example1

I will let it go. If you have faith in their philosophy then you should be okay if the Yankees get Cabrera or Santana and the Sox don't. It will not be the same as a Bobby Abreu situation, and will not indicate a sign of weakness. If I can be assured that there will not be another near-riot should the Yankees aggressively pursue one of these guys, I'm fine with everything. BTW, you're pretty funny sometimes.

a700, sorry if I was generalizing. Being an advocate of your team picking up guyst like Beckett, Cabrera, Santana and Oswalt does not mean you are making good arguments about where your team should go. There isn't a person out there who wouldn't want to get those guys. The challenging part of the equation is what are they worth. I really do respect your position, and certainly respect both your passion and personal history as a baseball fan. You are articulate and steadfast. You also don't like being insulted, and I respect that too. Sorry. The only point of contention I have with your stance is that too often I feel that your view has been that "established" talent trumps any "potential" that a player might have. You stated unequivocally last year: With statements like that a year ago, involving "slaps in the face" and "chickens coming home to roost" you felt justified in slamming the FO pretty hard. You downplayed the injuries on the 2006 team, you downplayed the FO's own predictions that there would be a few-year lag in terms of having the team on the field that they truly wanted. I feel like now is the time to point out that if the proof is in the pudding, you should be liking the pudding. 2 WS in 4 years, even a crusty veteran like yourself must be pretty happy. I don't agree that this is some unexpected development. I think that from every interview I read and books, etc., this is basically what they hoped would happen. They still have stars, and they ensured that they had stars to build around while retooling. The retooling is essentially over and in maintenance mode. I guess this team reminds me of the Detroit Red Wings of a decade ago or so. They will continue to add talented youth to their core of mature players, and the number of REALLY effective players who come through the system might be unprecedented for the Sox. I know it seems improbable that great stars could possibly be born from the core of the veteran 04 and 07 WS teams, but I think it is possible. I love that Buchholz wasn't on the postseason roster. I would have liked to see him pitch, but it will keep a chip on his shoulder as he will need to define himself outside of the 07 Red Sox. Fair enough. There is never anything wrong with a little gamesmanship, trying to lure possible players away from rivals. I dig it. I just feel like the Sox would be being aggressive by being conservative at this point, if you know what I mean, and that is what they should do. The status quo currently involves a huge infusion of young talent into the everyday Red Sox team. That's a good thing. Again, sorry for the generalization. I just think you could give a bit more respect than to call the idea of holding onto Buchholz and Ellsbury instead of throwing them at Santana "laughable" when the patience some of us have defended recently paid off with a WS based on the NEW LOOK Red Sox, who used 3 SPs and an entire bullpen (except Timlin) who were not with the 04 team and had the best run differential in WS history; the lineup--as you obviously know--had two rookies in the top spots in the order, and they looked like they are there to stay. At the end of the season this year we were hands down the best team. No other team is going to improve enough in the off-season to challenge that, whether the Sox have Lowell, or A-Rod or Cabrera or whoever. The top prospects will mature with a solid team around them and be the centerpiece of the offense for years to come. Don't want to mess with that "build from within" plan that is only now coming to fruition.

