sk7326

I wouldn't worry that much. After all, usually (and this is always a source of argument on these boards) when prospect sites talk about a #1 upside - they are referring to likelihood to be a Top 10 sort of pitcher. Personally I think a #2 sort of ceiling (e.g. Top 30-40 pitchers in the majors) level is possible. Generally deception and feel guys are not at the top of list of true aces. That said. I think his consistent strikeout rates give me more optimism than SoxProspects has.

Devers in a full season league as an 18 year old is really really exciting stuff. Same with Margot being able to potentially get to Portland before he can legally drink.

Rodrguez is the stuff guy, Owens is the feel guy. Owens seems much more likely to have a good career, Rodriguez seems to have a higher peak. It is an interesting discussion. As far as trading? My tiers look like this 1. Never say never but: Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart ... need controllable Major League quality, and that might not even be enough 2. This better be good: Owens, Rodriguez ... has to facilitate a good return. Due to inherent injury risk, I'm always more willing to move pitchers than hitters in the farm. But raising pitching is the best way to get it. 3. Kids who will make me look bad: Margot, Devers, Chavis, Travis, Ball ... just so young, and for a team with the Red Sox timelines, it might not be worth it to wait 3 years when a proven 2015-2016 solution might be available. One of these guys could blossom for another team and break my heart, but it might be a price worth paying to complete a key deal. 4. Trade fodder: Johnson, Barnes, Cecchini, Coyle, Merrero, Escobar, Shaw ... upside limited, but all have fans among some of the player evaluation population. Star potential low enough (and they are close enough to AAA) that you deal them to make the big club better without worrying too much

That time of year. I do respect the paywall, so just put out the relevant extracts: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12198324/kris-bryant-no-1-2015-ranking-top-100-prospects-mlb?ex_cid=InsiderTwitter_law_top100prospects2015 http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12211557/kris-bryant-byron-buxton-top-100-prospects-mlb http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12211903/chicago-cubs-no-1-farm-system-rankings-2015-mlb Red Sox #5 system in the league Guys in the Top 100 10. Blake Swihart (#56 last year) 20. Henry Owens (#42 last year) 29. Eduardo Rodriguez (#43 last year) 55. Rafael Devers (Unranked last year) 70. Manuel Margot (Listed last year as org sleeper)

Defense is also one of the areas which gets better at the MLB level. Often the orgs best fielding instruction is at the big league level - for the Sox that is the case (Butterfield). Vasquez is going to be a quality starter for somebody for quite some time - if he can just hit enough.

Lucchino is a very tough hombre - which makes him enemies. He is also both a baseball guy, but came from a business background, so he is not precisely a baseball guy. What is interesting about him is that he actually has a ton of experience - at running a sports business, which is experience very few guys actually have. So he understands how to build a baseball operation, and how to run a ballpark - but he's not a scout or a GM. So it feels like meddling when he gets into the baseball side, even though he has more credibility in that area than your average corporate suit. I think a lot of his bad rap comes from the idea that he does pay attention to the Red Sox as a media company, and not just as a baseball team. I don't blame him for that - although clearly I care about baseball decisions on their own merit.

There will be more. Cherington will be keeping his eye out for relievers anyway. Year to year performance for relievers is more or less totally unreliable. But there are a lot of live arms.

Mitchell Boggs cameo on Cheers was funny.

1. Hall did a lousy job as usual - but the four they got in deserved to be in. Ballot was stacked and there were many more that deserved nods. 2. The three titles are the apex of my fandom obviously. But the chance to watch people do something at a truly artful level is also why I watch sports. Pedro may not be the best pitcher of my lifetime (when you consider longevity as well as peak). But his best was far and away the best I've ever seen. He was legitimately appointment viewing in a way that no other pitcher of my time (I go back to the mid-80s) was. Clemens had the power - and was awesome, I am not going to lie. But the fastball, curve, change combo Pedro had was something special. His 17 K game at Yankee Stadium and his 6 innings against Cleveland in 1999 will be forever. 3. Hope everyone had a happy holiday - whatever applies or doesn't.

Or not - traded a guy who was not going to play for one who would. Middlebrooks could become an average 3B, I have not quit on him. But stardom for him is pretty much dead.

They were a dime a dozen - and Ross was familiar with this setting and a good receiver. Over the 40-50 starts he was going to get it's not a big deal. But those starts are going to Hanigan which is fine too. That they got a breathing human for Middlebrooks is impressive.

Holy straw man - it wasn't that they were rare - it was just that it was not hurting them. In any case, they solved backup catcher by trading WMB, which by definition is more than what he should have fielded. WMB was tools without baseball skills and the victim of a front office in 2012 desperate to show something good.

RF Betts 2B Pedroia DH: Ortiz LF: Ramirez 3B: Sandoval 1B: Napoli SS: Bogaerts C: Vasquez CF: Castillo Flip flopping Vasquez and Castillo makes sense of course - but I like the idea of increasing the number of RBI chances Betts has at the leadoff spot, even by a wee bit

Besides, their moves look a lot like a team looking to contend in a suddenly soft division

I think that's possible - but I think it is also possible that the team sees this as good enough, at least until the mid-season trade market opens up in earnest. There is some merit to finding out whether this team is a legitimate buyer before making the plunge on a Cueto sort. There are enough swing options between Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes in various call ups to be able to piece together 100 or so professional starts here.

