Debunking the 3 year window myth -- the Red Sox in 2020

[moonslav59]

Of course no one has answered my question regarding how many draft picks the Sox have over the next 3-4 seasons.

 

How is it that those picks added to the current remains of our farm system can't possibly produce any MLB players or trade chips?

 

Pretty f***ing stupid to assume they will all be total schlock especially if you have cried about losing so many farm pieces under Dombrowski.

 

Somehow the math of the hand wringers does not add up.

 

And really, worst case Ontario is the Sox become a door mat for a couple of years. I can live with a Sox team that looks like the A's for a while.

 

That is because I love watching Sox baseball, even when the team sucks ass.

 

I don't rely on WAR, UZR, or any other metric for enjoyment.

 

We'll have less picks than we had before.

 

We'll have lower picks than we had before.

 

It's also supposed to be much harder for rich teams to hoard international FAs.

 

Those three facts do not mean we can or won't produce some major league players or "chips", but it is going to be much more difficult than before. Plus, it's not like we did really great with our drafts, if you took away all out comp picks and picks of players who fell down to us due to their unsignability factor. The fear is that increasingly more difficult rules are going to make it much much harder to keep stockpiling prospects.

 

The lining up of most of our better players' final contract years at a time when our farm may not "be there" to fill in the gaps seems to point to a "cliff" or at least a brief but significant downturn. Nobody pretends to know for sure, but surely you can see that a case can be made that things will get worse when we start losing one or two of our big guys due to free agency.

 

Want some "math?" Here's a look at just one area that has chanced: loss of comp picks for losing type A and B free agents. There are still some comp picks, but they are much rarer and can only be obtained by making qualified offers. (We probably won't have any of those in time to draft a player that can help in 2020 or 2021.

 

Since 2005, here's our best non comp pick draft picks and comp picks (in red):

 

2005:

1 Ellsbury

1 Hansen

1 Buccholz

1 Lowrie

1 Bowden

2 Egen

4 Blue

 

2006:

1 Place

1 Bard

1 Johnson

1 Clay

2 Masterson

3 Bates

3 Cox

4 Still

 

2007:

1 Hagadone

1 Dent

2 Morris

3 Huntzinger

4 Providence

 

2008:

1 Kelly

1 Price

2 Gibson

3 Fife

3 Weiland

4 Hissey

 

2009

1 Fuentes

2 Wilson

3 Renfroe

4 Hazelbaker

 

2010

1 Vitek

1 Brentz

1 Ranaudo

2 Workman

3 Coyle

4 Cecchini

 

2011:

1 Barnes

1 Swihart

1 Owens

1 Bradley

2 Jerez

3 Weems

4 N Ramirez

5 Betts

 

2012:

1 Marrero

1 Johnson

1 Light

2 Callahan

3 maddox

4 Buttrey

 

2013:

1 T Ball

2 Stanki

3 Denney

4 M Smith

 

2014:

1 Chavis

1 Kopech

2 Travis

3 Cosart

4 McAvoy

 

2015:

1 Beni

3 Rei

4 Matheny

 

2016:

1 Groome

2 Chatham

3 Anderson

4 Dalbec

 

2017:

1 Houck

2 Brannen

3 Netzer

4 Thompson

5 Scherff

 

Do the math: look at the red vs the black. Look at the drafts where we had no comp picks. Yes, we've had a few good picks beyond our comp picks. We even drafted Betts in the 5th round. Nothing is impossible, but it surely has gotten a heck of a lot harder to have drafts like 2005 and 2011.

 

Our MO used to be to let big FAs walk, stockpile the comp picks and then go out and sign new FAs, some not type As or Bs or qualifying offer FAs to fill the gaps. We can't play that game at that level anymore.

 

 

I'm not an expert on draft slot money allocations, but someone else could give you "math" on how drafting great players with the 26th pick, because they wanted big money and slipped down past poorer teams isn't going to happen very often with the new rules. It's a big change in the draft for richer teams.

 

The international bonuses have been restricted as well. Sorry, I don't have the "numbers", but they have changed for the worse as well.

