sk7326

Well "the future" is a loaded question. He is some modest hitting ability away from being an everyday starter. Swihart has more upside across more areas than Vasquez. That the Red Sox have two potential everyday catchers in their system after letting one walk is pretty impressive considering the deplorable state of catching around the sport. The 2nd half of Law's list has a number of catching prospects too - though the state of big league catching is awful, the industry clearly is trying to fix it.

Fun trivia question - What unbreakable record did Dwight Evans set that season? (Hint: Daniel Nava set an unbreakable record in sort of that same spirit).

I think the offensive and athletic upsides of Swihart are higher. That said, Vasquez is ahead of him right now and could very well be a starting solution as the bat improves. Vasquez' floor is higher (since he probably could be defensive specialist/personal catcher level backup right now if one wanted that). Law noted yesterday in Boston's #5 org ranking that Vasquez not being one of the Red Sox Top 10 prospects is a sincere compliment to what the Sox have been doing on that front. His rankings I've found tend to skew towards athletic ability and offensive approach. Defense matters as you go up the development chain, but defense is generally a skill that gets taught at the professional level - college and amateur just do not provide much grounding there.

Barnes, maybe for a spot start or so. Webster's star has fallen a bit with his alarming first taste of the bigs (small sample sizes, but a curious lack of feel and a terrible homerun rate for a sinkerballer). Owens less likely, although if he dominates early you never know. Swihart I'd say a clear no. Vasquez at AAA is the first guy coming up for "C", and if Vasquez can hit a bit in AAA this season, I think he takes Pierzynski's ABs. Sox can live with that level of defense if his bat is acceptable.

Keith Law Top 100 up ... http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10166140/byron-buxton-tops-2014-ranking-top-100-prospects-mlb Red Sox highlights ... (eligibility = not used up rookie eligibility yet, no Japan/Korea major experience, and no Abreu who is 27) #2. Xander Bogaerts #42. Henry Owens #51 Jackie Bradley Jr #53 Garin Cecchini #56. Blake Swihart . #61. Mookie Betts #89. Matt Barnes

Keith Law Top 100 up ... http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10166140/byron-buxton-tops-2014-ranking-top-100-prospects-mlb Red Sox highlights ... (eligibility = not used up rookie eligibility yet, no Japan/Korea major experience, and no Abreu who is 27) #2. Xander Bogaerts #42. Henry Owens #51 Jackie Bradley Jr #53 Garin Cecchini #56. Blake Swihart . #61. Mookie Betts #89. Matt Barnes

Oh certainly that is a fair call - the margins are pretty close. The Texas-Detroit trade is one of the great something for everybody deals - there were very strong reasons for both teams to do the deals, and both of the principal players have a lot to prove. Fielder in particular is interesting as he had a bad year, but at age 29 and batted ball stats that did not scream decline and moving into a good lefty ballpark, seems like a potential bounceback candidate. And yes, Detroit got shockingly little back for a high caliber #3 starter. And Oakland is not really behind much if at all. I also tend to skew pessimistic on the Sox generally, just how the pre 2004 18 years of fandom conditioned me.

"If healthy" is a phrase that makes all of our speculation sort of moot, and what the division hinges on. The Red Sox 2013 I've maintained was not a triumph of a "new Red Sox way" so much as a spectacular vindication of the old way (the 2003-2011 one) which Cherington and Farrell had prominent roles in at various times. 2012 was just a massive perceived correction for a 2 year playoff drought which was driven mostly by lots, and lots, and lots of injuries. Between a few free agents doing well, and Farrell largely being able to field the team he wanted all season - we were able to be a wire to wire champ. If we have the same sort of injury luck as last year - and expected performance from new guys (as well as Farrell improving as a tactical manager, and he showed improvement over the season there) ... we will be a contender again ... I have us behind Detroit and Texas in the AL, but not by any huge margin. But a bout of poor injury luck can change things quickly, especially in the hypercompetitive AL East.

2011 was interesting. What do you prefer the slow burn of 2011, having the rug pulled out from under you (buckner) or something in the middle (the Aaron Boone game), Personally, the season was becoming such torture that I was prepared for a mercy killing to some degree.

