegrown core players long term and smart trades to bring back prospects over the next 3-4 years make some of us believe that we indeed WILL be a playoff contending team for another decade.

Realistically, none of us can predict what will happen over the next few years. Ill say this though. I hardly think its going to be as doom and gloom as some are talking.

Edited December 16, 2016 by southpaw777

[Wade Boggs]

Some of these statements are pretty presumptuous. How does the writer know that last offseason the White Sox weren't insisting on Betts or Bogaerts in a deal for Sale? Does the writer not think the price on Sale may have dropped since last offseason? Most of us were surprised we didn't have to include any major league talent in the deal.

 

Just going back as early November the CHW wanted Beni and Devers. They weren't taking nothing else. At the TDL last July they wanted Betts or XB. They would have taken Bradley but not as a centerpiece of the deal. They wanted top prospects from all the teams. The price drops from one top prospect. Just so they can ask for the other top one on the board who's next in line. If they take no great young players off your roster, they take 2 out of 5 best prospects.

 

I agree 100%

[Wade Boggs]

Not alone, of course not.It was the starting point of nearly emptying the farm.

 

Before the Kimbrel trade was also before the Espi, Hill, Moncada and Shaw trades,[/quote

 

Would you have drained the farm for Q .. The other White Sox pitcher just for the extra 2 years of control. They would have wanted that type of deal. Just look at what they wanted from Houston. It could be rumors. But the facts are not far behind.

I might think about moving Pom just to re- stock the system. They could get a good pitching prospect for him. What the Marlins turned down for Bucholtz would they take that for Pom... Could you get the #2 pitching prospect they have for Pom.

[southpaw777]

Just going back as early November the CHW wanted Beni and Devers. They weren't taking nothing else. At the TDL last July they wanted Betts or XB. They would have taken Bradley but not as a centerpiece of the deal. They wanted top prospects from all the teams. The price drops from one top prospect. Just so they can ask for the other top one on the board who's next in line. If they take no great young players off your roster, they take 2 out of 5 best prospects.

 

I agree 100%

 

I read they wanted Beni and Betts in any deal for Sale just this summer...Obviously nobody was going to give up that kind of a haul, not even for Sale. To think DD could keep the MLB roster in tact and only give up potential future MLB players I would have said you were crazy. No way...

out of all of the prospects we traded i think Kopech is going to hurt the most. But just one WSC over the next couple years will help me forget about that pretty quickly...