 

Now, to your question, how many draft picks will we have in the next 3-4 years? Pretty much the same as everyone else, but with lower picks and with less picks per year than we've averaged since 2005 due to the loss of sometimes multiple comp picks. So, we had something like 40 picks last year, so my guess is we'll have about 120 picks in the next 3 years.

 

[a700hitter]

We'll have less picks than we had before.

 

We'll have lower picks than we had before.

 

It's also supposed to be much harder for rich teams to hoard international FAs.

 

Those three facts do not mean we can or won't produce some major league players or "chips", but it is going to be much more difficult than before. Plus, it's not like we did really great with our drafts, if you took away all out comp picks and picks of players who fell down to us due to their unsignability factor. The fear is that increasingly more difficult rules are going to make it much much harder to keep stockpiling prospects.

 

The lining up of most of our better players' final contract years at a time when our farm may not "be there" to fill in the gaps seems to point to a "cliff" or at least a brief but significant downturn. Nobody pretends to know for sure, but surely you can see that a case can be made that things will get worse when we start losing one or two of our big guys due to free agency.

 

Want some "math?" Here's a look at just one area that has chanced: loss of comp picks for losing type A and B free agents. There are still some comp picks, but they are much rarer and can only be obtained by making qualified offers. (We probably won't have any of those in time to draft a player that can help in 2020 or 2021.

 

Since 2005, here's our best non comp pick draft picks and comp picks (in red):

 

2005:

1 Ellsbury

1 Hansen

1 Buccholz

1 Lowrie

1 Bowden

2 Egen

4 Blue

 

2006:

1 Place

1 Bard

1 Johnson

1 Clay

2 Masterson

3 Bates

3 Cox

4 Still

 

2007:

1 Hagadone

1 Dent

2 Morris

3 Huntzinger

4 Providence

 

2008:

1 Kelly

1 Price

2 Gibson

3 Fife

3 Weiland

4 Hissey

 

2009

1 Fuentes

2 Wilson

3 Renfroe

4 Hazelbaker

 

2010

1 Vitek

1 Brentz

1 Ranaudo

2 Workman

3 Coyle

4 Cecchini

 

2011:

1 Barnes

1 Swihart

1 Owens

1 Bradley

2 Jerez

3 Weems

4 N Ramirez

5 Betts

 

2012:

1 Marrero

1 Johnson

1 Light

2 Callahan

3 maddox

4 Buttrey

 

2013:

1 T Ball

2 Stanki

3 Denney

4 M Smith

 

2014:

1 Chavis

1 Kopech

2 Travis

3 Cosart

4 McAvoy

 

2015:

1 Beni

3 Rei

4 Matheny

 

2016:

1 Groome

2 Chatham

3 Anderson

4 Dalbec

 

2017:

1 Houck

2 Brannen

3 Netzer

4 Thompson

5 Scherff

 

Do the math: look at the red vs the black. Look at the drafts where we had no comp picks. Yes, we've had a few good picks beyond our comp picks. We even drafted Betts in the 5th round. Nothing is impossible, but it surely has gotten a heck of a lot harder to have drafts like 2005 and 2011.

 

Our MO used to be to let big FAs walk, stockpile the comp picks and then go out and sign new FAs, some not type As or Bs or qualifying offer FAs to fill the gaps. We can't play that game at that level anymore.

 

 

I'm not an expert on draft slot money allocations, but someone else could give you "math" on how drafting great players with the 26th pick, because they wanted big money and slipped down past poorer teams isn't going to happen very often with the new rules. It's a big change in the draft for richer teams.

 

The international bonuses have been restricted as well. Sorry, I don't have the "numbers", but they have changed for the worse as well.

 

Now, to your question, how many draft picks will we have in the next 3-4 years? Pretty much the same as everyone else, but with lower picks and with less picks per year than we've averaged since 2005 due to the loss of sometimes multiple comp picks. So, we had something like 40 picks last year, so my guess is we'll have about 120 picks in the next 3 years.

 

The Best player in that whole list for me is Mookie and he was a 5th round pick. The rest of the long list is not very impressive at all, especially the 1st rounders after 2005.

[moonslav59]

The Best player in that whole list for me is Mookie and he was a 5th round pick. The rest of the long list is not very impressive at all, especially the 1st rounders after 2005.