I think there is a gap between disappointment and the darkest hours as a Red Sox fan. I have 300 games of the Butch Hobson managerial experience to sell you on the latter.

Yeah, I thought it was Bruce Hurst too. Also, IIRC Barrett was the ALCS MVP. I felt awful - just a fiesta of poor managing by McNamara. If you actually look at the matchup, our win would have been a heck of an upset. Another thing, if you look at the two World Championships Boston sports lost out in 1986 ... the teams that won titles, the Bears and the Mets probably should go down as a couple of the biggest underachievers in the history of the sport. That the Mets only got two playoff appearances out of that core is kind of amazing.

Papelbon's agent deserves some kind of award ... to get that contract JUST at the time the industry started to realize how stupid an idea that sort of contract is generally.

The trivia answer is ... Phil Bradley ...

The way I think about the ALCS in 1986 at this point though - it's one of this team's greatest achievements, though the season ended in disappointment. For a youngster like Thunder, I'd place it in the same house as the near comeback against Tampa in 2008, which is EXTREMELY underrated among proud moments for the franchise. The Red Sox in that series by the sixth inning of Game 5 were DEAD, throw them in a shallow grave by the interstate and drive away level dead. And to come off the mat and tease us like that. I wish they had won, but you have to be proud of them.

1986 was a blast generally ... I remember so many random games. The game that was called due to fog in Cleveland which causd Oil Can Boyd to observe "that's what happens when you build a ballpark by the ocean". Virtually every start Roger made - he was pretty amazing then. Nothing beats a championship - and the three we have are great. But there is the buzz in 1986 and 1999 about Roger and Pedro starts which we have not had since, even with our amazing success. There really was a sense that each start you had a chance to really see something you'll tell your kids about ... the 2007 and 2013 teams have lacked that, although that is not a dig at the titles at all (in any way).

He might - but as a 33 year old with a ton of miles on him (7 straight 200 inning seasons) and a sharp drop in strikeout rate ... lot of evidence he might have to reinvent himself as a more command/control guy. It is possible he could be an elite pitcher again, but the odds are not high. Yankees levered so much of their rotation success to him - and his drop in form is a huge issue within that framework.

Well it was even outside of the SABR movement ... the Yanks were doing this in 1994 during the Paul O'Neill-Jimmy Key days. Even more recently, David Robertson would have been the best pitcher in the Red Sox bullpen every season since 2009 outside of 2013 Koji. As MVP noted, the reason modern Sox-Yanks games take forever is that neither team swings at balls. If anything, Girardi has too many anti-sabermetrics tendencies, running an offensive powerhouse (at least in prior years) at times like it's an NL team with overmanaging (too many bunts, willy nilly running). Aged pitching and the injuries have caused the Yankees problems ... in 2009 they placed a massive bet on Sabbathia, which largely worked until father time has started to kick in. Now the rotation is just not restaurant timber without a guy delivering prime-Sabbathia level horsepower. Sabbathia was a true #1 when they signed him, and is not anymore - and with it went their chances to be a dominant short series team. Add the injuries and it has been a decline.

True - although any honest evaluation of the division showed 5 teams that were probably 10 games apart talentwise. You look at the rosters and not the hype and you could see Boston was not really that bad, and if only they could avoid the injury bug, they had a chance to be pretty good. Add some extreme right side of the expectation curve work from Lackey, Uehara and Victorino and suddenly, wow. If you seeded the 10 teams in the field when the playoffs started, the Red Sox were no worse than #2 ... and they beat the only legitimate choice for #1 on the way to the title. Sox were the first team since the 2009 Yanks that were the favorite entering the tournament to win the whole thing. Now I will acknowledge you could say the Tigers were the favorite - maybe ... but that's about it.

