A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[moonslav59]

amazing. every word of what you just said is wrong.

 

Shocking from such a respected poster. I'm wondering if it was a typo or five of em.

[cp176]

It's not "all of a sudden." Stop, please.

 

THose who have been defending Ben and critical of DD on trading prospects are not against ever trading prospects, especially ones that may be blocked, may be over-rated (in our opinions) or who we want to maybe trade for another very young player at a higher need position.

 

Trading Dalbec for another prospect is is not the same as trading 4 for a vet.

 

Nobody is saying "wait forever" on every single prospect.

 

I'm glad we "waited" on Betts, Bogey & Devers.

 

stop please what? You make it sound as though I am accusing you of something and i'm not. Can a gm really get it right in your world? Maybe I should say things like - it appears to me or it is my opinion - . I'll defend myself pretty well and I do in fact think that there is an ample amount of hypocrisy evident on this board.

[Nick]

If you bundle Chavis with a vet and get a young player that is better than Chavis, how is that bad?

 

Chavis + Hembree for a better RP'er.

 

Chavis + Dalbec for a young 1Bman who can actually play 1B and has a better bat.

 

I wouldn't trade every day player for a reliever.

 

Chavis + Dalbec may start at two positions and play it well.

[cp176]

amazing. every word of what you just said is wrong.

 

That is all you got for me Slasher? Really? How about it is my opinion. I'm fine with you thinking that I am all wrong. Hey perhaps you'll even get another post of the day comment from the people who share your feelings.

[notin]

stop please what? You make it sound as though I am accusing you of something and i'm not. Can a gm really get it right in your world? Maybe I should say things like - it appears to me or it is my opinion - . I'll defend myself pretty well and I do in fact think that there is an ample amount of hypocrisy evident on this board.

 

I think the "Stop please" refers to your attempt to paint the idea of trading prospects into two extreme categories only, known as "always" and "never". It is an absolute necessity for a team to do it sometimes. However, Dombrowski absolutely went overboard in that regard.

 

In fact, my biggest complaint about Cherington, which I have made multiple times, was that he never traded any prospects. Certainly it was wise to hang on to Betts and Bogaerts, but he did not need to hang on to all of them.

 

What the Sox need is a Happy Medium. A GM who trades some of the good prospects for neeeded MLB talent but also holds on to some and gives the Sox a necessary influx of dirt cheap MLB talent as well...

[cp176]

Shocking from such a respected poster. I'm wondering if it was a typo or five of em.

 

Was this in reference to me Moon? It would be a good thing if everyone played nicely i suppose but it seems to me that much like the political landscape today there is no middle ground. I am pretty content with my opinions.

[notin]

I wouldn't trade every day player for a reliever.

 

Chavis + Dalbec may start at two positions and play it well.

 

I would in certain cases. I wouldn't make any sweeping generalizations like that, especially taking into consideration how important the bullpen is in today's game. And how important it will be for the 2020 Red Sox if they need to shorten games if any or all of Sale/Price/Eovaldi can't pitch well or can't pitch at all...

[notin]

Was this in reference to me Moon? It would be a good thing if everyone played nicely i suppose but it seems to me that much like the political landscape today there is no middle ground. I am pretty content with my opinions.

 

I think he might be referring to the silly notion that the Sox farm DD inherited wasn't very good because most of the under-25 crowd he dealt away have not become all stars. It's a silly mantra to keep repeating...

[cp176]

I think the "Stop please" refers to your attempt to paint the idea of trading prospects into two extreme categories only, known as "always" and "never". It is an absolute necessity for a team to do it sometimes. However, Dombrowski absolutely went overboard in that regard.

 

In fact, my biggest complaint about Cherington, which I have made multiple times, was that he never traded any prospects. Certainly it was wise to hang on to Betts and Bogaerts, but he did not need to hang on to all of them.

 

What the Sox need is a Happy Medium. A GM who trades some of the good prospects for neeeded MLB talent but also holds on to some and gives the Sox a necessary influx of dirt cheap MLB talent as well...

 

I agree with the bulk of your post notin but I'm not so sure that the "stop please" comment had anything to do with my views regarding trades and when and how they get done. Your approach is a much more middle ground approach which I appreciate. it is pretty much how I feel.

[cp176]

I think he might be referring to the silly notion that the Sox farm DD inherited wasn't very good because most of the under-25 crowd he dealt away have not become all stars. It's a silly mantra to keep repeating...

 

 

I understnd but it does seem to be intolerable to some that there can actually be a person here not willing to accept the viewpoints of the "loudest" among us. I would leave this topic absolutely alone if others could move on but that does not seem to be the case.

