sk7326

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 ...

Public money becomes another consideration. Boston, and the citizens of the area (blessedly) have not been in the business of giving charity to sports owners. While the Red Sox can surely afford to finance a XXX,000,000 dollar paradise, would they want to? Also, usually what drives the need for stadiums (according to Judge Smails) is not seating - it's not season ticket holders, it's not normal gate - it's luxury boxes and club seats. If Fenway is maxed out there, then a new ballpark is at least on their radar.

Porcello is a solid pitcher, and Miley depends on perspective. So 1.5 out of 2 ain't bad. I don't know anyone who was excited that Lester left. The question was after Lester, then what? I DO think the answer to that question was answered pretty satisfactorily. The loss of Lester prevents this offseason from being an "A/A+" undoubtedly. But the result overall was a net plus.

Add Margot and it makes sense. And - Devers and Margot still need to be considered carefully if the right guy appears on the market. Let's put it this way - if the Josh Beckett deal appeared again in 2005, knowing what we knew about Beckett at the time, (25 year old, #1 stuff, some history of #1 performance) guys like Devers and Margot, who are pretty far from MLB consideration might be something I'd have to consider. It'd hurt - but given the mandate to contend every year - it might be something I'd have to mull over. Devers after all has the best ceiling in the system - but he also has not played any baseball against grownups yet.

Funny thing about the Yankees is last year, their pitching was the only reason they won 84 games - the offense was every bit as putrid as the Red Sox. Now the theory that replacing Derek Jeter with a potted plant or that a number of old players will cease to be old is a bit dicey - and that is what the offensive projection is based on. The Yankees had a good offseason improving the bullpen and pitching staff. But offensively it's still really really dicey. My own assertion that making the changes to the lineup they made a year ago while cheeping out on Cano amounted to rearranging deck chairs, and there is not much evidence to change that.

Agreed to a point - it's still about the kid. Betts crushed two levels and made a good dent in a third last season. He created a playing time problem - so we'll see what happens.

The assumption is that there is a fair deal for a catcher obviously. If there are two potential starting catchers the same-ish age, it advances both careers to be separated. And it benefits the org (assuming a fair deal is there) since the resources are being maximized. The discussion would be simpler if the guy in the minors was in single-A or something. You shouldn't do any sort of big league planning betting on a guy in Lowell. Given how close to the bigs Swihart is - at some point the front office will have to bet on itself and hope they made the right decision. It's why Cherington gets the big bucks. As for the assertion about catching prospects moving - the top catching prospect in the minors moved in a deal for a Cy Young pitcher - that happened in the 2012-13 offseason too.

Well, starting with the AL, I'd look at rankings like this: 1. Angels 2. Tigers By 3 it starts to get hazy already. I guess you put the AL favorite at #3, but that could be one of three teams (and I'd put the Yankees and Rays a half sniff behind Boston, Baltimore and Toronto but any of the five could win the division without it being a meaningful surprise). I guess you say the Nats, Cards and Dodgers are definitely better than the Sox and that gets you to #6 without thinking too hard about it. What is notable though is how fragile all of these teams are. Even in the AL rankings, I have noted how little it would take for the Tigers to dive-bomb into 75 win land. The Angels need some things to go right. It's a lot easier for me to identify bad teams (see: Minnesota and Houston) than good ones.

That is said with more confidence than the situation warrants. There was nothing predictable about the division the last 2 years, why start now? They might not win the division, but there is nothing about the Sox and the competition which warrants an absolute anything.

There is plenty of time to adjudicate this. After all Swihart has to keep the leap that he made last year going. Without it, this is all moot. BTW: This applies to Vasquez too, who has proven that there is a major league starter in there - certainly defensively - but the offense has a grade or two to go to get to where you'd want it to be. The bar to clear for an above average catcher is very low - it is a level Vasquez is not at quite yet, but something as simple as making more contact is all it takes to get there. It doesn't make sense to use Swihart as a backup this year clearly - it's burning an option for 150 PAs and limited development. The likely outcome is him staying at AAA. Now is it possible that Vasquez could get hurt and Wally Pip'd? Absolutely. There is time to for this to play itself out, but if both guys develop - the chance both will be in the org in the medium to long term is low, as it should be. If both guys are good, then dealing one of them is the option which makes all of the parties better off at the same time.

I am not sure if his bat plays - at least as well as other replacements. Swihart makes sense starting at C like Posey and Mauer - you play him at C first because of how incredibly valuable a guy like that can be given the steaming pile that represents normal catcher production. The position change makes sense to keep his bat in the lineup and prevent injury - but no need to do it early.

His 2014 fundamentals were right in line with career - the dropoff in either basic or advanced numbers was small. The health issue is considerable.

Scioscia actively cost his teams wins with that decision btw, since there were potted plants who offered more offensive promise than Mathis. Swihart tracks to be - not an adequate defender - but a good to very good defender who might be athletically overqualified to catch. That is a different kettle of fish. I like both guys btw, but if you have two quality young starting catchers, hoarding them is not the best way to make your team better. Book on Cecchini is not written yet, but the move to AAA definitely slowed his momentum. If he is the best 3B prospect in the org, it's because he is close to the bigs. He can probably be a solid 3B for somebody, but he has very much moved (if he was not there already) into the "trade currency" bucket.

Optimism is great ... What is funny is that I think you both overrate the quality of Ellsbury's season and overrate the upside. What is funny about Ells' career is that in his Boston incarnation, there wasn't a lot of in between. He has either been a fairly disposable starter (above replacement level but still mostly empty stolen base calories) or one of the league's best players (2011 he was the AL's best position player and last year he was right there among the "non Trout" guys). Last year tracks pretty well with his "mean" season. He sacrificed some OBP for power - which makes sense given his new full time gig at the lefty paradise - and was still an impactful runner. If there is upside mined for Ellsbury it's probably not that much. For what the Yanks paid him it's a good value (the Yankees have a high $$/win after all) but I question the potential for it to be more. McCann's body was older than his age anyway - I'd expect more like this. He was the best catcher on the market, but the red flags were abound. He'll be better - possibly because he couldn't be worse.

He is - I was not expecting to land a guy like that for a "throw-in" ... but for a team with the Red Sox resources, I think Johnson firmly lands in the "trade currency" pile. For a team with the Red Sox resources and time horizon (in that management wants to contend every year), the number of prospects who aren't is very small.

Shorter haul for a better pitcher who has pitched in more difficult places. The injury is worth noting, although he has been notable injury free aside from that - I don't know the answer there, but he is old and the risks that come with it. If he could be had for a couple of prospects nobody will really miss (Merrero and Johnson qualify, Cecchini I think might, but I admit it is a minority view), I'd be ok with it.

That might be harder to sell - I think Philly would want one likely solid starter. Cecchini fits that bill to me. He's blocked here both ways ... Sandoval at the big league level, and (I know this makes me sound like Dojji, sue me) the possibility of Devers gaining on him quickly.