 

So, if we continue to draft the way you think we have, we should be great in 3-4 years, right?

 

Many of those picks have been traded for key pieces over the years. For example, Kopech- a comp pick- helped us get Sale. What's interesting is that Kopech was a comp pick for losing Ellsbury who was a comp pick for losing OCab. This comp pick system was a gift that often kept on giving and giving. To think trading Nomar away had something to do with us still having Sale for 2 more years tells a big story.

[Nick]

Sox has the third highest payroll at $222M, slightly behind Yankees at $223M and Dodgers' $260M.

 

Toronto, Tigers and Giants are 4-6, spending $199M. $198M and $188M. Orioles are 9th at $182M. Guardians are 19th at $138M. Leauge average is $151M.

 

The point is Sox is one of big spenders and as fans, we should be thankful for Henry. But as you can see with Toronto, Tigers and Giants, money does not always buy winning teams. It sucks to be them.

 

Spending money WISELY becomes more and more critical as the league wants every team to finish 81-81, they call it competitive balance, I call it mediocrity.

 

We did the right thing with our bullpen. We passed on Ziegler, 2 years and $16M, Tazawa, 2 years and $12M, and Koji, 1 year and $6M. Joe Kelly is our 2nd highest paid reliever at $2.8M in his 2nd arb year.

And despite all of our complaints about lack of power, if we do end up winning the Division, signing Moreland was a stroke of genius, 1 year $5.5M. And that's with Hanley not helping out at 1B.

 

We'll have tough choices to make. We don't have enough money, even at say $230M to sign Xander, JBJ and Betts along with starting pitchers we'll need to compete at the top. Having Beni and Devers on the cheap will help. Will someone else step up so Sox will have enough money to spend it elsewhere? Is the shortstop position similar to bullpen? There are plenty of good defensive ss so as not to pay Borass client top dollars he surely will demand?

Edited September 17, 2017 by Nick

[jacksonianmarch]

I agree with Bellhorn. The sox minor league system was stocked with position player talent. Ben let Lackey and Lester walk out the door and his idea to replace then was to give Rick Porcello a giant contract, which has worked for 33% of his seasons in Boston so far. Outside of Espinosa, the rest of the sox pitching prospects were not panning out and the upper levels were devoid of good pitching talent. Dan had to build the staff, and quickly. The only way to do that is to spend money and prospects. He's clearly done a good job. You're 14 games away from clinching your second consecutive ALE title. But in doing so, the gap in the minors has widened tremendously. With Devers in the Bean, you've got no further reinforcements at the ready. This is your team for now and for awhile. Any other reinforcements will either come from surprise progressions in the minors or via FA. Major additions without big monetary expenses will be tough as the best sox prospects are so far away that most teams aren't gunning for them in deals for major players. And the sox are going to have smaller draft pools at th back end of the draft, so adding further talent will be harder than during Ben's run when the pool was a lot bigger. Also, your current talent is about to get expensive. This is why there's a cliff. If the sox were LA or NYY, then they'd just pay the price to keep the talent. But the sox aren't keen on leading baseball in salary, especially with the penalties added in the new CBA. Hence, the cliff

[S5Dewey]

I agree with Bellhorn. The sox minor league system was stocked with position player talent. Ben let Lackey and Lester walk out the door and his idea to replace then was to give Rick Porcello a giant contract, which has worked for 33% of his seasons in Boston so far. Outside of Espinosa, the rest of the sox pitching prospects were not panning out and the upper levels were devoid of good pitching talent. Dan had to build the staff, and quickly. The only way to do that is to spend money and prospects. He's clearly done a good job. You're 14 games away from clinching your second consecutive ALE title. But in doing so, the gap in the minors has widened tremendously. With Devers in the Bean, you've got no further reinforcements at the ready. This is your team for now and for awhile. Any other reinforcements will either come from surprise progressions in the minors or via FA. Major additions without big monetary expenses will be tough as the best sox prospects are so far away that most teams aren't gunning for them in deals for major players. And the sox are going to have smaller draft pools at th back end of the draft, so adding further talent will be harder than during Ben's run when the pool was a lot bigger. Also, your current talent is about to get expensive. This is why there's a cliff. If the sox were LA or NYY, then they'd just pay the price to keep the talent. But the sox aren't keen on leading baseball in salary, especially with the penalties added in the new CBA. Hence, the cliff

 

That's the bad news. The good news is that the Sox have the talent to challenge for the division championship for the next few years so they don't currently need that farm system.

