sk7326

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 ...

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.