Well - in baseball particularly - it is always magic when a team wins it all. And you are right, 2015 does not offer the sort of obvious upside that the 2013 roster had (our good players being healthy, our manager not being an imbecile). The upside is there, but we are asking for more than simply staying off the DL. But if you really look at the rotation in 2013 - aside from Buchholz (and he was hurt for so much), the rotation was as much about delivering an honest day's work as anything else. "Solid" starting plus a median level offense and a good bullpen can keep us in the mix. I'll also point out that as much as 2013 had some magic, 2014 had just as much anti-magic to it. It is just as unlikely that all of the players would stink at the same time.

There are questions - but there is also a lot of durability and some legitimate upside too. I am certainly not comparing this to McNally-Palmer-Cuellar or anything, don't get me wrong. But can this bunch represent a good enough rotation to get to say June, when the prices on some of the tradeable aces (Cueto, cough cough) could start to drop and the Red Sox are still armed with a lot to deal.

Oh I don't know - this rotation slots as quite good in the #2-#5 spots. #1 is not ideal but will not be 0fer against other 1s either. The offense needed to improve - as long as it does so, this rotation has potential to be fine. Cherington's moves with relievers is solid - just sign a giant truckload of them, see who makes the cut.

Depends on the price - but realistically the Nats SHOULD drive a high price. They won 98 games last year! Yes, there is the "he's in his last year" considerations, but flags fly forever, and if I'm them - if I don't have a great deal, taking a shot with a team that can win it all is never a bad idea.

One of the interesting ideas is looking at some of the projections that are actually out there ... if you look at Steamer (not all of the other projections are available on Fangraphs yet) and put the rotations as is side by side from the rotation which started the 2014 season (we will leave #5 starter out for now) ... to give an idea of the projection range, Kershaw is high at 4.8 WAR (so the data as you'd expect from forecasts is pretty smooth). (http://www.fangraphs.com/projections.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&type=steamer&team=0&players=0) Last Year Lester: 3.6 Lackey: 2.5 Peavy: 1.0 Buchholz: 2.1 TOTAL: 9.2 Right This Second: Porcello: 3.1 Miley: 2.0 Buchholz: 2.1 Masterson: 2.0 TOTAL: 9.2 Obviously projections are what they are - so I'm not going to go hog wild here. But there is some decent evidence that the Red Sox have at least held steady rotation wise, but more by improving the middle-back of the rotation than the front. Now where you miss a restaurant quality #1 is in October ... but the bet that this is good enough for now (so we can fish for a stud when the deadline hits) is a reasonable one.

I suspect most teams would have serious cash flow issues doing that - or at least to a certain degree. MVP noted why don't teams offer the latter years - I think that comes down to winning the auction. Because of the recent CBA rules, we are dealing with big time seller's markets (and probably will for the foreseeable future). Teams have the cash to make the crazy offers, and the rules are limiting the ways you can spend it. At the same time, you DO see that logic hold on the "Adrian Beltre 2010" (or Justin Masterson now) sort of marriages of convenience.

I think that covers it - at the same time I do think the Royals have to be in the mix for Shields still to a certain degree. It is a lot of money, but the window of opportunity is open and you have to think differently when that is the case.

Now Amaro should not come down from his price in one sense. After all, he is offering 4 cost controlled years at what will be a bargain for at least a couple of them. But if he is intent on cashing in Hamels, he might have to acknowledge the market that is, and not the ideal one. This is not 1996 where a team gave up a good young pitcher and a plus prospect for a mediocre closer (thanks Mariners) or the Astros giving up three starters for two months of Randy Johnson. You look at how comparatively little the Sox got for Lester and the Tigers for Price, and clearly teams are smarter about this sort of thing. To the Red Sox credit, they have a rotation now which - I think - should be able to hang in for a while, so they might be able to look at Cueto during the season when the price might start to fall significantly

I think it is a given that you are paying for the early years of a contract with the hope that the later years are adequate. Long term contracts are bad on the obvious level (outrage as a working stiff blah blah blah). However on the right people they are great - because you are locking in cost certainty, and for the most part the salaries escalate annually at a much higher rate than they do in the contracts. I mean you take the aging forecasts for a player like Mike Trout, and his long term deal is likely to be a screaming bargain at the end of it. The guarantees exist entirely because of the marketplace - in game theory it's the winner's curse. You generally overpay to win an auction. The trick is trying to overpay as little as possible. Now the industry could collude to not pay as much, but we all have seen how that goes . Are the players overpaid now? Not at all.

If you played high school ball for instance, the guys who were future studs were not the dudes who crushed JV. They were the guys who were able to compete at the varsity level as 14 year olds - even if not at a spectacular (or even that good) level. Bogaerts is ahead of where Troy Tulowitzki was as a 22 year old, and most of XB's peers just got to AA. Has the shine of him as a prospect gone down? Well, since he did not have a Mike Trout year, sure it did. But his developmental track record shows evidence of the sort of work ethic and makeup to bet the house on - he has consistently figured out levels where he has been very very young for. Bradley is more questionable because he is so much older - but can simply changing his approach at the plate a little lead to some big gains at the plate? I actually think he can - although it might be with another team.