sk7326

There won't be any substantial buys ... but sells are possible, especially with the bad contracts. I would not expect anything, but I would not be stunned either.

It is unfortunate. I've actually genuinely respected Larry. He has proven to be a good at running a baseball franchise - and that includes building a front office. Since a lot of "president" types come from the baseball operations side, it is easy to scapegoat a guy who does not - especially if he is a total loudmouth like Lucchino is. But from the time this ownership group took hold, he has hired exceptional baseball operations people. There was a power struggle - but you expect that, especially with a guy like Epstein who is too young to not have ambition for more. If he were in charge of the next GM hire, it would be a sound one (like a Jason McLeod perhaps).

Oh I'm not sure about that. Lucchino discovered Epstein, hired Kevin Towers (who was a good executive for a while), and kept the store open while Epstein was on sabbatical. The infrastructure organizationally is strong and there are enough "Sox guys" spread around that a replacement search could be done with a lot of qualified guys who they know already. Give a psuedo-promotion to Jed Hoyer, or an actual one to Jason McLeod. The caliber of guy has been less of an issue than how he fits into the org chart as a whole - that requires some more rethinking.

Farrell was the right man at the right time - but has not been good at advancing things. Cherington will not necessarily have autonomy in the managerial search. At the same time, there are plenty of solid candidates - and it could be as simple as Lovullo (though I doubt it).

Possibly that a little. But I think mostly they were seduced by his age (only top FA in the class under 30) and spray charts - which were tailor made for Fenway. He is a good athlete (which is why he has been able to be a decent 3B at his fitness level), so there was some upside if you wanted. There was definitely some "winning the press conference" though I tend not to blame Lucchino specifically. Lucchino after all is the one who has had the eye for executive talent. I don't think Lucchino is the leader in terms of looking at NESN ratings. But it is a reckoning the Sox could use. Kimmi is generally right - the team needs changes, but it's not actually that far away.

The deadline that matters is still a month away

He's 23. Posey is a better player - he is better than just about every catcher. And Swihart is not going to have as big a bat as elite corner infield prospects, wonderful. He was overpromoted, but the ceiling is obvious. Vasquez is going to play for a long time in the league - only question is whether he will be a good starter or an elite backup.

Plus that he should be good defensively too - an actual fast guy and whatnot. Rotating makes sense to get his bat in the lineup an extra 15-20 starts ... but he seems to be a legit C. Good problem to have for sure.

A deal like that could probably be done during the waiver period - so even if it could happen, there is no real reason for it to happen now.

I think fenway LF might confound metrics - Crawford is a good LF who was bad there. It is possible that being a good LF at Fenway requires specific things which says nothing about your ability to play LF in general. Rice for instance was for the most part not a good outfielder but handled the wall solidly.

Well, first both of them were replacing absolute zeroes in our lineup, 3B and LF. So just by having a breathing major leaguer there you hoped it would be a significant improvement. Also, Sandoval was an average 3B and Ramirez was moving from the hardest position on the field (where he was below average) to the easiest, so you'd like to think those were plusses. Throw in the fact that the Red Sox were 3rd in the AL defensively last season (h/t/ fangraphs) nd the ingredients were there for a positive defense. And what has happened is that by going from ++ to ok (Vasquez to the others) at catcher, and then Sandoval and Ramirez being well below any reasonable projection defensively, the team has fallen. (6th in the AL, but worse on an absolute basis than last year).

Additionally - and this was Cherington's big miscalculation - the Royals bullpen or starting have been ok (9th in AL fWAR), but the run prevention has been driven by brilliant defensive performance (1st by a mile). The premise that the Red Sox would be able to provide a positive defensive contribution, that was the misfire on the run prevention side. Remember entering the season, the question was really whether Bogaerts was any good. Sandoval was an average to above average defender at 3B and Ramirez was moving to the easiest position on the diamond (besides 1B, and that is debateable). Between the Vasquez injury, and the two FAs none of that came to pass, alas ... despite Bogaerts actually being perfectly good.

I don't think the Royals were specifically the blueprint. But the general idea of using strengths to mitigate weaknesses is pretty basic stuff throughout sports. If the supporting elements were better, the weak parts would have had more of a prayer to be successful. Great lineups and defense augmenting so-so pitching has won before, and will win again. Cherington's mistake (and you've deftly noted this before) was on the first two fronts more than the third.

You are moving the goalposts - who said run prevention was not important? I was just noting whether it had to come from some sort of mythic level of pitching you NEED. Royals didn't have it - the Giants largely didn't. 2006 Cardinals (genuine fluke since they were a mediocre team), 2002 Angels (good run prevention but Jarrod Washburn in a year he would not repeat). Also winning the Series is largely about matchups, health and luck - underdogs win it all the time, the best, most balanced team often does not win ... given how often a good team can lose 3 in a row over a 6 month season this is not any sort of surprise.

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)