example1

If we really think they should do a significant rebuilding then it doesn't matter to me whether that happens right now or in the offseason. in fact, if they can get more of some players in the offseason then they should wait. However, I would like to see them use their leverage with other teams (who need key pieces) and now squander guys like Ross, who can leave after the season anyway. If Cherrington is going to hold onto Ross, he better be damn sure that he can and will resign him. Otherwise, trade him now.

A bit defensive, are we a700? I remember you liking Reddick's power. I also think the FO made a mistake moving Reddick. That's obvious now. What wasn't obvious was that Reddick would become a 30+ HR star. It just wasn't. It wasn't obvious to front offices, it wasn't obvious to scouts, it wasn't obvious to me and, as I pointed out, it wasn't obvious to you. Hard to hold people to impossible standards. Yes, it was a mistake to trade him, but was it a preventable mistake given what people knew about him at the time? In the real world (where decisions happen in real-time with finite information) it is hard to say it was something they should have known better about. That's all I was saying. Don't get your panties in a bunch man, it's not that big a deal. Even with Josh Reddick this team is likely still in its current spot.

They don't have money either. At least not any that can easily be spent without significant penalty.

WEEI web page cites reports that Sox aren't going to part with Cody Ross. Ross is probably the weathervane on whether they are in sell mode. However, I'm optimistic that maybe they will actually resign him for a 2-3 year deal. He is a good fit. Or if they play their cards right they land a good prospect from Texas for Ross. I would just hate to see Texas sign him longterm and improve their team in the process.

What's my plan as the GM? Promote young players, trade their roadblocks over the next few games. I don't care about whether or not Iglesias is completely ready, bring him up. His defense will keep people watching his games. Trade Shoppach and bring up Lavarnway. Trade Sweeney and/or Ross and bring up Kalish. At the very least start getting the acclamation that needs to happen one way or another out of the way now.

Well, you watched him for 143 games and 403 PAs in Boston. I don't remember you thinking he was a very good major leaguer at the time.

I agree about Farrell. If he could, he would. Yes, Valentine needs to go. No particular baseball decision backing my feelings, just a thought that what this team needed is someone who could unite the clubhouse. That's not what has happened. Perhaps a dose of V was what the team needed... sort of like someone who swallows poison is sometimes forced to vomit by drinking something nasty, or thinking about poop. The long and short of is that he is stuck with the team he has. The contracts and personalities make that a hard-and-fast reality. Therefore, if the manager can't work with them, the manager has to go. The Red Sox are in last place in the division. The manager isn't getting the results he needs from them. In other situations, the player has been let go. That's simply not possible here.

Topic seems a bit thin for its own thread... no?

Why do the Red Sox constantly do this to themselves? They won't get their money back for Crawford, and they probably won't get anything even partially close to a reasonable return if they trade him. That's a given. That's a given whether he starts hitting with an .850 OPS or a .650 OPS. Yet they still allow this idea that they absolutely hate Crawford and everything that he stands for to persist out there. Rumors that they discussed moving him for Hanley. Or for Reyes. Some FO personnel saying that they want to get out from his contract in the worst way. It just seems untactful and plays the worst possible hand. They could be out there actively supporting Crawford, saying they have faith in his ability to bounce back. Or they could be quiet. If it seems like Crawford doesn't give a damn, perhaps that's because the Sox don't seem to have the common sense or decency to not talk s*** about him or allow s*** to be talked about him at every turn.

Lee or Greinke? Neither, thanks. Lee is another version of pitchers we already have: he's older, very expensive, and not pitching well. Greinke is a FA after this season. I've said it about 3 times now, but the Sox have to go after only pitchers who are cost controlled and only pitchers who are young and healthy. Three categories. To restate: 1) Cost-Controlled 2) Young (i.e., 26 or younger) 3) Healthy Look at the best pitchers in the game. Almost all of them were top draft picks, stay with the team that drafted them, or at one time cost an absurd amount of prospects and money to get. Greinke and Lee would be lost causes. If they had nabbed Greinke about 2 years ago I would be singing a different tune. Same with Lee. But ZG will be leaving next year (and the Sox literally don't matter as a team right now) and Lee would be a financial albatross. If they could move Lee for Beckett and some money I would consider it, but otherwise no chance in hell. The pitchers the Sox are coveting right now are most likely guys most of us haven't heard of, and haven't seen pitch. Julio Teheren, Jameson Tallion, Garrett Cole, Trevor Bauer, Taijuan Walker, etc., It seems to me that 5 years ago, conventional wisdom said there was a 50/50 chance that highly touted prospects would make it to the big leagues. Now that number seems closer to an 85/15 chance. The Sox (and most other teams) can now reasonably scout players and know, often very early on, that they will have MLB caliber skills. So the cut-off line between "tradeable" prospect and "unmoveable" prospect has moved down. Previously it would be zero or one prospect, now it is often 3-5 prospects, with a few in the margins. Move Brandon Jacobs? That might be too much value to give up for 1-2 years of an established MLB pitcher on a team that is competing for the 2nd wildcard spot. Move Xander Bogaerts? Absolutely not.

No, from what I see it is more like 500k. They spent a lot to get him and his signing bonus works out to about 2m a year, but that's been spent.

All of the above pieces were assumed to be bringing back better value. Obviously they wouldn't move Iglesias just to move him. However, if someone demanded him as part of a deal for a top pitching prospect I would move him in a heartbeat. I love the idea of having Iglesias, and he's totally cheap, but they have also drafted heavily at SS and CF and could potentially pretty quickly have Marrero ready to go (he's just a year younger than Iglesias).

