example1

If you're willing to give up Chamberlain, Sanchez and an inexpensive Farnsworth for Cordero then more power to you. I just tend to worry about giving up three arms that will likely contribute in one way or another for one, especially in the overrated closer position. If Bowden and Buchholz put up numbers as they have so far next season, their value on the trade market would rise indeed. Even without having played a MLB game, by waiting a year you could be trading them as the centerpiece of a deal the way we could have done with Lester a few years back. The very argument that it doesn't count until after AA works both ways, in that when they do well at AA their value increases into the elite status and you have to let them ripen to get to that point. I agree with the premise that the numbers don't entirely count until after AA. I don't agree that you can't predict a trajectory based on numbers below AA. In other words, I'd be willing to bet that a computer analysis would show that the players who tend to be better than their peers are AA also tended to be better than their peers at A and below. Having success at lower levels likely has some correlation with success at other levels, but its just harder to see it statistically. For pitchers especially this is difficult, because if they are throwing pitches that guys can't hit at one level that doesn't mean a guy can't hit it at a higher level. It also doesn't mean they can. I imagine Bowden and Buchholz made their share of straight-up nasty pitches this past season that even major league hitters would have missed. Wait a year and they gain tons of value. Don't let the Nationals play us out of these guys.!!

Unless you have faith in your scouting departments and the reports that the sox have had, in succession, the 2nd and 1st top draft classes. To me that indicates that the players they selected may have a slightly higher chance of making it based on health, fit in the system, etc., whatever. We could argue this point forever. I don't think the Sox are going to send 2 SP prospects and a CP prospect for a guy of virtually the same age who, thanks to the crappy system he's played in, has established himself as a suitable MLB closer. It is true that all three players may not make it, but if even one of them makes it to becoem what they are projected to be they are at worst Cordero (Hansen) and at best a reliable #2 or #1 starter under control for years. Trade one or two of them for a good closer, perhaps with another prospect. I just think you guys are being unrealistic speculating about the FO selling off its 3 top pitching prospects (insofar as Hansen is a prospect) for a guy who pitches in a position that this FO KNOWS is overvalued. You really think the FO is so concerned with finding a 'big name' closer that they'll go against their own philosophy of acquiring cheap, young, controlled hard throwers by selling them?

The point is not that the players who get to the majors aren't good at AA. I am not arguing that. My point is that it is still worth discriminating between prospects at different levels. I would rather have Clay Buchholz, with all his 'negative' need for time and development than Abe Alvarez or Lenny DiNardo at this point. There are times when sending top prospects makes sense, I just don't think Chad Cordero is worth those three draft picks. I think there are plenty of players who are clearly going to get to AT LEAST AA and I think Buchholz, Bard and Bowden are widely considered locks to get to at least that level. These aren't guys that barely made the team, two of them were first round picks and have had success at all levels so far. The other was a first round pick who can hit triple digits on the gun without too much effort. There are probably 25 pitchers below AA that the Sox have, and I am okay with trading all but maybe 5 of them.

Cordero gave up 13 HR in 73IP (06), 8 HR in 74IP (05), 7 HR in 82 IP (04). I think that's the increased rate he refers to.

I just think the AA litmus test is a stupid one, personally. yes, it means players haven't yet played against the highest competition in the world. But if they're tearing it up on the levels below that its just a matter of time. I think it is shortsighted to keep referring to the AA rule for guys who haven't been to AA yet because they were only drafted two seasons ago, one of them out of HS the other out of Juco. Letmus tests are nice and all, I'm just glad teh Sox don't go by them when determining how many top high-A prospects equal a MLB player.

An excellent post. I think if the Sox were to land Clemens it would be an absolute coup, given they've already signed matsuzaka. Clemens Schilling Matsuzaka Beckett Papelbon nasty.

Does the 13 HRs he gave up last year in 73 IP concern anyone? Curious... Cordero has thrown about 1200 pitches each of the last two years. Assuming he stays at about that rate and we had him for say 5 years: are 6000 Chad Cordero pitches worth all of the pitches in the careers of Buchholz, Bowden and Hansen? Given that each of them will very likely end up throwing AT LEAST that many in the majors every season I don't see how it could be, but that's just me. Does that make sense?

Same here man. As far as probabilities go, I'd rather have three guys who all have tremendous upside than one guy with tremendous upside. With injuries and sudden changes in effectiveness (a la Keith Foulke or Brad Lidge) I'd rather have 3 shots at success than 1. Now, when you're converting position players to closers via trade then I think about it differently. Would I think about moving Coco Crisp for Cordero? yeah, probably, but pitching is invaluable. Basically, the Sox worked very, very hard to acquire all these draft picks. They're not going to send three of them for one player of questionable value.

