Spitball

I don't think it will just be the Red Sox changing. I think we will see teams going in a different direction to build contending teams. I expect the Sox will still pay out long term contracts for position players in their twenties and with their best playing days ahead. I am betting pitchers in their thirties will not be signed to more than 3 or 4 year deals. The Yankees went out and spent lots of money this past winter and they are still just above .500.

Uhh, I think you are missing the point. There will be down seasons. It is better to have down seasons because the rookies are developing than to have several down seasons because big contracts are growing old and will be handicapping the team from future development.

I think I might be pretty much alone here, but I see a new era evolving in the successful rebuilding of a team. The Sox and Cherington are likely not going to use the Epstein formula to build a team. There will likely not be long term contracts for big dollars but more development from within. The Phillies, Rangers, Yankees, and Angels are looking up at the A's, Royals, Cardinals, and Pirates. The Sox are going to have to adjust their thinking because the huge dollars spent on Josh Hamilton, C.J. Wilson, Albert Pujols, Jacoby Ellsbury, Sinn Soo Choo, CC Sabathia, B.J. Upton, Carl Crawford, and others were foolish dollars spent on past performance rather than future long-term reality. Those types of long term dollars will sink a team...and forward thinking teams are now realizing this. We can gripe about a last place finish, but we are going to have to adjust our thinking. Times are a changing and the long term, big dollar contracts favor the 30-something player and the agent...but not the team. When teams realize this, we hopefully will see a change. It will be better for baseball as a whole.

This is an interesting post on MLB Trade Rumors.com.

In my opinion, the era would only be significant to the argument if all players were struggling at a similar rate as the league average of that era. It is not really a valid dismissal of my argument. The Reggie Smith actually improved in his second season (1968, The Season of the Pitcher) from his rough rookie season numbers. Players from all eras have had career major league numbers closer to their minor league numbers after struggling offensively as young players. Mike Schmidt, Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel, Mike Cameron, Paul Konerko, Alex Gordon, and Jose Batista to name only a few from different eras. And I am not saying Bradley will be Reggie Smith or Paul Konerko-type offensive player...Bradley only has to show improvement to prove my point and justify his place in the line-up. With his defensive, I would say .250/.330/.400 would work. Looking at minor league numbers is far from a perfect indicator of future major league success, and I realize that. However, those numbers can be an indicator of future success despite poor early career numbers, and I look at several players from all eras that have improved significantly from early failures. I am sorry you feel this way, but this is why I avoid you. You get mad and call names.

I usually ignore your arrogant misinformation, but the correlation between minor league performance and major league expectation transcends eras.

In defense of Jackie Bradley, Jr.and Xander Bogaerts, I see plenty of hope. I have been a Red Sox fan since the 1962 season. I have seen a lot of young players come up and struggle before developing into stars. Minor league statistics are a better indicator of future major league success than one major league season. Jackie Bradley, Jr. has struggled mightily, but he slashed .297/.404/.471 in three minor league seasons. Bogaerts minor league slash was .296/.373/.489 . At 23 years old, Rico Petrocelli slashed .238/.295/.383. His minor league slash was .250/.334/.441 and his major league slash was .251/.332/.420. Reggie Smith's rookie season saw him at .246/.315/.389. In the minors, .285/.353/.464 and in the majors, .281/.366/.489. George Scott had two good seasons before he was JBJ's age of 24. In 1968, he slashed .171/.336/.237 in the majors. In the minors, he slashed .294/.330/.492 and in the majors his career slash was .268/.333/.435. Things are not going well now for Bradley and Bogaerts , but I have learned that early struggles by a youngster is often about learning to hit. Minor league stats are a better indicator of future success than early career struggles.

The Phillies are just an example. The Red Sox would be in the same boat if they had not unloaded Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett. Throwing expensive long term contracts at "solutions" to holes in the line-up is likely to be recognized as a mistake in the future. The As, Rays and now the Red Sox are examples of teams taking another approach. I honestly don't see how baseball can move forward without a new approach. Ellsbury and Choo were very nice pieces to any team, but they unbelievably signed superstar type contracts. That can't be healthy for the future of baseball. We need for all teams to have the ability to be competitive. The As and other teams are recognizing that future success involves responsibly building from the farm system and creative trading. That includes the Red Sox because they will not be able to compete with the Yankee and Dodger way.

I agree, but the Red Sox need to avoid 'spending their way out of it' and stay forward thinking. The Phillies and Rangers are in deep holes due in a large part to 'spending their way out of it.'

It amazes me how many fans still embrace the old Epstein-like thinking. Throwing long term contracts at players based on past performances leads to problematic budget and lineup restraints as a team moves forward. Players like Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Jonathan Papelbon, and Josh Beckett have contracts that are drains on their teams. Thank goodness Cherington is more of a progressive thinker. The Red Sox have the 2013 title and are regrouping to make another run in 2015. More than a decade ago, Billy Beane was ahead of his time. He may have received too much credit, but the general public was not progressive enough to understand the forward thinking of his methods. It may seem like small market methods, but the As and Rays have been pretty successful in the last decade. Cherington has embraced a different philosophy. The Red Sox will not sign players on past performance, and we need to get used to it. They may win one year and then regroup for the next. It is a new way to progress. Let the Yankees sign a bunch of stars to long term contracts that will result in Rodriguez, Sabathia, Texeira, Ellsbury, McCann and others growing old and being over-paid.

