sk7326

Moving them out of Fenway would remove the cover for not having a good team - fortunately since 1967 that has largely been a non-issue. I don't know - I get the sense that pink-hat sorts are nostalgic about the old yard, hard core fans a bit less so. Frankly a ballpark with 10,000 more seats and a more affordable bottom tier (and I'm not being a pollyanna here) would not be a bad thing. This brain trust for sure knows how to put together a stadium which would be the equal of Camden or AT&T

I don't think there is a magic bullet here. The adoption of new fangled stuff varies by org, and by where you are in the competitive space. (hell, that's what Moneyball was about) How do you create edges in a competitive space when you have disadvantages in other places. Scouting is interesting - hire the best scouts is fair, but scouting itself has evolved because of the new fangled stuff - so positioning scouting as "other" than the analytical breakthrough is creating a false dichotomy.

Mr Wiki (I know, I know) had Gwynn at 225 and Panda at 240. Neither are ideal, but athleticism was reasonable in both cases. Fortunately Sandoval still has his youth - at least for a bit longer. I never loved the signing - but the reasons for optimism and the case to sign him were defensible.

This sounds cute until you realize that (from both eye test and what has been written by scouting sorts) is that Panda is far, but a good athlete. (I've rooted for Vince Wilfork before, so I am not unfamiliar) Quick hands, feet. He's never going to be Tim Raines or Rickey Henderson or Billy Hamilton ... but like Tony Gwynn, his tubbiness does not mean he can't move.

To me with Panda the larger question is whether there is more power there. His career has always to me seemed to resemble a non-patient Wade Boggs. There is some actual raw power there (the 3 HR world series game) - but his spray charts seem to show a guy who chose going the other way and contact over raking.

It is more information - which is never bad. With analytics, the annoying thing is the fans who seem to think it's eye test or numbers - when they are meant to complement each other. Front offices (Philadelphia) who don't like the other data so much are doing themselves a disservice.

Tom Yawkey wore a pink hat? I know, I know - it was sitting there ...

My Fenway moment - aside from being at a random game where Kevin Romine hit a walk-off, or seeing Roger's 15 K grand return as a Blue Jay ... was probably in 1999. Was at home when one of my parents friends (a season ticket holder) called and said one of their seats got freed up and whether I was up for going - this was about 90 minutes before first pitch ... of Game 4 of the ALDS. Bartolo Colon on 3-days rest trying to close out the Sox ... Red Sox won 22-8 to set up Pedro's heroics the next night in Cleveland. And it all came together by accident.

$20 sounds like a steal - especially considering how captive the driving audience is.

Did the Dodgers fans have pink hats?

Not much than what has been written - that his stuff is raw, but he made progress after the deal last season. Probably not a 2015 guy in any form (contrast that with Owens). I would not deal him for the most part. Here is my view of the latter three prospects. Say you had a chance to get Josh Beckett again, knowing what you knew at the time (which is all you can rate a move on). 25 year old, former World Series MVP, #1 caliber stuff. And he was available for prospects. The latter prospects are guys the Marlins would have asked for, and those would be guys that I'd be willing to talk about because of the level of dude coming back. And I'd know there is a solid chance the kids blossom elsewhere and it'd break my heart - but opportunities like this do not happen every day and you have to take that seriously. (and fwiw while Josh Beckett generally underachieved relative to the expectations and prospect price - I have no issues with the deal and that 2007 flag of course is still pretty sweet) That is the threshhold I'd be looking at. I know I've posted here that Devers - granted with the sort of super wide range of outcomes that is part of just turning 18 - is the guy in the system with future MVP upside.

True - but that's what the scouting and development is for. I am not sentimental. My untouchable list is very short - Swihart, Owens, Rodriguez, Margot, Devers ... and the latter three are sufficiently far away from the bigs (although Rodriguez in particular can address that this season) that I wouldn't hang up the phone right away.

True. That said, Texas is very much on the same sort of knife's edge Detroit is, even moreso. They still have a lot of a team on paper that can contend. But they are also very much a team that could go the other way - the first couple of months will be particularly big for them. To me there are maybe 6 teams who already know 2015 ain't for them. (Houston, Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona, Atlanta, Milwaukee) And I am sure a couple of those can lie to themselves for a bit. We have to be patient with how the teams themselves evolve. There are fewer financial reasons to move guys than ever - so we'll have to settle for the baseball ones.

In many cases I think, it is about "when do the contractual questions trump the baseball ones". The tough thing with the Hamels negotiations is that question is somewhat murky. In a case like Cueto or Gallardo, it's a lot more straightforward.

Cherington has said nothing about it. I have no doubt he has explored talks about the sorts of pitchers who represent improvements. But to acknowledge it publicly would be stupid. Also, the industry knows how the Red Sox really feel about their staff - it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out if the Red Sox will be looking to add pitching in June. Management after the winter meetings - correctly IMO - decided to get off of other people's timelines for dealing with the pitching staff. The power to stand pat is the strongest trade chip the Sox have (think of the adage about negotiating for a car or house). Management has decided to credibly establish that power - which they have to do in order to make the deals on terms they can accept.

SB is ever thus - the conference title games I have heard are really the best fan day in the sport.

Baltimore got worse. Andrew Miller fwiw walked, Markakis (warts and all, he started) left and even if you did not think Nelson Cruz would repeat his 2014, they still did not replace that pop. Showalter is a master with platoons, and he'll have to be. Tampa got worse, although they are always dependent on the children - but the crop of kids looks less promising now than say the 2008-9 classes. Yankees, Sox and Jays got better, but how much is questionable. The Yankees for instance got better but it might not result in actual wins (considering the last two years they had the fundamentals of a below .500 team).

True - although limitations in high-roller seating, corporate boxes - could be an issue, and if they see more money possible from that set, a new ballpark could make sense. You can only keep developing on that foundation so much. They have a more or less unlimited ability to gouge regular folks - but the luxury suites might have some limits.

Fixed - and never a bad time to pull that link out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5dsrwMAF80 My fingers moved too quickly over the year Thanks for the excuse to post this

Let's put it this way - if you could develop a ballpark with many of the cute features of Fenway - with wider seats, better viewing angles and 10,000 more seats increasing the "Under $25 ticket' base, that would be a good thing. I am not sentimental - I want a non-cookie cutter ballpark with distinctive features (and Lucchino of course knows how to do that) - but when Papi at 1:45 AM on that Monday Morning in 2014 hit that homerun, it wasn't the slabs of concrete that made me yell out in glee.

Fenway already does that. Most expensive average seat in the game. If anything - 10,000 more seats would open up more affordable seats. Granted, further away from the action and it won't be a ton - BUT ... Fenway has been hiking prices for years to make up for the limited capacity

The only way there will be a new ballpark will be if they can figure out a way to make it happen on land they already own. But if there is a new ballpark, it will be driven by luxury suites more than anything else.

I think his work in the World Series showed that the maturity thing (at least from an off-field perspective if that makes sense) is a non-issue. The maturation at the plate and on the field is a different deal. I don't think he sulked at the move to 3rd, but if he took it as a dig I would not blame him either. Really the view for his future can only be gleaned from how he as dealt with adversity in the past. What is unique so far in his career is that the adjustment period at the bigs is the longest so far - but he has shown an ability to take coaching and conquer challenges at each level. That makeup, and being able to have a full offseason, gives me optimism.

I think there is no chance that there will be a Red Sox stadium anywhere but Fenway ...