What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[notin]

Playoff chokers in your rotation are all I can come up with. Unless your entire team gets Ebola, you're winning the east

 

On paper, Toronto is right there. Their quiet off-season and loss of key personnel shouldn't overshadow how good they were to begin with, and the potential for growth in some key players, notably Stroman and Sanchez...

[moonslav59]

It's not like the Sox even got much for them. The long view of that deal is the Sox got Carson Smith and his 2IP.

 

We did get Miley for a year, and Elias is still on the 40 man roster, but not looking too hopeful right now (Webster/DLR to AZ trade).

 

Jerry Sands was a very tiny part of the trade that brought us Holt & Hanrahan, but I would NOT argue we have Holt as a result of that trade.

 

The trade, to me, was more about dumping salary and allowing us to get better players than any form of chemistry reformation.

 

[moonslav59]

On paper, Toronto is right there. Their quiet off-season and loss of key personnel shouldn't overshadow how good they were to begin with, and the potential for growth in some key players, notably Stroman and Sanchez...

 

Their pitching staff looks very good, but it also has room for significant growth.

 

Losing EE and Saunders has got to hurt though. That's 66 HRs and 184 RBI. I don't see many offensive players with upside potential to help reduce the significance of losing 2 big bats.

[Eddy Ballgame]

But one way of looking at"change the culture of the clubhouse" is that it means "bring in new players. " Is it about culture or baseball ability? Getting rid of Beckett and company might have involved guys who didn't want to be in Boston, but the underlying truth is also that Beckett and especially Crawford sucked. It's not like the Sox even got much for them. The long view of that deal is the Sox got Carson Smith and his 2IP.

 

But losing them also allowed for a really good down payment for Uehara, Victorino, Napoli, Drew, and Dempster. Better players? New culture? Which was more important?

 

And Dempster's off field contributions get much more praise than his oft-ignored on-field performance. While not great, he was a step up over what was left of Beckett, and was probably one of the better back of the rotation starters in the AL.

 

I doubt any team ever assembled had 25 guys who all liked each other. There are plenty of stories about the Oakland A's and their ubiquitous loathing of each other. It didn't stop them from winning three straight titles.

 

I just doubt how much all of our perception of camaraderie matters, especially among teams with enough talent and few weaknesses. Health is a much bigger deal to me....

 

I don't think clubhouse chemistry/culture Is all about "getting along" or "liking each other." There are all sorts of different factors involved. You cite those A's teams from 45 years ago that won without necessarily getting along, although the off the field stuff was a hell of a lot different back then. You didn't have 20 guys on every team who were pretty much set for life financially. They were playing for their next contract.

 

That 2012 team didn't respect the manager, there were big name players that didn't want to be there, Beckett was "supposedly" setting a bad example for young pitchers, among other things. They were a dysfunctional mess.

 

When Ben said that he needed to change the culture of the clubhouse and "One name that kept coming up in different conversations over and over again was Ryan Dempster" probably had little to do with Dempster's pitching ability.

 

Do you think they take a shot on Justin Masterson at 10 million if he was an *******? Nope, he was one of the most respected, well-liked players in the game. The 2013 Sox rallied around a tragedy. Jonny Gomes & "Boston Strong" became their "identity." In '04 it was "the Idiots" and Kevin Millar. Getting rid of a sulking Nomar definitely seemed to help that team as well.

 

I'm not saying that every team needs something like that, but there's a reason why people always say that "all-star teams don't win Championships." I had friends who dismissed the 2012 off-season as acquiring a bunch of mediocre players. I remember thinking that they already had a solid nucleus and these are the types of guys that they need. It's all certainly debatable and I can definitely see both sides of the argument.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Eddy Ballgame

[Eddy Ballgame]

It's not like the Sox even got much for them. The long view of that deal is the Sox got Carson Smith and his 2IP.

 

We did get Miley for a year, and Elias is still on the 40 man roster, but not looking too hopeful right now (Webster/DLR to AZ trade).

 

Jerry Sands was a very tiny part of the trade that brought us Holt & Hanrahan, but I would NOT argue we have Holt as a result of that trade.

 

The trade, to me, was more about dumping salary and allowing us to get better players than any form of chemistry reformation.

