moonslav59

If you're talking to me, I'd like to say that most of the criticism of my suggested trades are on the side that I am offering too much. I often get criticized for not wanting to part with our prospects, which I think is unfounded. My take is that if we are going to trade away top prospects, I'd rather put together a larger package and get someone better. Sometimes I'll opine what it might take to get someone, but it doesn't mean I'd offer it. Take the Sale rumor: many feel it might take JBJ, ERod and maybe an Owens type. I'd rather offer JBJ, Swihart and Devers. Am I over-valuing Swihart and Devers by equating them with ERod & Owens? I bet some would rather give ERod. Look, when you're talking conjecture and trade theory or philosophy, it doesn't always equate to reality. I get that. To say I hated the Esi for Pom trade but was willing to trade Espi & Swihart for something better, it's hard to put a face to the theory, and in many cases, the face that could be found is not someone OI'd trade the two for, so I get it. Really, I do. On DD... I was okay with the Price deal, but hate those types of mega big & long deals. I painstakingly provided all the past similar signings data, and it wasn't pretty. The deal was totally understandable given the dire straights this team was in. I even said that of all the big-named FA pitchers on the market over the last few years, Price seemed like the safest and best investment. So, although I wanted Cueto more, I'm not going to bash DD over Price. I'm not going to rehash the Kimbrel trade again, except to say it looks worse in hindsight than I thought it would. I expected a top 3 closer performance. I'm not going to rehash the Pom trade, except to say I liked Pom, and the injury was something that hurt the hindsight analysis. I was highly critical of many Ben moves, but was against getting rid of him. It may seem contradictory, and maybe to some extent I am that way by nature, but I liked Ben's long term goal and plan- much the same way I loved Theo's plan back in 2003. The last place finishes was Ben's ultimate downfall, and I get that. Same with Tito.Managers and GMs are often judged harshly on hindsight. It's the nature of the beast I guess, but for the most part, I really try to stay away from hindsight bashing. I do it up front. When I do look back on a GM's career, I try to look at the full picture. I try not to count unforeseen injuries or declines that much against a GM, but if the general direction of the team was in decline, then I'm not going to lose sleep over that person's departure. Like I said, I wish Theo never left. I did not want him to go, even at the time, but even he admitted, he "had lost sight".

I didn't think he was overpaid. He pitches more inning than Kimbrel, and we traded 4 prospects so we could pay Kimbrel $13M a year. Miller got $9M x 4.

Beckett was on pace to become one of baseball's all time great WS and playoff performers ... then poof! He's one example on why you can't rely on past "clutch" to project future "clutch".

I hope you're right, but if the second half Shaw shows up, we're in a tub of doo doo.

3 rings after getting none for so long, is "great" in my book. He did some very good things after 2004, but when you look at the overall body of his transactions and draft picks after 2004, you can see why the team was worse off when he left here. Now, he got the team to a very high place at the same time having a great farm. That early work set us up for a long term successful period. Getting lower draft picks due to so much winning hurt. Signing limits and restrictions increased. Drafting better players with later picks, because we could pay them more, began to fade away. The reasons for the decline were not always Theo's fault. He also had to deal with Larry L. Theo was great for us, but can anybody honestly say, he left the team and farm at a level even close to 2003-2008 levels? He left a nice base for Ben, no doubt. We couldn't have won in 2013 without Theo's foundation. We weren't horrible, and it's hard to stay as great as we were in 2003-2004 and 2003-2008.

Well said, oldtimer. I've always been a bit high on Hernandez, but I have never thought of him as being a solid FT player. I'm not saying he can't ever be one. His best spot may be 2B, but that seems like we can say the same about too many of our younger players, most notably Moncada.

Here are the batting numbers for the second half: 21.2 Betts 14.0 HanRam 7.9 Ortiz 7.2 Pedey 3.7 Beni 2.9 Young -0.8 Bogey -1.3 Moncada -1.5 leon -1.6 Brentz -1.7 JBJ -2.8 Holt -3.0 Holaday -3.7 Hanigan -7.0 AHill -10.1 TShaw Overall, our 3B group had a -21.8 Batting -2.0 first half -19.7 second half We don't know for sure if the second half numbers are more indicative of 2017 projections than overall numbers. Some players, like Betts, always seem to do better in the second half. Some often do worse.