I will have to think about this trade. Cespedes might turn into a homerun machine in Fenway, but I have my doubts. He has OPSed about .750 in his last 1,000 at bats. The Sox received a competitive balance draft pick from the As (as I understand it) but lose the compensation pick that Lester would have given them. Also, I see no way the Sox sign Lester without the draft pick attached to him. Basically, any trade is a gamble. This one is very interesting and a ballsy one by both Cherington and Beane.

I totally disagree. A bad season tends to run off those who do not want to read a bunch of negative rants instead of intelligent baseball discussion. I have been a loyal fan since the early 1960s and am no way a bandwagon fan. I am not bragging but will match my loyalty against anyone.

Perhaps this:

What??? Which team are you talking about, the Reds? Milt Pappas was part of the package the Reds acquired from the Orioles for Frank Robinson. He was no longer considered a top starter when they traded him to the Braves. The Braves basically unloaded him to the Cubs where he had some success. He was never traded to the Cardinals.

Superstars are fun to have, but they don't necessarily equate to great teams. The times are changing, and I see teams building from their farm system and keeping their own players through the affordable years as the smart way to go. Boston won last year after shedding big contracts. Oakland has the greatest run differential in baseball with a bunch of relatively unknown players. Ellsbury and Choo are outfielders who have signed huge contracts and have not lifted their teams. Stanton might be better, but he will also cost more. He also has a history of injuries. I'd keep Bogaerts and build responsibly.

I don't really remember anyone being particularly excited about the Pierzynski's signing. I believe there were many who were happy Saltalamachia wasn't coming back, but Pierzynski didn't cause any excitement.

Honestly, how will that work with Alex Rodriguez's money back on the books?

Is Farrell ruining Brock Holt?

This is from May 9, and there are probably more recent studies out there. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jake-peavy-is-living-on-the-edge/

I understand he has plus power and is considered a corner outfielder. Like many other Cuban escapees, he is not a sure thing at the major league level. He will have to establish residency in a neutral country first and may not end up signing until late in 2014 or even 2015.

Jhonny Peralta did not receive a qualifying offer and Stephen Drew did. That was absolutely the most significant difference.

The only way I see to significantly improve the Sox with the addition of Drew is to create a strict platoon once Middlebrooks and Victorino are healthy. Versus right handed starters, the Sox would have a higher team OPS with Drew at short and Bogaerts at third. Sizemore and Carp have pretty significant OPS splits and should only start versus right handers. Versus lefties, the Sox should move Bogaerts to short and play Middlebrooks at third. Drew struggles against lefties and should not be in the starting line-up but employed only as a defensive replacement. Gomes and Victorino have better splits versus lefties and should start against them. It is probably due to injuries, but Gomes actually has more at-bats this year against right handers. Pedroia and Ortiz are stars, but everyone else should be employed, as much as possible, to take advantage of the strengths of their platoon splits. Oakland has about a 100 advantage in run differential, and they platoon more than anyone except Cleveland. The Sox are going to have trouble acquiring improvements, but they can improve what they have by platooning the likes of Drew, Gomes, et al.

It is apparently pretty easy to beat the test, Fred. Twenty players were implicated for being clients of the Biogenesis lab in Florida, yet only Ryan Braun had been caught by in season testing. Biogenesis was involved in a very sophisticated science that was designed to avoid any drug testing program, no matter how good that drug testing program was. Players can take fast acting testosterone in a way that clears the body quickly, sometimes in a few hours. I know the Jays were picked to win last year, but I am suspicious of a few of their players. I saw Melky Cabrera crush a ball nearly out of the stadium versus Oakland. The others I mentioned hit the ball with super-human authority that was common with the likes of Mark McGwire.

I have watched the Blue Jays a few times lately in the last couple of weeks. I do not get where the unbelievable power is coming from. They totally bash the ball. Jose Bautista, Edwin Encarnacion, Juan Francisco, and Melky Cabrera almost rip the cover off the ball. Juan Francisco is OPSing .973 despite being DFA by both the Braves and Brewers in the last year. Bautista is OPSing .965 despite having been traded around for very little return between the Orioles, Royals, Rays, Mets, and Pirates. Encarnacion is OPSing .870 despite being DFA twice in 2010. Melky Cabrera, a convicted PED user recently, is OPSing .868. Sorry, but I am suspicious of these numbers. Maybe I am being a poor sport, but I smell shenanigans.

I get that it is a long shot venture. The Rangers have impressive Joey Gallo coming along at third, but he really isn't a third base prospect. He is more of a DH/first base big leaguer. If the Rangers want to rebuild, they will have to get rid of some salary. Fielder was an expensive mistake and not moveable. Beltre is aging and will surely decline before the Rangers have things straightened out. Middlebrooks might not be enough, and they probably would want some pitching. I'd rather the Sox pass before giving up more than a low level quality pitching prospect. I am working on the assumption that the Rangers need to regroup and rebuild. They are in a division which has Oakland embarrassing both the big spending Rangers and Angels.