moonslav59

SP'er lines in the last 5 ERod 2.2 IP 9 runs 12 BB+H Buch 5.1 IP 5 runs 12 BB+H Wright 4.2 IP 8 runs 9 BB + H Price 2.1 IP 6 runs 12 BB+H Porcello 5.1 IP 4 runs 9 BB+H Total: 20.1 IP 32 Runs 54 BB+H (Note: runs not earned runs)

I'm not saying I want to trade for this guy, but Justin Verlander is still owed $28M a year for 3 more years after this. We could probably get him without losing a top prospect, but our budget would be shot for a few years. Is there anyone else out there better than Verlander, cheaper than Verlander, but still maybe available for less than a top 4 prospect?

Yeah, but he's not playiung anymore as far as I know. Here's another way of looking at it. Here are our noteworthy pitching draft picks since 2003: 02 Lester (2nd rd)03 Papelbon (4th round)/Abe Alvarez (2nd rd) 04 Cla Meredith (6th rd) 05 Buchholz (#42 pick)/ C Hansen (#26)/ M Bowden (#47) 06 D Bard (#28)/Masterson (2nd Rd)/ K Johnson (#39)/C Clay (#43)/ D Richardson (5th rd) 07 Hagadone (#55)/ H Strickland (18th rd)/ D Britton (23rd rd) 08 C Kelly (#30)/ Bryan Price (#45)/Stephen Fife (#85)/ K Weiland (#108) 09 A Wilson (#77) 10 A Ranaudo (#39)/ Workman (#57) 11 M Barnes (#11)/ H Owens (#36)/ N Ramirez (#143) 12 B Johnson (#31)/ P Light (#37)/ J Callahan (#87) 13 T Ball (#7)/ Stankiewicz (#45)/ Kyle Martin (#263) 14 M Kopech (#33)/ Jake Cosart (#103) 15 T Lakins (#171) 16 K Groome (#12) International signings: 04 Doubront 06 Matsusaka/S Pimental 07 Roman Mendez 08 Tazawa/ W Cuevas 09 F Montas 10 J Aro 13 Hinojosa 14 Espinoza/ C Acosta

There's a reason he's been called a AAAA player for years.

We suck at drafting and developing pitchers, especially starters, and especially recently. Here's the best 12 I could come up with.... SP1) Jon Lester SP2) Anibal Sanchez SP3) Felix Doubront SP4) Clay Buchholz SP5) Justin Masterson, Frank Montas/ A Ranaudo/ C Kelly .....Owens/Johnson/W Cuevas Closer) J Papelbon RP2) J Tazawa RP3) Alex Wilson RP4) H Strickland RP5) M Barnes RP6) J Aro/ N Hagadone/ N Ramirez/ Workman RP7) R Betancourt/ P Light/ W Jerez

We never had a good rotation this year. We went with quantity over quality, and now we are paying the price.

There's a reason he's been called a AAAA player for years.

I'll be in Portland next week and plan on going to a game or two. I can't wait!

I get your point, and I'm still rolling my eyes on how they botched the Lester extension, however I do think the plan (after the extension was botched) was not as bad as many think it was. I think the hindsight on the execution of the plan may be clouding judgement on the plan itself. Look, nobody hates the Miller for ERod deal, and had we gotten someone better than ERod for Lackey (instead of Kelly & Craig) plus something way better for Lester than a couple months of Cespedes and a year of Porcello (before the extension), then things might be different on this aspect alone. The next aspect of the plan was what to do with the money "saved" by not signing Lester and extending Lackey. I was totally against the Sandoval and HanRam signing from before day 1, but I guess it's understandable that they decided to spend on offense last winter and pitching his winter, when the market was saturated. We ended up getting Price without losing a prospect or comp draft pick. We traded for Kimbrel. To me, the bigger mistake was not the overall plan, but rather how the completed the plan. Kelly has been worse than awful. Craig was even worse than worse. Cespedes> Porcello has not been even close in value to what I think we could have gotten for Lester, plus we ended up paying a high salary to keep Porcello around. I'd rather have just outbid the Cubs for Lester than acquiring and extending Porcello. The age difference was probably a big factor in this trade-off, so I'm not trying to minimize the "age argument". The problem was the choice in trade partner more than the idea of trading Lester, IMO. To make things worse, we used the money "saved" to sign Sandoval & Ramirez. Those were horrible mistakes, and I can see how these deals can be related to the Lester & Lackey dumps, but to me, they are separate deals. Had we spent the money on re-signing Lester and Cruz or signing Scherzer & Miller instead of Pablo & HanRam plus got three ERods or better in the 3 trades, we might not be looking back lamenting the decline of our rotation. We messed up judging Kelly & Craig. We messed up getting just Cespedes and a comp pick for Lester. We probably messed up extending Porcello after getting him for Cespedes. We messed up signing Sandoval. We messed up signing Ramirez. Had we done better on the choices above, letting Lester and Lackey go, would not have been as bad or maybe even not bad at all.

.Probably so, but we don't know what was offered, if anything, and what it might have taken to get one (assuming talks got that far). Maybe CLE would have wanted JBJ, Swihart, Devers and Guerra. Maybe Holt or Owens/Johnson too. Teams don;t usually float names, unless they are at least considering a deal. They don't want to mess with a player's emotions, psyche or loyalty.

I totally agree. Moncada's upside is too high to risk trading away. I almost feel the same way about Espinoza, but I realize we'll have to give a lot to get controllable greatness in return. Of the big three, I'd deal Benintendi. I think a Beninetndi, Swihart and Devers package should get us a great arm, but I have yet to see or find a name that fits the deal at this point of the season.