 

During those few years, who knows what MLB will do? MLB is becoming more and more committed to building "parity" in baseball and negating the advantage the big spenders have, even without the help of the MLBPA if necessary. The Red Sox may be the first team to be crowded out of the running by the free spenders of baseball but MLB now has another weapon to use to create that parity - the draft. Don't think they won't use it, and when they do the Yankees and the Dodgers may become just another victim of MLB's parity movement.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree with Bellhorn. The sox minor league system was stocked with position player talent. Ben let Lackey and Lester walk out the door and his idea to replace then was to give Rick Porcello a giant contract, which has worked for 33% of his seasons in Boston so far. Outside of Espinosa, the rest of the sox pitching prospects were not panning out and the upper levels were devoid of good pitching talent. Dan had to build the staff, and quickly. The only way to do that is to spend money and prospects. He's clearly done a good job. You're 14 games away from clinching your second consecutive ALE title. But in doing so, the gap in the minors has widened tremendously. With Devers in the Bean, you've got no further reinforcements at the ready. This is your team for now and for awhile. Any other reinforcements will either come from surprise progressions in the minors or via FA. Major additions without big monetary expenses will be tough as the best sox prospects are so far away that most teams aren't gunning for them in deals for major players. And the sox are going to have smaller draft pools at th back end of the draft, so adding further talent will be harder than during Ben's run when the pool was a lot bigger. Also, your current talent is about to get expensive. This is why there's a cliff. If the sox were LA or NYY, then they'd just pay the price to keep the talent. But the sox aren't keen on leading baseball in salary, especially with the penalties added in the new CBA. Hence, the cliff

 

I agree with most of that. But it appears that even LAD and NYY have had enough of just paying whatever it takes to keep the big name talent. You guys let Cano walk and the Dodgers let Greinke walk. Times are changing.

[jacksonianmarch]

The dodgers were an interesting test case. They spent like drunken sailors on the amateur talent and on the professional side. Their minor league system is still loaded. They've got reserves. Back 20 years ago, if you had money, you'd win. Now, money and prospects are the currency of baseball

[S5Dewey]

The dodgers were an interesting test case. They spent like drunken sailors on the amateur talent and on the professional side. Their minor league system is still loaded. They've got reserves. Back 20 years ago, if you had money, you'd win. Now, money and prospects are the currency of baseball

 

And it's as least as much prospects as money now. And MLB recognizes it. Since MLB is now putting tighter reins on the draft, teams like the Sox and the Yankees are now buying up "International spending money" from other teams in an effort to sign international players. MLB will recognize that and take steps to stop that too. Parity is on the way.

 

It's going to be interesting to see what the owners can do to circumvent MLB's parity movement. Or maybe this will be an ongoing 'war', with moves and counter-moves into the future.

[notin]

The dodgers were an interesting test case. They spent like drunken sailors on the amateur talent and on the professional side. Their minor league system is still loaded. They've got reserves. Back 20 years ago, if you had money, you'd win. Now, money and prospects are the currency of baseball

 

LOL

 

Leave it to the Yankee fan to redefine currency based on his own team.

 

Prospects are at about their lowest value in 30 years. Sorry you guys hoarded them too late. But on the bright side, if they weren't so cheap, you wouldn't have been able to rebuild your farm by dealing two relievers....

[Emp9]

 

Many of those picks have been traded for key pieces over the years. For example, Kopech- a comp pick- helped us get Sale. What's interesting is that Kopech was a comp pick for losing Ellsbury who was a comp pick for losing OCab. This comp pick system was a gift that often kept on giving and giving. To think trading Nomar away had something to do with us still having Sale for 2 more years tells a big story.

 

Well, since you put it THAT way.