Darn, I thought I could. I just think that's hogwash. They didn't play the poverty line, they played the "we don't have an extraordinary amount of money to mis-spend if we want to compete with the Yankees who must not have a hard time with it, as evidenced by 7 years of continually increased spending on wasted talent. There is a subtle but real difference there. The best companies are ones with big budgets but who account for every penny and attempt to put each penny back into the earning machine. THey haven't been perfect; it's an imperfect science after all. They have, however, gone against traditional wisdom (see: traditionalists like you) and it has paid off. I read Feeding the Monster, which made it clear that they weren't going to spend money on aging, decrepit players. They made it clear that they had money, but that they were also VERY interested in acquiring young talent so that money could be used to acquire FAs and pay higher signing-bonuses. They were pretty transparent with their plan. Want them to spend money? Not on Johnny Damon, Pedro, Lowe, Loretta, etc.,. On Dice-K? Yes. Did I know that had the resources? I suppose I knew that they were fairly well resourced, given that they were moments away from signing A-Rod after 2003 and still would have had players like Ortiz and Pedro around. They are a big market team, no doubt. Do you really believe they would do something like that on a whim? Schilling knew before the offseason that they were going to make a big splash. They had gone out to acquire Foulke and Schilling before 2004, spending a lot of money in the process. I figured they woudl spend whatever it takes to get players who will make an impact. I guess you were right because you thought they should spend money. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you have advocated either acquiring over-the-hill players or trading away top talent, often both. Neither of those things have happened and it wasn't unintentional. The Sox FO did things counter to your wishes, and they did them intentionally. I wasn't the one telling them what to do; believe me, they are well ahead of the curve compared to anything I could posit. Nobody was completely right or wrong with each particular decision, but you hated their decisions throughout and attacked the very philosophy that seems to work out. Then you turn around and mock people who think that that philosophy hasn't even played itself out yet, with regard to the true financial value of players like Buchholz and Ellsbury, Pedroia, Youkilis, etc., At no point should the belief that 'all prospects are good for is trading' become anything more than a punchline. The constant catcall here has been you saying "you don't know what value you're going to get from prospects, but [insert overpaid name here] is PROVEN talent and there is no way that [insert prospect name here] will ever become what PROVEN talent is." I bet their plan was to let the players from the 04 team leave, get the prospects from those players, save the money, and then reinvest it. They exploited the loophole for supplemental picks based on FAs, and were able to get plenty of important early round picks to improve their system. Yeah, they may have gotten lucky. Nobody would have predicted that Clay Buchholz--previously an OF--would be such a great pitcher. Of course, only one team drafted him... so luck or foresight or predictive models... it all kind of melts together at that level. Here's the model again: aim to win 94 games each year. Look at the constitution of your team, making projections along a number of possible %. In other words, run a simulation of your team with Pedroia producing at 40% of his PECOTA, and one with him producing at 80%, etc., you will have a pretty clear idea of how many runs your team will score if you simulate that season 1,000 times. Do the same thing with pitchers. Project how many runs your staff is going to give up, based on past performances and similar players. Figure out the difference between the two and you should have a pretty good idea what your record will be. Construct your team in such a way that they end up with 94 wins and more often than not your team will make the playoffs. Sub rules: --all things being equal, get power rather than finesse arms --all things being equal get guys with high OBP, look for walk rates --all things being equal, if you end up paying "market value" for a player, you likely overpaid. Do everything you can to acquire similar talent through the draft or through reasonable trades from strength --all things being equal, draft guys with extensive college resumes with your highest picks and spend money on guys who are waffling between the pros and college near the bottom of the draft. In other words, use your financial advantage when the amount of money being discussed is a 'paltry' couple hundred-thousand dollars on high school/international players. That 300,000 will put the player under your control for at least 6 seasons, and is NOTHING compared to what any player worth his salt will earn on the market I'm sure there are a number of other 'sub rules' here, but I think you get the point... They have an approach and they don't really deviate from it. No. Your posting rights should be revoked!! I'm kidding. Of course I'll give you grace with two year old opinions. I just wonder why your opinions haven't changed. Why would you be willing to trade Lester, Pedroia and MDC for a 23-24 year old Dontrelle WIllis, but you call it a no-brainer to trade Buchholz (who is the age Willis was when you wanted him so badly) and any other player they want for Santana. Some people here are proposing that we shouldn't stop at anything to get Santana, no matter who it takes. You support them by making fun of those who propose that we hold onto our best prospects (who are ready to take their starting spots in the Sox lineup/rotation immediately, just like Pedroia was last year). I don't remember them saying they wouldn't go over the luxury tax. I remember them saying it would be something to avoid, because your money becomes noticably less valuable when you spend over that threshhold. Doesn't sound like they deviated that strongly. In fact, by putting all their eggs in the Dice-K basket they actually increased the amount they saved under the cap and put it to other good uses. It was a pretty obvious component of their most recent big FA signing, so I'd say it is still a value. It's like saying "I value not spending money when I'm in debt". But when I'm in debt I may need to spend some money. Overall, the idea is to avoid debt and unnecessary spending. The Luxury tax is unnecessary spending, basically from the Sox pockets to the rest of the league. Nothing. You can't keep the Yankees from getting every single player. Furthermore, I'm not blind enough say that the sox shouldn't trade Buchholz + ??? + ???? for Santana but that the Yankees should trade Hughes/Chamberlain + Cabrera + Cano (or whoever). I think if the asking price is a Buchholz-level player, the Yankees will give up a Buchholz level player. To ME, a Buchholz-level player is a potential future ace. I think Phil Hughes still has a shitload of talent and that any team should be very, very happy to get him. The Yankees would be wise to hold onto Hughes and Chamberlain and try to build around them by getting rid of their NON-elite prospects to get what they need. I have no problem with teams saying they won't get rid of their one or two franchise-level prospects. If my team's biggest rival deals some of its top guys then I think they will have lost and gained at the same time. Of course, every deal is different and depends largely on where each particular team is at the time. If they only deal AA guys then they are doing what I propose (Bowden + Masterson). I just don't jump immediately to the creme-de-la-creme of our system when discussing trades. I think there are plenty of exciting players in the Sox system that other teams would want if told to take their pick, not including players 'x', 'y' and 'z'.