[kenmeister]

NEVER, EVER extend pitchers. Pay fair market value at the time of contract expiration (unless of course you trade him).

 

I sincerely hope extending Sale isn't going to kill the Sox for the next 5 years, but I fear it will. One possible future for the Sox is a legion of dead weight contracts: Pedroia, Sale, Price, & Eovaldi all unable to play due to injuries or ineffectiveness, plus Castillo doomed to AAA forever.

[notin]

I sincerely hope extending Sale isn't going to kill the Sox for the next 5 years, but I fear it will. One possible future for the Sox is a legion of dead weight contracts: Pedroia, Sale, Price, & Eovaldi all unable to play due to injuries or ineffectiveness, plus Castillo doomed to AAA forever.

 

The one bright spot in your scenario is this is the last year of Rusney's deal. That and the fact that the Sox might lose two outfielders might actually put him on the radar for the MLB club...

[kenmeister]

The one bright spot in your scenario is this is the last year of Rusney's deal. That and the fact that the Sox might lose two outfielders might actually put him on the radar for the MLB club...

 

Yeah, if JBJ is gone and Mookie is either traded or moved to 2nd base (hey, I still think it's a legit idea), then you're right Rusney may actually make the team. But isn't his 2020 salary like 13 million? That's even higher than JBJ would get in arbitration, so it would kill our chance of making the luxury tax. Rusney would have to seriously impress...

[S5Dewey]

Yeah, if JBJ is gone and Mookie is either traded or moved to 2nd base (hey, I still think it's a legit idea), then you're right Rusney may actually make the team. But isn't his 2020 salary like 13 million? That's even higher than JBJ would get in arbitration, so it would kill our chance of making the luxury tax. Rusney would have to seriously impress...

 

If our choices are between Rusney @ $13M or JBJ @ $10M and we're in a budget crunch...isn't that a no-brainer?

[Bellhorn04]

It turned out the contract was okay to good, once the cost of top closers doubled in 2 years, however, I wouldn't call it a "gem".

 

No, it was a gem. A 3 year contract for one of the best closers in history, and only the first 2 years, and $24 million, was guaranteed?

 

Come on, that's a gem all the way.

[Slasher9]

That is all you got for me Slasher? Really? How about it is my opinion. I'm fine with you thinking that I am all wrong. Hey perhaps you'll even get another post of the day comment from the people who share your feelings.

 

your not all wrong. i just 100% disagree with your view of our Farm. and Pom.

i do respect your opinion though. i was just using a line from Luke Skywalker. it wasnt meant to be personal.

[notin]

No, it was a gem. A 3 year contract for one of the best closers in history, and only the first 2 years, and $24 million, was guaranteed?

 

Come on, that's a gem all the way.

 

Bear in mind, he was the highest paid closer at the time. And taking the whole contract plus giving up 2 top 100 prospects and another good prospect (who became a top 100 prospect) did impact the price for closers at the time.

 

If the Sox did not give up so much for Kimbrel while paying fuill fare, does Wade Davis get his contract? His agent likely at some point said "Look, you can trade for a closer, but it will cost you all these prospects and the other team won't kick in a dime."

[cp176]

your not all wrong. i just 100% disagree with your view of our Farm. and Pom.

i do respect your opinion though. i was just using a line from Luke Skywalker. it wasnt meant to be personal.

 

I'm pretty sensitive but I understand where you are coming from and whatever you throw my way, I can take it. I like the fact that I don't have to work too hard to figure out how you feel about things. lol

[Bellhorn04]

Bear in mind, he was the highest paid closer at the time. And taking the whole contract plus giving up 2 top 100 prospects and another good prospect (who became a top 100 prospect) did impact the price for closers at the time.

 

If the Sox did not give up so much for Kimbrel while paying fuill fare, does Wade Davis get his contract? His agent likely at some point said "Look, you can trade for a closer, but it will cost you all these prospects and the other team won't kick in a dime."

 

That may be so. Let's not forget what Theo gave up for Chapman either.

 

Let's not also forget that our old friend Papelbon got 4 years and 50 mill after the 2012 season.

 

There aren't that many consistently elite closers to begin with.

[notin]

That may be so. Let's not forget what Theo gave up for Chapman either.

 

 

 

Isn't that more evidence of my point? Kimbrel went to Boston before Chapman went to Chicago...

[notin]

Let's not also forget that our old friend Papelbon got 4 years and 50 mill after the 2012 season.

 

There aren't that many consistently elite closers to begin with.

 

Sometimes these overpay contracts can chnge the market to the [point where they are actually values.

 

When Andrew Miller signed his deal with the Yankees, the entire universe thought it was too much money for a set up guy. But a couple years later, it was viewed as a bargain and an extremely valuable trade chip for the Yankees...