 

 

 

I do think that the Nomar trade is a perfect example of how we can/may try to avoid the cliff, in a way. There could be some hard choices ahead, but if done right, it could lead to sustainability past the cliff. Management needs to beat the grass to startle the snakes so to speak and find out who is most likely to re-sign and who isn't. A lot needs to happen for that to work. Being able to sell high on a controllable player (or a player worth their market salary) who's having a good year to a team in contention and of that need. Plus, at the same time, find a replacement for said player that's not too much of an immediate downgrade that hurts our chances at competing at the expense of building the farm back up a little. But trades do happen. They obviously want to sign Betts, which is smart. It shows they are indeed thinking about the future to at least some extent. I haven't heard of any offer to XB, which could be telling.

[moonslav59]

Sox has the third highest payroll at $222M, slightly behind Yankees at $223M and Dodgers' $260M.

 

Toronto, Tigers and Giants are 4-6, spending $199M. $198M and $188M. Orioles are 9th at $182M. Guardians are 19th at $138M. Leauge average is $151M.

 

The point is Sox is one of big spenders and as fans, we should be thankful for Henry. But as you can see with Toronto, Tigers and Giants, money does not always buy winning teams. It sucks to be them.

 

Spending money WISELY becomes more and more critical as the league wants every team to finish 81-81, they call it competitive balance, I call it mediocrity.

 

We did the right thing with our bullpen. We passed on Ziegler, 2 years and $16M, Tazawa, 2 years and $12M, and Koji, 1 year and $6M. Joe Kelly is our 2nd highest paid reliever at $2.8M in his 2nd arb year.

And despite all of our complaints about lack of power, if we do end up winning the Division, signing Moreland was a stroke of genius, 1 year $5.5M. And that's with Hanley not helping out at 1B.

 

We'll have tough choices to make. We don't have enough money, even at say $230M to sign Xander, JBJ and Betts along with starting pitchers we'll need to compete at the top. Having Beni and Devers on the cheap will help. Will someone else step up so Sox will have enough money to spend it elsewhere? Is the shortstop position similar to bullpen? There are plenty of good defensive ss so as not to pay Borass client top dollars he surely will demand?

 

Great points.

 

I do think Bogey walks, and like EMP suggests maybe trading a good player, like we did with Nomar, will need to be done. It's hard to pull the trigger on a trade like that when you are trying to compete.

 

Of all our younger stars and good players, it does seem Bogey is at the top of the that list. His stock is not as high as before, however, so getting back top talent might be lessened if we do it this winter. I get the feeling we'll keep all our top young ML players at least until just before their last year.

[moonslav59]

I agree with Bellhorn. The sox minor league system was stocked with position player talent. Ben let Lackey and Lester walk out the door and his idea to replace then was to give Rick Porcello a giant contract, which has worked for 33% of his seasons in Boston so far. Outside of Espinosa, the rest of the sox pitching prospects were not panning out and the upper levels were devoid of good pitching talent. Dan had to build the staff, and quickly. The only way to do that is to spend money and prospects. He's clearly done a good job. You're 14 games away from clinching your second consecutive ALE title. But in doing so, the gap in the minors has widened tremendously. With Devers in the Bean, you've got no further reinforcements at the ready. This is your team for now and for awhile. Any other reinforcements will either come from surprise progressions in the minors or via FA. Major additions without big monetary expenses will be tough as the best sox prospects are so far away that most teams aren't gunning for them in deals for major players. And the sox are going to have smaller draft pools at th back end of the draft, so adding further talent will be harder than during Ben's run when the pool was a lot bigger. Also, your current talent is about to get expensive. This is why there's a cliff. If the sox were LA or NYY, then they'd just pay the price to keep the talent. But the sox aren't keen on leading baseball in salary, especially with the penalties added in the new CBA. Hence, the cliff

 

Porcello was not on the "giant contract" year one, so it's not "33%". It's been 25% of the whole deal and over 50% of the giant deal, so far.

 

The rest I agree on.

[Bellhorn04]

Porcello was not on the "giant contract" year one, so it's not "33%". It's been 25% of the whole deal and over 50% of the giant deal, so far.

 

I think you can pick whichever scenario you like on that one. The extension was announced before Porcello pitched his first regular season game for us, and it was probably agreed to before that, with the announcement delayed because of AAV considerations.