I just don't think it necessarily will cost an Ellsbury. The Sox have a whole lot of prospects that other teams should be happy to have. Guys like Kalish, Masterson, Bowden, Lowrie, etc., are actually moving quickly toward a career in MLB. A package of enough high-upside, slightly younger players would make a team like FLA better in the long run. Say, either Masterson and Bowden, or Kalish, Masterson or Bowden and Moss. A player like Ellsbury isn't going to start getting the apathetic S. Florida residents out to the park. What that team needs is a number of solid players who are cost effective, play the game intelligently, and have good stuff (for pitchers, obviously).

Well, my first post about Pedroia called him untouchable. Granted, it also called Hanley Ramirez untouchable, but if I had known that Josh Beckett was someone the Sox could get for him I would have taken it back. You can see throughout that I was pretty enamored with Beckett. At the time Ellsbury, Buchholz and Bowden were barely prospects, they were barely minor-leaguers. Otherwise, without getting number specific, I would say this is a good start for a FIRST post about Pedroia. What else...? let's see: Pedroia's actual stats: .317 .380 .442 a700, you asked for someone who predicted that Pedroia would hit .320 this year... well, I knew that I didn't predict that. I think it is time for you to adopt OBP as the statistical bar. I predicted he would get on base at a .370+ clip. I was right. I didn't need to know that "X number of hits will fall in" but, trend wise, OBP doesn't tend to just fall off the face of the earth. If a player has a high OBP it represents good plate control and plate vision. There are a number of very productive players who will, time in and time out, be easier outs than Dustin Pedroia is. The basic point of batting is not to get hits, the point is to NOT make outs. Pedroia and Ellsbury have done it at an elite level at each level they played in, so it wasn't much of a leap to predict Pedroia's (and next year, Ellsbury's) success.

