sk7326

That's simply incorrect. The Giants won on one good starter and the Royals have been winning with zero. The Red Sox won 3 postseason series without obvious rotation edges in any of them. The pitching has been a problem, yes - but it is as much because of the failures of the supporting elements.

It says more about the "Crash Davis" sort of org players that are on the rosters than the prospects.

Yes. If your plan involved augmenting the defense, the offense and the bullpen to help it out. This is not a stupid strategy, we know this since a division leader today actually executed a similar-ish plan. But the supporting elements have largely failed - and so the vulnerabilities stick out.

Who said they won't part with prospects? They have in the past - just has to be the right guy coming back.

This is one of the few posts which makes sense. Now the TRADE did not lead to anything. It cleared a lot of payroll - but payroll has always been a choice for the ownership. (so from that perspective it made the outlays on the Red Sox in line with what Henry wants to spend for his playthings) Beckett's body fell apart, and as it turns out Adrian Gonzalez is a good player (not one who will inspire folk songs). A miraculous season from Victorino and a distinct lack of injuries were bigger drivers. Now I do think there is always the tension between the Sox as a baseball team and one as a TV network. When the latter wins, things don't work as well - or at least the moves are shortsighted (like say, let's just sign the top two position players in the FA class without thinking about it). There is some naivete that 7 Top 100 prospects = 7 starters or 7 all-stars. But the recent upticks in the farm have produced 3 guys who are starters who look like distinct parts of the future. That is pretty good. You are right - there is some dissonance going on at the top, which needs to be resolved.

Given other quips, one can't be too sure

They converted it into a mid-rotation starter and two up the middle ones. If you think that is a low percentage, you don't follow baseball that closely.

since cheap controllable corner power can be had for a pure DH who is past 35 ...

Can fill the roster with other studs. Moreover, they control has trade value too - and that could result in a bigger haul. For Cleveland, very clever deal ... bought one of Kluber's FA years by paying him more up front.

Indeed - although I will add a couple things. 1. You get to Portland, you are on the radar for the bigs. So that he is there and has not looked overmatched is good. 2. College bat helps make me optimistic on his big league likelihood, but limits excitement about big league potential. BTW: off topic, Moncada seems to be coming around

Red Sox have the pieces to make many deals - just a matter of whether its worth it. For Kluber, it is a lot more justifiable than for others. I noted in the past that I would have called the Mariners after 2013 to see what it would have taken for King Felix, but clearly there are a lot of job pressures there preventing that. Now, as far as guys to give up. I'd consider Betts and Bogaerts - if not untouchable, at least touchable for a lot. If the org is convinced that Vasquez' TJ surgery did its job, then Swihart is somebody who can be dealt in the right trade, and probably would have to be. Margot is tradeable and should garner quite a bit because of his high floor. Devers and Moncada are tradeable because both are far from Boston - but both (Devers particularly) gives the sense of the sort of guy who will embarass the GM who trades him. Every pitcher in the org is tradeable save for Rodriguez. The org's lack of top end pitching has been essentially a result of not being in the position to draft it - as well as yes, not having the sort of organizational core competency the Cardinals seem to show there (or the Marlins) developmentwise. But it's more the drafting than anything else - have chosen more college pitchers with mid-rotation ceilings. Clearly the org has had hesitation with drafting prep arms in the draft positions they have enjoyed - and those are the guys often who have the star sort of upside. Rodriguez clearly has #1 sort of things ... this season the rawness as well as the "one bad inning" thing have reared their heads, but he is young enough to work through that stuff. Trading him would be a bad idea in general. (not that there is not a trade where it would make sense, I have trouble thinking of ones that would be plausible though)

Victorino had an MVP-caliber season in 2013 (ok, MVP caliber if you pretend Mike Trout did not exist). Injuries and age held up the rest of it, but the contract was a net win by any valuaton, and when you consider the flag that flies forever, it was even better than that.

Not an issue - if the prospects are what they could be, they will find a home in Boston or somewhere else. The org does not block anybody - the kids do that.

Basically nothing but the chance to dump salary - but that's fine ... he was not going to command much more

Indeed - but it does flip a trope that is popular round these parts ... if one part is weak you fix it with a strong part

Fun fact - the best team in the AL had zero #1 or #2 starters until yesterday.

Those are a lot of poor draft positions.

Polished college bat. Might not have ideal power for 1B, but the approach and contact from what I have read is legit

i think it's possible - but there is no reason not to wait til one of the rentals is a FA. Controllable pitching I agree can be had whenever.

He'd go after a starter because it could assure a playoff spot. Same answer as the "better team" one. If there is a flavor of contention, you have to try to contend. Whether the Red Sox are actually in contention is a conflicted question. 6.5 games back is contention, but 6.5 games and several teams to hop is dicier.

I think it is a complicated question this year, moreso than other years. Because you are right, the division is flawed and so it can be had. But with the run differentials and whatnot, the FO has a harder go than normal doing the self assessment - the "are we really any good" question.

Depends on how they played. If this team had a good run differential and was playing >.500 ball? Then you have a team where one key marginal change can have a lot of bang as far as improving World Series odds. The Red Sox were in first place virtually every day of 2013, and on the "best team in baseball" shortlist the entire way but they still traded went for Peavy. Yes Buchholz' injury was relevant there, but that's the point. You saw a team that was in a position to be special and they saw a hole they HAD to fix to do it. (per their own self assesment) If this team were hitting and pitching like what was expected (your median scenario), they would be shopping hard for that restaurant quality starter.

No. But I think the team has had to show more in order to make a deal that features a mild "overpay". Two months of Doyle Alexander for what turned out to be Steve Avery and John Smoltz is a poor baseball deal. It also won the Tigers the 1987 AL East. You can make a "Flags Fly Forever" argument if the team is close enough to do so. (yes I know they did not win the AL Pennant, but that does not negate the point)

From the yankees prospects blurb from the january list It's just an opinion at the end of the day - and it's not like there are ONLY 50 good prospects in the minors ... but I find his work 1) is decisive. you want a rank, you get a rank. 2) admits mistakes (Chris Sale, Dustin Pedroia) ... 3) tries to reconcile his thinking actively with trends in the industry ... in other words ... the opposite of what HoF voters do.

I don't know. Currently he is being raised as a 2B, so he is getting lots of PT. That is thing with promotions - if you look at Margot's promotion to AA. He did not crush Salem. But teams have their own internal checklists - what is the kid working on, is he fixing whatever. Let's put it this way - nobody is having egg on their face if the kid is not in Portland yet.