[moonslav59]

I agree with most of that. But it appears that even LAD and NYY have had enough of just paying whatever it takes to keep the big name talent. You guys let Cano walk and the Dodgers let Greinke walk. Times are changing.

 

But, look what the Dodgers replaced Greinke with. They still keep spending and spending while saying they are going to slow down with their budget. Just their trades during the year have added a ton of contractual costs- even though short term.

 

Granderson

Yu Darvish

 

Last winter, they paid large and long to keep Jansen ($80M/5 for a closer) and Turner ($64M/4). They also signed Rich Hill to $48M/3. Not that Rich is an even replacement for Greinke, but they still spent super large last winter.

 

The winter before, they gave Brett Anderson a QO and signed:

 

Kazmir $48M/3

Maeda $25M/8

Kendrick $20M/2

Y Sierra $30M/6

Plus, Utley $7M/1, Howell $6M/1, Blanton $4M/1

 

The Yanks have let many of their big contracts walk, but many retired or were way over the hill to begin with.

 

[Bellhorn04]

But, look what the Dodgers replaced Greinke with. They still keep spending and spending while saying they are going to slow down with their budget. Just their trades during the year have added a ton of contractual costs- even though short term.

 

Granderson

Yu Darvish

 

Last winter, they paid large and long to keep Jansen ($80M/5 for a closer) and Turner ($64M/4). They also signed Rich Hill to $48M/3. Not that Rich is an even replacement for Greinke, but they still spent super large last winter.

 

The winter before, they gave Brett Anderson a QO and signed:

 

Kazmir $48M/3

Maeda $25M/8

Kendrick $20M/2

Y Sierra $30M/6

Plus, Utley $7M/1, Howell $6M/1, Blanton $4M/1

 

The Yanks have let many of their big contracts walk, but many retired or were way over the hill to begin with.

 

 

Good points about the Dodgers.

[moonslav59]

I think you can pick whichever scenario you like on that one. The extension was announced before Porcello pitched his first regular season game for us, and it was probably agreed to before that, with the announcement delayed because of AAV considerations.

 

Yes, but if you want to view it that way, then combine both contracts and the net cost is slightly lessened: instead of being $20.6M x 4, it would be $19M x 5.

[Spudboy]

Hmm. I am still not convinced that the situation is dire.

 

"Nobody pretends to know for sure" - this is simply not true and you know it.

 

 

The game of team building has had some rule changes. Changes that effect all MLB teams, not just the Sox.

 

With good management and strategy I see no reason why the Sox can not continue to compete.

 

And it is not like the abundance of Sox prospects that graduated and others who were used in deals have yielded an abundance of championships. In other words, being a rich team does not guarantee a f***ing thing.

 

My primary question remains unanswered.

[Kimmi]

What can't be overlooked is that while Ben left the team in great shape with position players, he left it in absolutely terrible shape with pitching. The total dearth of pitching is what prompted all of DD's major trades. Where else were we going to get pitching is the question.

 

To an extent. I agree that we needed to acquire a top pitcher in the 2016 offseason. I would not have gone all out on Price, but at least Price only cost money. I agree that we needed to trade for Pom at last year's deadline, and I was fine with that trade, though I thought the cost was a little high. Those things needed to be done.

 

I stand by my opinion that at the time the trade occurred, we did not need Sale. Our rotation looked pretty good. Sale was a luxury, not a need. In hindsight, it turns out that I was very wrong about needing him, but hindsight is 20/20. I also stand by my opinion that we overpaid for Kimbrel, regardless of how good he has been this year.

 

Again, it's not really one particular deal that I have issue with. It's the totality of the farm depletion that I think could have been avoided.

[moonslav59]

Good points about the Dodgers.

 

The Yanks have not come close to their 2014 off season signing barrage, but they may again someday soon.

 

That winter, they signed 4 players who had declined QOs (Kurda, McAnn, Beltran & Ellsbury).

[moonslav59]

Hmm. I am still not convinced that the situation is dire.

 

I'm not totally convinced there will be a cliff, but I'm pretty sure there will one.

 

 

"Nobody pretends to know for sure" - this is simply not true and you know it.

 

No, I don't "know it" at all. This is so far from the truth.