What's laughable is this: 4-30-06: a700hitter: Nope, Nope, thankfully, Not yet, thankfully and rookie of the year. You were wrong on many counts. It took me 5 minutes to find it. I typed it "Ellsbury" and searched for over a year ago. Go ahead, do it with any prospect of recent years. A700 would sell them down the river if he had his way. In retrospect, does anyone think it would have been smart to trade Lester, Pedroia and Manny Delcarmen for Dontrelle Willis? The sure thing: 2005: 22-10, 2.63 ERA, 1.13 WHIP 2006: 12-12 3.87, 1.42 WHIP 2007: 10-15, 5.17, 1.597 Still laughing? I don't understand how you can so confidently mock those of us who have an understanding of what the FO is trying to do. Many of us haven't changed our tune for the past few years. Now we have 2 WS in the past 4 years, and have a farm system poised to move us forward. Don't think Willis is a comparable situation? ********. You were enamored with him then and would have traded Lester, Pedroia and Manny Delcarmen for him. Then you think we don't remember and that we aren't smart enough to do a search. I could pull up so many of your statements that just ended up being wrong. Is it POSSIBLE that a "lock" a "sure thing" a "superstar" has to prove himself too, each and every year just like everyone else? You could look at nearly any number you want, any split or rate stat, and you would see with consistency that Clay Buchholz is a better, more poised pitcher, with better stuff and better command compared to Willis. You were willing to sell the farm to get WIllis at the age of 23, simply because his team was s***** enough to need him to pitch. If Buchholz had pitched for the marlins you would have a completely different view of him, which is pretty pointless if you also think you're actually evaluating the player himself. Don't insult us for wanting to hold onto guys who we--and most of the scouting world--think is valuable. Sure, it would be great to have Cabrera or Santana, but it isn't a no-brainer. If it was a no-brainer and if prospects were solely for selling to other teams, then the Sox would offer Buchholz, Bowden, Ellsbury, Hansen, Masterson, Kalish, Lin and Lester to get Johan Santana. Why would they need those guys? We would have Santana and Cabrera, who are PROVEN stars and guaranteed to never do anything average ever again.

Then perhaps people shouldn't have boo'd him every opportunity they had his first few years in NY? From my perspective it was the majority of Yankee fans that were the f***in jerks, and the media just piled on after that.

Jesus, what a joke! I know its nice to dislike A-Rod and everything, but really, does he deserve to be vilified the way some here are doing? I mean, he's not Milton Bradley. He's not out there saying "I am the greatest". He's not demanding to leave early to go home instead of the all-star game; he's not showing up late at spring training; he's not sitting on the bench down the stretch; he's not lolligagging around the bases. If anything we're talking about taking the guy who carried our biggest rival last year and placing him either on our team or on a less-significant team. There is no truth to the fact that A-Rod is a clubhouse cancer. He just didn't fit in in New York. There were too many egos and he was acquired at a time when the Yankees wanted to win very badly. They didn't and he took the blame. A-Rod would be less of a personality than either Manny or Ortiz, and I guarantee that Curt Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Papelbon, Varitek, Youkilis, Pedroia and Drew would be enough talent and big-names to take the pressure off.

1. The luckiest player in history? Possibly Ichiro, with BABIPs of .371, .347, .333, .401, .319, .350, .390, (career .359). Or, perhaps its the fact that anything not hit right at someone is either a hit or a bang-bang play. Ellsbury's the same way. Left handed, high contact, puts the ball on the ground, beats them out. We shouldn't expect .400-type BABIP numbers, but we shouldn't expect him to hit 3 week slumps where he looks like he shouldn't be in the majors either. 2. Speaking of that, it's funny. I'm told to "open my eyes" to see the holes in Ellsbury's swing? Don't you have bad dreams about the holes in Coco Crisp's swings like I do? I see that s*** with my eyes CLOSED. Seriously man. I'm not sure what your point is, but if it is anything other than "Ellsbury deserves to be the outright starting CF next year assuming he stays healthy and has a normal spring" then I should stop listening, unless you have a non-Crisp option. 3. I've been saying that Crisp would be an ideal 4th OF/bench guy since mid-season. He's a switch hitter, can realistically play all 3 OF positions, and can be a speed guy in the late innings. So in that sense we agree. He is also young enough where he will retain trade value over time for his defensive prowess alone. 4. Ellsbury is widely regarded as a tremendous fielder, as the Sox Minor League Defensive Player of the Year in 06 and 07. So you're losing no defense--or a negligible amount--gaining someone who can realistically hit .300 as a rookie, who has more explosive speed, a sweeter swing, and who projects to add a bit more power to his stroke. Christ, we're talking about a Dustin Pedroia with Crisp's speed in CF. A guy who made diving catch after diving catch for the Sox down the stretch. Playing LF or CF, whether the ball is up against the fence or in the Tampa Bay bullpen, Ellsbury has gotten to it. 5. Whose career minor league numbers are better? [table] ????| AB | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | R | Player A:| 1040 | .308 | .391 | .454| .845| 167| Player B:| 1017 | .314 | .390 | .426| .816 |174| [/table] I advocated for Dustin PedroiA at this time last year, based on the above stats. Add 105 SBs and I'm going to advocate for JacoBy Ellsbury this year. I don't think I'm being silly. If anything THIS is the no-brainer. The stats Ellsbury put up this year were polar opposites to what Pedroia did last year, so anyone who was looking for a security blanket for Pedroia last year should feel a bit more confident with Ellsbury. He'll need a backup, but I'm simply not worried about a guy who tends to put up ABs like Ellsbury does.