To be fair, the Yankees have been "take and rake" the last 20 years - Boston only took leave of it in 2012 (along with everybody getting hurt). What has been interesting with the Yankees since George's death has been the relative penny pinching of his sons - They want the fruits of the labor, but not paying the price. Imagine George Costanza pointing out that the Yankees decided to sign a top shelf complementary set of players while letting their one true superstar walk. What makes the baseball playoffs fascinating is that the skills to win in October are not enough (in themselves) to qualify for October. You can win a World Series with knockout starting pitching and below average offense - the Giants did it twice. It is very difficult to win 95 games with that formula though. Conversely with a deep lineup that can mash #4 starters forever while having decent pitching can win 95 games, but can be beaten in short series. You need both - and the Red Sox were able to do so last season. But the best team in the field has managed to "not win the world series" quite frequently - last year was a case where the best team in the draw won, but 2012, 2011, 2010 that wasn't the case let alone 2006 or 2008.

Keith Law farm system rankings up via insider (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10354393/houston-astros-top-farm-system-rankings-mlb)

I remember, although it is impossible to separate the team switch within the context of both teams being extremely good and relevant while it was happening. I think it can add some spice to a rivalry, but not a substitute for the bedrock stuff - good teams being good at the same time.

I am skeptical there - the Sox-Yanks have had SO MANY guys play on both sides of the fence for so long ... it has not affected the rivalry as much as the teams records themselves. Babe Ruth, Ralph Houk, Sparkly Lyle, Mike Stanley, Johnny Damon, David Wells, David Cone, Don Baylor, Mike Torrez, Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens etc etc etc

For the players, they are gigs ... at the end of the day, the same cartel trying to make as much money as possible. Some owners are better than others, like any other company in competitive space. That said, rivalries are about the games. Even the blessed Yankees rivalry - I felt nothing during the Stump Merrill/Hensley Muelens years. What is funny about Sox-Yanks is how rarely the teams have been good at the same time ... basically the 70s and now. Indeed it took until 1999 for us to play in the postseason. For that reason, Tampa is not much less of a rival - we have a long history of important games with them since their rise to power.

Well a lot of teams go to the World Series because this is baseball. Football, where not one position can truly dominate (even QB) and physical talent wins the day - there you can legitimately say a team should beat another 10 out of 10 times. In baseball, pitching - and starting pitching - is a consistent equalizer in a short series competition. Because of having King Felix for instance, the Mariners at least one out of five days, usually have the better team on the field against a given opponent. (this is why a bad baseball team is the equivalent of a 5-11 NFL side, which would be bad but not league worst in NFL terms) The Yankees have missed the playoffs twice since the strike (and would have made the playoffs in the strike year), so yeah their run has been amazing - their market and resources help there. And their management has largely been good, large payroll teams have floundered too. The Yankees 1994-2000 stretch was built on old fashioned home grown talent and opportunistic free agent signing (like a great buy-low on Paul O'Neill). But fortunately, it doesn't buy a whole lot to actually win a title. This is what Billy Beane noted about GM'ing - at the end of the day the playoffs are a crapshoot, in a way the GM's/ownership/purse strings work is done when September ends. Is it a weakness of the system? Not really - everybody is getting rich, and every team has a chance to produce a winning product. The Yankees have the ability to produce a winner every year - but then so do the Rays. What Bud manages to leave is an economic system that is probably the best you can do to assure competitive balance in a world where a LOT of revenue is not centralized (unlike the NFL). The economic system plus the impacts of Moneyball have made the sport better. Now, the current CBA does threaten some of that with its changes in draft and international signing - that is worth watching.

I agree, the marketing benefits are silly. But the benefits on the field of a #2 level starter for the Yankees are very high - the value for a win starts to get much higher as you get through the 80s to 90s and higher in win total, and the Yankees bang for win is pretty high. If he is good - which is a gamble, but a gamble on a 25 year old - the money is not a problem. Is it possible for Dice-K to happen here? No doubt, although the scouting reports indicate a much cleaner approach than Matsuzaka had. I think it was a good move for New York, but not a game changer - they might have only been the 4th best team on paper last season in the division, and I'm not really sure the moves they made this offseason gets them in the Top 2. Yanks are too far away for any starter to be enough to close the entire gap.