 

For one thing, I'm sure there is a wide range of what some might even call a "cliff". To me, a cliff mean we will not be highly competitive. We will not have high expectations going into the 2021 season, and maybe even 2020. That doesn't mean we might not squeak into the playoffs by over performing.

 

That doesn't mean I am setting the standards low. I thought we'd be highly competitive in 2014 and 2015, so even though we ended up finishing in last place, I would not have called those years "cliff years" before they started. My point is, there is a lot of gray area just on the definition of what a "cliff" is.

 

Secondly, I have not heard one poster say they are sure we will hit a cliff. We will still be one of the highest paid teams in 2020 and 2021, but as 2012, 2014 and 2015 showed that does not guarantee a highly competitive team in reality. We could probably have a 1,000 page debate on whether we were or were not "highly competitive" going into or during those 3 last place seasons. Extending that to conjecture over this team's position in 3-4 years is certainly not anything anyone can say "for sure".

 

 

 

The game of team building has had some rule changes. Changes that effect all MLB teams, not just the Sox.

 

Yes, some, but many are clearly only going to affect teams straddling the Luxury Tax line and who would overpay for draft picks that fall in the draft due to signability issues for poorer teams.

 

The international FA signing pool changes will affect higher spending teams. We've already seen many rich teams trade prospects for bonus slot money. Of course, that is a change from before.

 

Rules have been changed that affect poorer teams, like forcing them to spend more on their player payroll budget, but that pales in comparison to all the rules that were designed to make rich teams have a harder time acquiring top young talent.

 

 

With good management and strategy I see no reason why the Sox can not continue to compete.

 

You see "no reason"? All I can say is "WOW!"

 

 

And it is not like the abundance of Sox prospects that graduated and others who were used in deals have yielded an abundance of championships. In other words, being a rich team does not guarantee a f***ing thing.

 

It certainly helps a lot. There are times when poor teams compete and even win, but spending makes a huge difference. HUGE!

 

 

My primary question remains unanswered.

 

We've answered. You just don't like the answers.

 

[moonslav59]

To an extent. I agree that we needed to acquire a top pitcher in the 2016 offseason. I would not have gone all out on Price, but at least Price only cost money. I agree that we needed to trade for Pom at last year's deadline, and I was fine with that trade, though I thought the cost was a little high. Those things needed to be done.

 

I stand by my opinion that at the time the trade occurred, we did not need Sale. Our rotation looked pretty good. Sale was a luxury, not a need. In hindsight, it turns out that I was very wrong about needing him, but hindsight is 20/20. I also stand by my opinion that we overpaid for Kimbrel, regardless of how good he has been this year.

 

Again, it's not really one particular deal that I have issue with. It's the totality of the farm depletion that I think could have been avoided.

 

It's shocking to me that some seem to feel trading away all the prospects listed below is not going to have a major impact on our long term outlook. I have no issue with the argument that we might be smart over the next few years, draft better than we have in the past with picks below number 20, sign a few more good international free agents with less money to spend, and do better with our free agent signings than Pablo, HRam and Price. Maybe we can acquire enough good prospects to make another Sale-type trade before 2020 arrives. Sure, any of this is possible, however we may need close to all of this happening to be HIGHLY COMPETITIVE in 2020 or 2021. To me, that is improbable, if not highly improbable.

 

Recently traded prospects listed by highest ranking on soxprospects.com

 

1 Yoan Moncada

3 Anderson Espinoza

3 Manuel Margot

3 Garin Cecchini

5 Michael Kopech

6 Javier Guerra

7 Luis Ax. Basabe

9 Maurice Dubron

12 Travis Shaw (not a prospect when traded)

12 Wendell Rijo

13 Logan Allen

13 Pat Light

18 Luis Aj. Basabe

20 Carlos Asuage

21 Victor Diaz

24 Josh Pennington

30 Aaron Wilkerson

40 Jose Almonte

 

Now, clearly some of these guys have fallen off since the trade or had fallen off before the trade, but the sheer magnitude of top prospects traded makes it next to impossible to believe that none of these guys would have made made a positive impact on 2020 and 2021. Chances are several would have.

 

None of us "cliff-dwellers" have ever said we did not want to trade any of these guys. We had some duplicated value that almost necessitated some players being traded away at some point.