Nice post Rician. I bet all of us can remember seeing that green grass for the first time. Pretty amazing stuff. I actually think that A-Rod hasn't been a negative influence on his teams, he just hasn't been a positive one either. He's been largely neutral (i.e., boring) personality wise. He gets a lot of blame and praise, but I truly don't think his personality has been part of his game since he was in Seattle, or perhaps the beginning of his Texas career. In any case, I could see him lightening up a whole lot with Ortiz behind him, and Ortiz is man enough to pick up the scraps left when A-Rod whifs or makes outs with runners on. If not Ortiz, then Manny. (of course, I probably don't want A-Rod batting 3rd, perhaps 4th would be best).

What does he need to do to show you that he is worthy of an MLB spot TheKilo? I mean, nobody complained too much when Crisp was hitting .230 for a good portion of the season and it is just OBVIOUS from watching the at-bats that Ellsbury is not as overwhelmed by MLB pitching as Crisp appears to be. To me, Crisp looks like he's swinging a tree trunk and it is clearly too heavy for him. He just BARELY catches up to fastballs, whether they are 88 or 99mph. Who do you suggest should be his backup? Andrus Jones? C'mon. If it isn't Coco then it is just going to be some other mediocre CF because the Sox aren't going to go out and break the bank for a backup to a player that THEY are sure will hold his own.

The best thing A-Rod could do--I saw this in a blog linked from BDD--would be to take a reduced salary and demand that the Red Sox bring back Lowell for 3B. I know, I know, it won't happen and the idea is silly, but talk about a way to endear himself to the fans. "I really want Mike Lowell back on this team, so I'm knocking 8m a year off my asking price and going to move back to SS." Instant hero.

Santana vs. Kazmir I'm taking Santana every time. However, I would put Kazmir up there with just about any pitcher in baseball except for maybe 4 or 5. He also KILLS the Sox (relative to other TB pitching... they still manage to beat him sometimes because his team sucks and the Sox have a good offense). Kid's a left handed strikeout machine who is only 9 months older than Clay Buchholz.

Oh hell yeah. Beckett Schilling Dice-K Lester Buchholz Wake... I like to juxtapose this information with the Pettitte press release from earlier in the day. Makes me smile.

huh? That's probably right. He's not untouchable, but he is a top young talent at this point and if they moved him it would have to be for someone significant, particularly given their other CF options currently.

Here's what I offer for Santana: Lester, Kalish and Bowden or Masterson. That's a pretty damn nice package. Kalish is young but he projects in the BP article (and other scouting reports I've seen) as very, very good. BP: "A dynamic outfielder capable of 20 home run/40 stolen base campaigns." He's got 5 tools, but is younger than Ellsbury. He ranks above Bowden, who could be a #3 starter (if not better, he's very young), and Lester is a very nice pitcher (combined with Liriano they would be some nasty lefties). I would offer other pieces, but not Ellsbury or Buchholz. Those guys are basically starters at this point and key pieces moving forward. The Sox are going to try to move Coco, for instance, relying on Ellsbury in CF. THeo is already talking about it at the winter meetings, which indicates that Ellsbury is off the table.