The team clearly declined after 2004, despite the win in 2007. Compare the team's of 2004 and 2007 to the team and farm Theo left Ben, and nobody can say they are close. This doesn't mean Theo wasn't great. I wish we got rid of Larry instead. I'm thrilled Theo was our GM. I don't think we win 3 rings without him. I'm eternally grateful, but that doesn't mean I can't point out a downside of his career here. The farm is not even close. Check out the Sox top prospects from 2003 to 2008 and compare it to 2009 to Ben. http://soxprospects.com/history.htm

The offensive category also includes base running. Both JBJ and Bogey get good scores (Bogey 6.1 and JBJ 5.2), but Bogey is shown to be better. That means JBJ is even more of a better hitter: Batting: 47.0 Ortiz 30.8 Betts 20.0 HanRam 17.2 Pedey 13.6 JBJ 11.6 Bogey 7.9 Leon 6.7 Young 2.9 Beni -0.2 Hern -0.3 Rutl -0.5 Swi -1.5 Brentz -5.3 Holt -8.1 Shaw -8.4 Hill -10.8 Vaz & Han

Here's how Sox players rank in the "offense" category of fangraph's value page 150+ PAs min. (13 players x 30 teams=390) 8 Betts 40.7 9 Ortiz 37.1 41 JBJ 18.8 44 HanRam 18.6 47 Bogey 17.7 64 Pedey 12.7 99 Young 7.6 106 Leon 6.8 218 Holt -2.0 326 Shaw -9.5 353 Vaz -11.7

Here's how Sox pitchers rank by WAR. Remember, 30 teams x 12 pitchers per team = 360 pitchers. Starters and relievers... 6 Porcello 5.2 13 Price 4.5 40 Pomeranz 3.0 52 Wright 2.8 131 Ziegler 1,3 138 Kimbrel 1.2 139 ERod 1.2 192 Ross 0.7 218 Buch 0.5 227 Barnes 0.4 241 Hembree 0.3 .

I've been a Sox fan since the early 70's. Losing sucked! I used to say, "I'll take 9 last place finished for one ring! Just one ring! f*** all the second place finishes!" Theo deserves a huge pat on the back for ending all that. Sure, Dan D helped some, but Theo made a lot of big moves, including the one I just said "won us a ring"- trading the popular Nomar for little known Cabrera. It was a gitsy trade that brought us our first ring in ages. I'll never forget what he did. That being said, I was not blinded by joy. Theo struggled after that Nomar trade. That doesn't mean he's still not great.

...And the funny thing is, my very first thread on a message board was over at the Herald with the title "The Red Sox Cannot Win With Theo", which came immediately after the Nomar trade. That is funny. You know what I did after the Nomar trade? I drove to my brother-in-law's house and told him and his friends, "We just made a trade that will win us the World Series!" I kid you not. I felt like Nomar's SS defense was so over-rated and that was all we needed. When I told the guys we traded Nomar for Cabrera, they said, "Who's he?" The rest is history. The thing is, after the Nomar trade, if you look at the total body of Theo's work, it was not great. In my opinion, I think it was actually below average despite the 2007 ring.

I'm thinking the same thing. We may not have the luxury to keep 6 starters in the fold, but invariably teams end up needing at least 6 starters. I guess, if we plan on using Pom in relief (at a reasonable cost), then maybe keeping him makes more sense. $13M is a lot to pay for a middle relief guy. Here's a look at how often we have needed a 6th starter or more over recent years: 2016: Price 35, Porcello 33, Buch 21, ERod 20, Kelly 6 6th: Wright 24 7th: Pomeranz 13 8th: Owens 5 9th O'Sullivan 4 10th: Elias 1 Total: 47 2015: Porcello 28, Miley 32, Kelly 25, Buch 18, Masterson 9 6th: ERod 21 7th: Owens 11 8th: Wright 9 9th: Hill 4 10th: Breslow, Barnes & Johnson 5 Total: 50 2014: midseason rotation purge makes it too difficult to keep track. 2013: Lester 33, LAckey 29, Buch 16, Demp 29, Doub 27 6th: Peavy 10 7th: Webster 7 8th: Aceves 6 9th Workman, Morales & Wright 5 Total: 28 2012: Lester 33, Lackey 0, Beckett 21, Buch 29, DiceK 11 6th: Doubront 29 7th: Bard 10 8th: Cook 18 9th: Morales 9 10th: Stewart 1 Total: 67