 

 

It's no secret that Gonzalez & Beckett were going to be gone that off season if that Dodger trade didn't pop up, They were going to make every effort to move Crawford as well. Yes, the money was a huge factor, but don't underestimate the importance of getting rid of 3 high profile guys who didn't want to be there.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Eddy Ballgame

[moonslav59]

It's no secret that Gonzalez & Beckett were going to be gone that off season if that Dodger trade didn't pop up, They were going to make every effort to move Crawford as well. Yes, the money was a huge factor, but don't underestimate the importance of getting rid of 3 high profile guys who didn't want to be there.

 

The fact that the whole league knew we wanted to dump those 3 players makes the actual trade even more amazing to me. The Dodgers took on almost all of the contractual cost. We only had to pay less than $12M spread over 3 years!

 

It was one of the most impactful trades the Sox have made in my lifetime. The Pedro, VTek-Lowe and Schill trades were spectacular, but the Dodger dump helped win us a ring in 2013 and is still impacting the team today.

[Eddy Ballgame]

I completely agree. I guess the Dodgers figured that their TV contract was going to allow them to print money, so they probably thought that they were getting 3 all-star caliber players who wanted a change of scenery for not much talent in return. I was in shock when I first heard about it. Then again, I wasn't aware of the actual TV contract numbers. It's definitely one of the most pivotal trades in Sox history in my opinion.

[mvp 78]

I completely agree. I guess the Dodgers figured that their TV contract was going to allow them to print money, so they probably thought that they were getting 3 all-star caliber players who wanted a change of scenery for not much talent in return. I was in shock when I first heard about it. Then again, I wasn't aware of the actual TV contract numbers. It's definitely one of the most pivotal trades in Sox history in my opinion.

 

It was right after an ownership change and they wanted to trot Magic out there and show LA how they were going to be better than the McCourt years. At the end of the day, it really hasn't changed that much (at least results wise).

[Eddy Ballgame]

http://www.espn.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8323305/boston-red-sox-los-angeles-dodgers-blockbuster-trade-anatomy

 

Great read on how it supposedly all unfolded over time.

[moonslav59]

http://www.espn.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8323305/boston-red-sox-los-angeles-dodgers-blockbuster-trade-anatomy

 

Great read on how it supposedly all unfolded over time.

 

"In one fell swoop, the Red Sox shed $262.5 million in payroll...it is, an opportunity, a unique opportunity to reset our roster and payroll. What we do, and how well we do it, will be the determinant of the ultimate success of the transaction."- Lucchino

[Bellhorn04]

http://www.espn.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8323305/boston-red-sox-los-angeles-dodgers-blockbuster-trade-anatomy

 

Great read on how it supposedly all unfolded over time.

 

If the details of the story are accurate, Cherington's role in the transaction basically boiled down to getting us Rubby de la Rosa and Allen Webster, and doing the administrative work.

[Spudboy]

The fact that the whole league knew we wanted to dump those 3 players makes the actual trade even more amazing to me. The Dodgers took on almost all of the contractual cost. We only had to pay less than $12M spread over 3 years!

 

It was one of the most impactful trades the Sox have made in my lifetime. The Pedro, VTek-Lowe and Schill trades were spectacular, but the Dodger dump helped win us a ring in 2013 and is still impacting the team today.

 

Is it widely accepted that the Sox wanted to purge AGon? I never heard that. I have heard repeatedly that the Dodgers wanted AGon and that was the aspect of the deal that made getting rid of the other two possible.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Spudboy

[a700hitter]

If the details of the story are accurate, Cherington's role in the transaction basically boiled down to getting us Rubby de la Rosa and Allen Webster, and doing the administrative work.

Cherington was an errand boy. He never gave any indication that he could even conceptualize such a massive deal. It was Henry all along.

[Spudboy]

Good article. I had not seen that before.

 

The article makes no mention of the Sox desiring to unload Gonzalez.

[Bellhorn04]

The Dodgers trade was a piece of extreme luck that came about because of the Dodgers' change in ownership. Full credit to Henry and Lucchino for seizing on the opportunity.

[moonslav59]

Is it widely accepted that the Sox wanted to purge AGon? I never heard that. I have heard repeatedly that the Dodgers wanted AGon and that was the aspect of the deal that made getting rid of the other two possible.

 

My bad. AGon was not included in those wanting to dump.

[moonslav59]

I remember, at the time of the Dodger dump trade, many Sox fans hated or were ambivalent about the deal.

[Slasher9]

i like our 2017 team. a lot. i would love it if Papi was still on it.

this is going to be a fun season.

[moonslav59]

i like our 2017 team. a lot. i would love it if Papi was still on it.

this is going to be a fun season.