 

Just abou all these guys were traded away for players under team control for 2-3 years only. There's never been an emptying of the farm like this under Henry's reign. Theo always tried to balance prospect trades and spread them out over many years. Ben may have held onto too many prospects and for too long, but I for one, find it confusing that so many posters seem to feel like it just takes "smart management" to be able to recover from such a massive loss of young talent. It would have been hard, not impossible but hard, to recover, even if the rules haven't changed. It's much harder knowing the rules have changed significantly.

 

 

[Bellhorn04]

To an extent. I agree that we needed to acquire a top pitcher in the 2016 offseason. I would not have gone all out on Price, but at least Price only cost money. I agree that we needed to trade for Pom at last year's deadline, and I was fine with that trade, though I thought the cost was a little high. Those things needed to be done.

 

I stand by my opinion that at the time the trade occurred, we did not need Sale. Our rotation looked pretty good. Sale was a luxury, not a need.

 

But even if you thought our rotation without Sale was fine, his acquisition could be considered necessary to offset the loss of Papi. We knew we'd be scoring less runs so we had to give up correspondingly less. Because they didn't have the money under the tax threshold to sign Encarnacion. I don't think Sale was a luxury when you factor all those things in.

[notin]

I think you can pick whichever scenario you like on that one. The extension was announced before Porcello pitched his first regular season game for us, and it was probably agreed to before that, with the announcement delayed because of AAV considerations.

 

Not to mention, Porcello's first year was not part of the extension. He was a very rare case of a player getting overpaid and then actually earning his money. ..

[Bellhorn04]

Here is the pitching staff Ben left behind and their 2015 numbers:

 

Starters

Miley 4.46 ERA 193 IP

Porcello 4.92 ERA 172 IP

Kelly 4.82 ERA 134 IP

E-Rod 3.85 ERA 121 IP

Buch 3.26 ERA 113 IP

 

Bullpen

Koji 2.23 ERA 40 IP

Ross 3.86 ERA 60 IP

Tazawa 4.14 ERA 58 IP

Wright 4.09 ERA 72 IP

Barnes 5.44 ERA 43 IP

Hembree 3.55 ERA 25 IP

 

Top starter prospects MLB ready or near

Owens and Johnson

 

Pretty scary.

[Bellhorn04]

Not to mention, Porcello's first year was not part of the extension. He was a very rare case of a player getting overpaid and then actually earning his money. ..

 

He certainly earned his money in 2016.

[moonslav59]

But even if you thought our rotation without Sale was fine, his acquisition could be considered necessary to offset the loss of Papi. We knew we'd be scoring less runs so we had to give up correspondingly less. Because they didn't have the money under the tax threshold to sign Encarnacion. I don't think Sale was a luxury when you factor all those things in.

 

I totally agree, and the thought that guys like Sale don't come available very often.

 

(Then again, Quintana and Gray were recently traded in what I thought were actual "underpays".)

 

[cp176]

He certainly earned his money in 2016.

 

Porcello earned a little bit last night too. lol fun to watch!

[moonslav59]

Here is the pitching staff Ben left behind and their 2015 numbers:

 

Starters

Miley 4.46 ERA 193 IP

Porcello 4.92 ERA 172 IP

Kelly 4.82 ERA 134 IP

E-Rod 3.85 ERA 121 IP

Buch 3.26 ERA 113 IP

 

Bullpen

Koji 2.23 ERA 40 IP

Ross 3.86 ERA 60 IP

Tazawa 4.14 ERA 58 IP

Wright 4.09 ERA 72 IP

Barnes 5.44 ERA 43 IP

Hembree 3.55 ERA 25 IP

 

Top starter prospects MLB ready or near

Owens and Johnson

 

Pretty scary.

 

Yeah, it was scary, but I still maintain that if Porcello and HRam had their 2016 seasons in 2015, Ben would have been given at least another year's life.

[Bellhorn04]

Yeah, it was scary, but I still maintain that if Porcello and HRam had their 2016 seasons in 2015, Ben would have been given at least another year's life.

 

How about if they had their 2017 seasons in 2015?

 

Good old hypotheticals.