[Bellhorn04]

Isn't that more evidence of my point? Kimbrel went to Boston before Chapman went to Chicago...

 

You're right. I Magoo'd.

[moonslav59]

stop please what? You make it sound as though I am accusing you of something and i'm not. Can a gm really get it right in your world? Maybe I should say things like - it appears to me or it is my opinion - . I'll defend myself pretty well and I do in fact think that there is an ample amount of hypocrisy evident on this board.

 

GMs get things right and wrong. It's gray not black and white.

[moonslav59]

stop please what? You make it sound as though I am accusing you of something and i'm not. Can a gm really get it right in your world? Maybe I should say things like - it appears to me or it is my opinion - . I'll defend myself pretty well and I do in fact think that there is an ample amount of hypocrisy evident on this board.

 

No, it was a gem. A 3 year contract for one of the best closers in history, and only the first 2 years, and $24 million, was guaranteed?

 

Come on, that's a gem all the way.

 

In terms of what the other top closers closers were getting, there were many getting way less than CK. I think he was top 1 or 2 his first year and 3 to 5 his last 2 years. Yes, it would have been a good FA price, and maybe even a "gem" of a FA deal but several others were more cost effective, so they had gem deals

[notin]

Yeah, if JBJ is gone and Mookie is either traded or moved to 2nd base (hey, I still think it's a legit idea), then you're right Rusney may actually make the team. But isn't his 2020 salary like 13 million? That's even higher than JBJ would get in arbitration, so it would kill our chance of making the luxury tax. Rusney would have to seriously impress...

 

Catillo’s Salary next year is like $14.2mill, but he’s getting paid either way. His AAV, which is what matters, is closer to $10.5 mill. Ironically this is roughly what Bradley would get in arbitration. So does it make sense to let Rusney play while non-tendering Bradley?

 

In a financial sense, yes. If the Sox tender Bradley an offer and he winds up making $11mill, the Sox are then paying $25.2mill for Bradley and Castillo next year. Since they can’t non-tender Castillo, his part of the salary is a lock. But if they non-tender Bradley and put Castillo in MLB, it only costs $14.2mill, plus the Sox save money towards the tax limit, albeit not much. The only savings on Castillo’s contract by keeping him off the 40-man is on the luxury tax. But if the Sox deal Betts or whoever and get well under the cap, this might be the Sox one chance to recoup some value from Castillo, and might happen at a time when they need an outfielder. And if he sucks, releasing him has no consequences beyond this season.

 

Of course, Castillo is going to need to make one helluva impression this spring. Apparently he has already made one in the minors where former Pawtucket manager Ken Boles has called him a big leaguer and wondered why he was still in Pawtucket when he had him (although I think Ken really knew why)...

[Bellhorn04]

In terms of what the other top closers closers were getting, there were many getting way less than CK. I think he was top 1 or 2 his first year and 3 to 5 his last 2 years. Yes, it would have been a good FA price, and maybe even a "gem" of a FA deal but several others were more cost effective, so they had gem deals

 

Not talking about after the fact value assessments based on actual performance. It has to be about market value at the time we traded for CK.

[moonslav59]

stop please what? You make it sound as though I am accusing you of something and i'm not. Can a gm really get it right in your world? Maybe I should say things like - it appears to me or it is my opinion - . I'll defend myself pretty well and I do in fact think that there is an ample amount of hypocrisy evident on this board.

 

No, it was a gem. A 3 year contract for one of the best closers in history, and only the first 2 years, and $24 million, was guaranteed?

 

Come on, that's a gem all the way.

 

Not talking about after the fact value assessments based on actual performance. It has to be about market value at the time we traded for CK.

 

That makes it less like a gem.

[Bellhorn04]

That makes it less like a gem.

 

OK. It all depends on what principles you're using to assess things.

 

By the same token:

 

Pedroia's last extension was a good one for the team at the time. Yay Ben!

 

But in hindsight it was a disaster. Ben sucks!

[moonslav59]

OK. It all depends on what principles you're using to assess things.

 

By the same token, Pedroia's last extension was a good one for the team at the time. But in hindsight it was a disaster.

 

I get it, but you said "at the time," and at the time he was being paid more than any other closer, so I don't see the word "gem" as fitting.

[Bellhorn04]

I get it, but you said "at the time," and at the time he was being paid more than any other closer, so I don't see the word "gem" as fitting.

 

That was just the happenstance of the timing.

 

Put it in context with the deals received by other established, elite closers. Not just Chapman, Jansen, and Davis which came after, but Papelbon's 4 year, 50 million deal which came after 2012.