So what? The point is not to get a proven MLB pitcher but to get the best pitchers for the long haul. Would you rather have Papelbon close, say, 2/3 of the games that a regular closer would (say they're trying to save his arm) and supplement him with Timlin, Okajima, Hansen, Delcarmen, Donneley and Romero picking up the slack, or would you trade our top two SP prospects and a guy who the Diamondbacks almost took #1 overall a few years back for a guy who has experience closing? Remember guys, Cordero IS MLB talent at this point because, for lack of a better phrase, the Nationals suck. If he were in the Sox organization or Yankees organization he would have spent more time in the minors and wouldn't be seen as the 'savior' that some see him as. The do sox need the help in the bullpen, but they tend to take players through the system more slowly as well, so beware to those who value him based on his MiLB placement. I guess I'm largely against it, not because of Buchholz, but because of Bowden who has intregued me since they drafted him. I think he has the potential to be a top of the rotation, Jason Schmidt type (my comparison, but I think its somewhat valid). The kid is only 20 years old (at the most) and he's a bulldog with lots of developed pitches. If they trade Bowden AND Buchholz I will lose faith. that faith my be rebulstered by the fact that the Sox could be annual competetors for a WS crown, but I like SP.

So would you trade Humberto Sanchez, Tyler Clippard and Kyle Farnsworth for Chad Cordero? I wouldn't either.

No way do they give up Hansen, Bowden and Buchholz for Cordero. Sorry. That's just a f***ing stupid idea and I don't see any way they do it. period. They're going to trade essentially 3 first round picks (2 supplemental) from the 2005 draft for a 1st round pick from 2003. A pick who plays the most over valued, swollen position in baseball? Remember how Billy Beane would throw guys into closing situations to get them saves, then sell them to teams that overvalue closing? That's what this would be. You don't trade a potential closer and two potential #2/#3 pitchers for a guy who can get some Sv. next to his name.

Yeah, I think the book gives a good idea of the direction this team is moving in and how intentional many of the moves are. That's one reason I'm confident about the way they're bringing Pedroia in. its not a move they haven't thought about a great deal. The entire FO was very concerned about last year and I think they basically ended up being where they thought they would. The way they got there was different than they hoped (injuries) but the record was about as expected. The part that was shocking was that the Sox actually led the AL east for a considerable period and looked like the best team in baseball into July. That's why I'm optimistic about their chances with all of these guys being a year older and having gone through their first season in a difficult city. Lowell, Crisp, Pedroia, Beckett, Lester (fingers crossed), Hansen, Delcarmen should all be more comfortable and show their true colors (for better or worse).

Hindsight is 20/20, you're right. While your assessment of some of the Sox moves seems off (Crisp is not an utter waste), I hear ya nonetheless. It would be LUCKY for the Yankees to be able to move RJ. Not a great move. It would depend on a really stupid move by Arizona. People aren't going to come out to see RJ once they realize he's no good. The guy can't hit 93 anymore.

Good call Fried Neckbones. It is fairly pro-Theo, although I am too so I found that paletable. Nice avitar too, RIP JB.

The Sox haven't even played a game without Gonzo yet... I think we're all hoping that Lugo and Crisp will both have the types of years we KNOW they can have but haven't entirely seen yet. Lugo will become a Sox fan favorite as long as he hustles and makes some solid plays at SS. If he steals a base or 15 that will help too. I think that shooting for .250 for Pedroia is very conservative and the fact that people (a700) is worried about him even getting that means that I have underestimated his true fear of how bad Pedroia could be. I'm sorry a700, I didn't realize that. I thought you at least thought he could be Alex Gonzalez offensively. If you see someone worse than that then I understand your concern. I see someone who is considerably better than that. Someone who has the tools and ability to take some pitches, wear the pitcher out and catch up to fastballs. This guy only struck out 7 times last year in about 90 ABs. That seems pretty good to me. If he had 500+ ABs that would be like 40Ks. Pretty good for a 23 year old and I think the next step for him will be to turn those into more hits and walks, which he has shown he's capable of.

Does any team bet the success of a payroll on a single player? Here are a list of players who, regardless of their production this season, are going to be more important for the Red Sox success for better or worse: Manny Ramirez David Ortiz Curt Schilling Josh Beckett Jonathan Papelbon JD Drew Coco Crisp Jason Varitek Daisuke Matsuzaka Julio Lugo Mike Lowell somewhere after all of these guys is the importance of Pedroia's performance actually supporting the sox 150m payroll. Let's not pretend that the season hangs in the balance on a guy who likely made 300,000K last year. He'll be a nice piece if they win but it won't be his doing either way.

Pokey Reese, 2003, PIT, Age 30 37G, 107 AB, 1 HR, 12 RBI, .215 AVG, .271 OBP, .303 SLG, Dustin Pedroia, 2006, BOS, Age 23 31G, 89 AB, 2 HR, 7 RBI, .191 AVG, .258., .303 SLG Pedroia and Reese both sucked in the seasions prior to being hired for a starting job for the Red Sox. Both of them have a good reputation for being able to field and for being tremendous team players and good guys in the clubhouse. Pedroia has the added reputation (that Reese still hasn't acquired and never had even in the minors) of getting on base, which is associated with scoring runs and winning. We're not going to trade him, and we are going to play him over the next 5 years, he's not 16 years old, he's a 23 year old man. Plenty of 23 year old men have done well in the majors. Being a "rookie" is a relative term.