Shaw is good for 20 home runs and 75 plus RBI's. How do you figure? Here's his numbers pro-rated to 600 PAs: AA: .242 21 68 AAA: .256 13 64 MLB: .251 22 82 Maybe I'm too caught up in his second half slump and his 668 PAs of AAA ball, but I'm not counting on anywhere near those numbers you suggested. I guess this is pretty close: AAA + MLB: .253 18 74 (1446 PAs combined) but I can't bring myself to be that optimistic.

I didn't mention Hernandez because I don't want to see him at third. Second base and shortstop for him in my mind. I'm not sure why not. He's probably a better defensive 3Bman than Shaw, but that's not a known fact. This is known: Hernandez AA: .832 OPS (294 PAs) AAA: .752 OPS (427 PAs) MLB: .730 OPS (56 PAs) T Shaw AA: .795 (870 PAs) AAA: .715 (668 PAs) MLB: .754 (778 PAs) The sample sizes are unbalanced, and certainly Shaw's MLB .754 OPS in 778 PAs should carry more weight than anything Hernandez has done in the minors, but overall, the OPS numbers look comparable. It could also be noted that Shaw's sample sizes at AA and AAA were significant enough to carry a lot of weight too. I was never a Rutledge fan. I'm not a huge Rutledge fan myself, but word was that Ben always liked the guy. He's maybe a better fielder at 3B than SS, where he has played most of his career. AA: .846 (379 PAs) AAA: .826 (583 PAs) MLB: .709 (1088 PAs mostly as a SS)

Assuming everyone is 100% healthy, here's how I see our rotation rankings: 1) Porcello 2) Price (could pass Porcello in 2017) 3) ERod (still has upside potential) 4) Wright (had the best half season of any of our starters this year) 5) Pomeranz (had a great first half this year) 6) Buchholz (We won't get fooled again- The Who)

Yup... Drellich also writes that the Red Sox plan to pick up Clay Buchholz’s $13.5MM club option, and Heyman tweeted that the team will indeed do so. Buchholz had a $500K buyout on the option, so the decision boiled down to a $13MM call for Boston.

Royals give Wade Davis his $10M option.

Big surprise... The Red Sox have declined catcher Ryan Hanigan’s $3.75MM option for 2017 in favor of an $800K buyout, according to FanRag’s Jon Heyman (Twitter link). Evan Drellich of the Boston Herald reported earlier Thursday that the Red Sox were likely to let Hanigan go. -MLBTR

Soxprospects.com has this on Kopech.. Kopech's strong Arizona Fall League performance has earned him a spot on the 2016 Fall Stars roster. Over his first three starts, Kopech has impressed, throwing 10 innings with a 2.70 ERA, 1.10 WHIP, and 12 strikeouts to one walk. He is coming off a 2016 regular season where he dominated to the tune of a 2.08 ERA, 1.10 WHIP and 86 strikeouts to 33 walks over 56 1/3 innings. It is no surprise he continues to receive national attention. Both Pleskoff and ESPN's Keith Law had very positive write-ups on Kopech's recent starts. Like everyone, Law was impressed by the upper-90s velocity and said he had "top-of-the-rotation" potential, but also stated that he needed to work on his command and his inconsistent secondaries. Pleskoff, a former Astros and Mariners scout, was much more glowing in his report, ultimately giving him a 60-grade ("all-star quality") grade.

I hate to repeat myself.

You are officially wrong. Games 1 and 5 were won by the home team. The home team lost 5 of 7.

Someone finally got to Miller and Shaw. Congrats Cubbies!

To me, the argument wasn't about choosing Margot or Beni, it was about getting a RP'er for 4 prospects and how we also paid Kimbrel near FA market money in the process.