1. I know you like Ellsbury now. I'm not arguing with you about that (though others would trade him in a heartbeat). 2. You seem to be acknowledging both a. the FO was right to let Damon, Pedro and Lowe go (their combined 07 salaries was more than the combined salaries of Dice, JD and Lugo) b. without the young talent that you would otherwise have been dealt for Teixeira or Helton or whoever else, this team would not have won. Or, perhaps more accurately, this exact mix of players DID win, so now you don't regret the decision. I guess you must be able to see why keeping someone who might be (next year) 80% of Johan Santana could be a good thing, given that Ellsbury is the other name everyone throws around. The Red Sox are the only team that has utilized the moneyball approach but without the moneyball limitations. They treat each and every dollar as if they were the A's, won't overpay beyond what their best statistics can tell them is the production to expect from a player. They project the top-end and bottom end of a players production, and pick a spot in the middle. Then the figure out how many wins that would give the team, how much those wins would help the team financially, and then make their offer from there. Of course things like advertising and popularity of players comes into it a bit, because a guy like David Ortiz is simply going to draw more fans to the park than a guy like Hafner (who lacks the same personality). But overall they are greedy, money hoarding businessmen who take great pride in their team and the way it is constructed. They will spend money when they need to, but will not be coerced into spending money. Dice-K is making Basically, they are a brilliant, brilliant baseball thinktank with hundreds of millions of dollars to use and a fanbase that can't get enough. Myself included. Ortiz has an option for 2011, I believe. That gives him the 08, 09, 10, and 11 seasons remaining. Manny will need to be replaced, but he can be replaced in some way-shape-or-form through a combination of improved defense, improved pitching, improved speed, and some hitting, along with millions of dollars.

From the same article: The Big Picture: Rankings Combined With Non-Rookies 25 Years Old Or Younger (As Of Opening Day 2008) 1. Clay Buchholz, RHP 2. Jon Lester, LHP 3. Jacoby Ellsbury, CF 4. Dustin Pedroia, 2B BP thinks Ellsbury will be better than Pedroia, and still believes that Lester will be more valuable than both. Buchholz eclipses all of them. Remember, Pedroia was (as far as he deserves) the rookie of the year this year. a700, you said earlier that ace-caliber pitching is the most coveted thing on the market. Well, for a team that already believes it has 2 aces in matsuzaka (200+ Ks) and Beckett (2007 Cy Young?) there is little more valuable than ace caliber, MLB minimum $, pitching; and eventual #2 caliber, LEFTY, MLB minimum $, pitching.

Yes, I think my reading comprehension dips down a bit after 12 posts about the same thing and feverishly typing responses. Sorry man. You're right, the "can't miss" FA acquisitions were mostly bad through and through. Humorously, I didn't notice this from JM earlier: Status quo? Hey!! This just came out a few days ago: From Baseball Prospectus (I won't quote the whole thing, just relevant for my case): And, I'm bolding just for fun: So here is what BP thinks as of 11/2/07 ... a700 was asking about which pitchers have ever had impact on stretch runs as rookies. BP seems to think he can be an impact pitcher as soon as April. And the other guy everyone wants to throw into the mix: So we'll trade two starters, one who is "one of the few pitchers around with true ace potential" (which usually comes at 15-20m), one who projects to have roughly the impact that Torii Hunter has had in Minn (above average CF, occasional All-Star), and for SOME of you, a 3rd prospect (basically, take your pick if you're already giving away Buchholz and Ellsbury). Personally, I think there is no reason Ellsbury won't be an All-Star almost every year, with Fenway selling out every game and the Nation traveling to all ends of the earth to watch. Any Red Sox who puts up a decent season will be annual contenders for an All-Star spot, particularly if the team keeps up its high profile. Again, no thanks guys. I have been in favor of keeping Ellsbury, Pedroia, Youkilis, Buchholz and Bowden since each of them has been in the Sox organization. I'd be willing to move Bowden; hell, I'd be willing to move Masterson AND Bowden to get Santana. Just not either Ellsbury or Buchholz, and certainly not both. I would do Buchholz for Santana straight up, except that I think Buchholz is going to be at least as good as Matsuzaka was this year, as a rookie. He will do so for pennies on the dollar, and this team has a way of spending its money to get potent returns.