 

I'm super excited about this season and our chances for greatness.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Is it widely accepted that the Sox wanted to purge AGon? I never heard that. I have heard repeatedly that the Dodgers wanted AGon and that was the aspect of the deal that made getting rid of the other two possible.

 

It doesn't say in that particular article that the Sox were intent on trading Gonzalez, but when the Dodgers asked initially, they were told he was unavailable. As the season wore on with the cellphone incident in New York, the whining about Sunday night games and the rumors that he was pretty miserable here, they decided to make him available.

 

They were supposedly going to do everything they could to move him that off season if the Dodger trade didn't present itself. I think the real misconception was that the Sox didn't want to trade Gonzalez, but were forced to do so in order to get rid of the Beckett/Crawford deals.

[notin]

And your offense will slip a bit with Papi gone.

 

I think the idea is that with Sale on board the Sox won't need to score as many runs. ..

[moonslav59]

I think the idea is that with Sale on board the Sox won't need to score as many runs. ..

 

Agreed, but I think the 2017 Sox offense may surprise a lot of Sox fans.

 

Certainly, there is a chance we decline by as much or more than the differential between Moreland and Papi, but I think the chances are we improve at the other 8 slots combined to some extent.

[Dojji]

Bogaerts always feels like he's a little more consistency from a major breakthrough. He's already great, but the potential for more is obvious. He could pick up a lot of the slack himself ie he can tighten his approach at the plate and stop falling into those extended slumps.

[mvp 78]

Bogaerts always feels like he's a little more consistency from a major breakthrough. He's already great, but the potential for more is obvious. He could pick up a lot of the slack himself ie he can tighten his approach at the plate and stop falling into those extended slumps.

 

It's the "always" that will do him in. I think he'll be a good SS for his career, but will never meet the ungodly high expectations that were heaped on him.

[moonslav59]

Bogaerts always feels like he's a little more consistency from a major breakthrough. He's already great, but the potential for more is obvious. He could pick up a lot of the slack himself ie he can tighten his approach at the plate and stop falling into those extended slumps.

 

I'm worried more about his defensive regression last year. I think his bat will develop just fine.

[S5Dewey]

I'm worried more about his defensive regression last year. I think his bat will develop just fine.

 

Don't even go there! :D

[moonslav59]

Don't even go there! :D

 

He was never a very good fielding SS to begin with, so yeah, I'm going there.

[Eddy Ballgame]

He was never a very good fielding SS to begin with, so yeah, I'm going there.

 

Well, the Tigers have certainly made it clear that Iglesias is available, so maybe the Sox can make a trade to get him back and stick their current young all star shortstop at a position where he isn't comfortable playing again. Iglesias probably wouldn't cost much at all, either.

 

By the way, although I'm not a big fan of defensive metrics to begin with, I certainly wouldn't "worry" about Bogaerts. Several factors could've played a role in his "stats declining."

[moonslav59]

Well, the Tigers have certainly made it clear that Iglesias is available, so maybe the Sox can make a trade to get him back and stick their current young all star shortstop at a position where he isn't comfortable playing again. Iglesias probably wouldn't cost much at all, either.

 

By the way, although I'm not a big fan of defensive metrics to begin with, I certainly wouldn't "worry" about Bogaerts. Several factors could've played a role in his "stats declining."

 

It's not just defensive metrics that showed a defensive decline by Bogey. His RF/9, Fldg% and chances were all down from 2015. My eye test also showed decline. Bogey got 17 points on the Fielding Bible voting in 2015. He didn't get a single vote as a top 10 defensive SS in 2016.

 

I think his decline was clear. Where he started from is debatable.

 

I don't want to trade for a SS now. I want to see what Pablo can do in 2017. If he sucks, a debate might start about us acquiring a 3B man or a SS, but Bogey is not going to be moved to 3B for years to come, IMO.

 

The Fielding Bible is a good source to me...

 

http://www.fieldingbible.com/complete-voteTally.asp

Edited January 26, 2017 by moonslav59

[Dojji]

It's the "always" that will do him in. I think he'll be a good SS for his career, but will never meet the ungodly high expectations that were heaped on him.

 

I'm not talking about expectations, no one's putting Nomar on Bogaerts here. I'm talking about potential based on what he's already shown himself to be capable of. Bogey showed us something the first half last year, he's capable of production at a very, very high level when he's going good. If he can make adjustments sooner and stay out of the big awful half-season slumps, his numbers could be Godly in any given year.