As I noted elsewhere, Henry Owens might be near the top of the Sox list. Will Middlebrooks was there last year, and will have 6 years of control left. I'm sure he draws lots of interest.

I noted this in the other thread, but I'm even wary of Josh Johnson and Garza at this point. Unless they get them for very little, they won't be worth it when they become FAs after next season. To extend either of them would be to get into the exact same situation they did with Lackey and Beckett already: pay a decent but not hall of fame caliber pitcher FA prices to keep them around during their late-20s, early 30s. The Sox need to avoid that model like the plague. If Johnson can be had for bottom 2nd, or 3rd tier prospects then I'm okay with it. Even a guy like Iglesias or Ranaudo would make sense, but nobody in their top 10 prospects and I wouldn't deal any of their top pitching prospects for anyone right now. The winds have shifted in baseball and it will be all about retaining the young talent, or dealing it for young talent.

Rob Bradford and Alex Speier did a podcast the other day discussing the Sox trade deadline strategy and the players they have available right now to trade. It was actually really good. I think Speier is one of the better baseball writers out there, he's very non-reactionary. Anyway, their point was that even the pitchers who appear to be decent bets on the trade market are huge risks. Guys like Garza and Josh Johnson appear to be decent options, with the probability that they help in 2013. However, trading even a decent prospect for them stands a very good chance of being a net negative. Essentially, the value of a cost controlled prospect has never been higher than it is now, especially pitchers. Interestingly, Speier spoke about some Sox scouts and FO staff who believe that Matt Barnes isn't actually their best pitching prospect. He has the highest value because he's cashed in his opportunity, but in fact they are just as high on Henry Owens who is apparently extremely advanced for his age and a very smart pitcher. His stuff hasn't completely come together yet (he's only 20 and in his first full season, drafted supplemental 1st round 2011) but as a lefty his frame (6-7) and secondary stuff mixes very nicely with a really stellar changeup and good breaking stuff. His velocity has increased to 92-94 this season. Owens leads all of minor league baseball in K/9, which is a good indication of his ability to make hitters miss his pitches. I don't know Owens well, but Speier is less prone to hyperbole than others and he had Owens in the Sox top 5 least moveable prospects, with Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Bradley Jr, and Barnes. He said that the Sox see Owens alone as too much to give up for a guy like Garza and I found the general argument pretty convincing. SO... if I were the Sox GM... 1) Let the expensive pitching contracts expire, or work to get out from under them (when there are obvious replacements). This is Beckett, Lester, Lackey and Dice-K. Obviously, if Lester turns it around and is signable at a decent rate, that would be okay to do. They probably can't play to get away from Buchholz, which might is okay since he is likely the best of the bunch and affordable. Doubront will probably be a servicable #3 type starter. Barnes could be up in 2 years, Owens a few years after that. 2) Trade from positions of strength and organizational aptitude: the Sox seem capable of finding under-valued offensive pieces, pitching is much harder to come by. 3) Target trades for pitchers roughly 25 or younger who are cost controlled. Remain very stingy with extension contracts for those guys if those contracts aren't team-friendly. 4) Free up money whenever possible and don't trade prospects except for long-term upside. 5) Seriously shop the following list of players on the 40 man, even taking risks on some prospects and get pitching, pitching, pitching: Albers, Matt Anderson, Lars Atchison, Scott Aviles, Mike Bard, Daniel Beckett, Josh Ellsbury, Jacoby Iglesias, Jose Lavarnway, Ryan Lester, Jon Lin, Che-Hsuan Melancon, Mark Nava, Daniel Ortiz, David Padillia, Vicente Ross, Cody Saltalamacchia, Jarrod Shoppach, Kelly Sweeney, Ryan Do we really think the team would be a ton worse if it lost those guys? I think they could field a decent team moving forward even if they moved most of those guys. They would also, incidentally, free up about $64m. Yes, its extreme, but they need to find a way to get the next diamond in the rough and they should strike while the iron is hot for some of these teams. Is Oakland unusually willing to give up low-ball prospects to make a run? How about Pittsburgh? Washington? The game and lay of the land has changed and the Sox need to adjust. I'm confident they will return to being a very good team once they get straightened out, but they were on the wrong side of the undervalued asset equation for the past few years and need to correct for that. Sorry for the long post...

Yup, hard to believe he was traded for a relief prospect essentially.

Out until at least September. In the spirit of Jacko starting threads for every little anti-Red Sox piece of news out there, here's my contribution for him (I know his typing fingers are getting tired and that's why he didn't start a thread himself). Too bad for the Yankees.

I'm bored and prone to speculation, so... Would now be a good time for the Sox to eye getting Josh Johnson AND Matt Garza? Maybe move Doubront, Lavarnway/Salty, etc., + + + in the deal? They could look toward 2013 with a rotation of Johnson, Garza, Buchholz, Lester, and Beckett and hope to bounce back. Doubront is a servicable pitcher, but he's not that good. I would argue that he's not as good as Justin Masterson, who they moved for V-Mart a few years ago. I don't know, it would be a great time to do something bold and, frankly, I think they're going to have to to keep interest in the team high and hopes for 2013 at least warm. A deal like that would pillage the farm system, which would suck, but the farm system isn't helping this team in 2013. I realize people hate Garza, thinking he's more of the same... but here's the thing... he's a different person, so he's literally not Lester or Beckett or Lackey, which is a good thing.