I did hear rumors on trading one of those guys, but they wanted way too much. Yes, they wanted to compete, so they wanted ML talent (offense) in return- not prospects. I heard CLE asked about JBJ, but I'm not sure if it was related to us getting carrasco or salazar. I suggested a three-way deal sending Cincy's 3Bman to Cleveland. Us adding Swihart (ML ready), Holt and Owens & Johnson (before they fell off a cliff value-wise). Cincy would have gotten Devers and/or Margot or Guerra.

My 3rd reason for making the trade.... 1) Age and projected age-related decline projections. 2) Attitude and the whole beer and chicken issue. 3) The return we get on trade and the perceived ability to replace them with similar pitchers at the same financial cost. (For example, trade Lester for players and then sign an equal pitcher at the same money.) On the 3rd point... The theory was that we'd get some advantages from the players we got for Lester & Lackey AND we'd use the money to sign helpful players. The theory was not idiotic, but the results were. The players we got: Cespedes (turned into Porcello), Kelly and Craig combined hurt more than helped. The money "saved" was wasted on Sandoval and HanRam. Had Porcello turned into a solid #2 and we signed Scherzer instead of Pablo and hanley, maybe the theory wouldn't look so bad now. My position is that the idea was not terribly flawed, but the execution of the plan failed miserably.

I think we end up trading Swihart, but since he's on the DL, it won't be happening soon. That being said, I agree on keeping Hanigan.

What about the 3rd point? Probably the main reason out of the 3.

The media and posters kept "banging" that drum over and over. I don't recall any hard-fast rules being dictated by Henry. That being said, I do think age was a factor, as I stated above in my 3 reasons, but I doubt it was the only factor. The theory was that we'd get some advantages from the players we got for Lester & Lackey AND we'd use the money to sign helpful players. The theory was not idiotic, but the results were. The players we got: Cespedes (turned into Porcello), Kelly and Craig combined hurt more than helped. The money "saved" was wasted on Sandoval and HanRam. Had Porcello turned into a solid #2 and we signed Scherzer instead of Pablo and hanley, maybe the theory wouldn't look so bad now.

I'm highly skeptical of Teheran as well, but the cost for better pitchers will be way more, and Vizcaino is a gem. I'm hoping we can do better, but I'm not holding my breath. Last winter, I suggested trading 3 from Swihart, Devers, Guerra and Margot plus a mid-level prospect for Salazar or Carrasco, and most people thought I was nuts.

We may, but it will cost way more than he's getting now, so my point was more about the cost needed to replace these three, even if we replace Taz with Taz.

I doubt we get one of those guys for both Swihart and Benintendi. We probably couldn't get one by adding Devers and Lakins either. I'm not saying I'm willing to trade the farm for one of these guys, but the reality is, that's what it will take. We have to choose wisely.

I understand your point and don't disagree. My hope is that instead of having to trade 2 or 3 of our top 5 young guys (Moncada, Swihart, Benintendi, Espinoza & Devers), we can keep it to 1 or 2 by adding some of these mid-level prospects.

It's for Teheran and Vizcainoe- a very good RP'er. Still no?

. I hate the idea of trading for a number 5 starter, even if he's a good one. I think it's the wrong way to build a winner. We are in a jam though, and overpaying for anything higher than a 4/5 slot SP'er would probably involve a massive overpay. It's going to be a hard choice to make. We are not going to get a cost-controlled quality pitcher under team control for 2 1/2+ years without it hurting us. I get the idea of going for broke in Papi's last season, but I plan on being a Sox fan for at least a couple dozen more seasons. Solving all our issues via free agency is not a winning solution. Building and maintaining a strong farm system is the key. We took a little hit with the Kimbrel trade, and we'll probably take another hit this summer and/or next winter, but we have to leave some significant foundation remaining. We all know it is going to be hard to replace Papi. It's going to have to take significant improvements in several areas to make up for his loss. We'll also be losing Uehara and Tazawa this winter (along with probably Buch & Hanigan). Looking farther down the road, we actually have a pretty long window, before we have significant players becoming FA eligible. In some ways that's a blessing, but with players like Pablo, Castillo and maybe HanRam and Porcello, the long wait can be very financially restrictive. Here's a look at team control by years (player plays through season listed) 2016: Ortiz, Uehara, Tazawa (2017 options on Buch & Hanigan) 2017: Young (end options on Buchholz & Hanigan) 2018: Kelly, Ross(option on Kimbrel) 2019: Porcello, Bogey, Holt, Leon, Rutledge, Workman (option on Ramirez) end option on Kimbrel 2020: Betts, JBJ, Wright, Vazquez, Smith, Layne(option on Sandoval) 2021: Pedroia To be determined: ERod, Swihart, Shaw, Barnes, Noe Ramirez and all on minor league deals. 2022: Price (assuming no opt-out) Trading away several top prospects is going to mean we'll have to extend or replace (in kind) guys like Bogey, Betts & JBJ before too long and up will go our budget. These three guys along with players like Wright & Shaw getting low pay, is what allows us to sign guys like Price and trade for high-priced players like Kimbrel. Once these guys start getting paid more, we'll be dropping guys like HanRam, Pablo and Porcello, but we'll still need some low cost-high impact players on the roster to help keep the luxury tax low. Those guys or at least some of these guys will have to be Moncada, Benintendi, Swihart, Espinoza and/or Devers.

Would you trade Swihart, Benintendi, Devers plus Kopech or Lakins for Teheran & Vizcaino ? Not in a million years. I don't think I would either, but how about... any 2 from Swihart, Benintendi & Devers plus both Kopech & Lakins?

I think the "age" thing was blown out of proportion. The Price signing shows that. I think it was a combination of 3 major issues: 1) Age and projected age-related decline projections. 2) Attitude and the whole beer and chicken issue. 3) The return we get on trade and the perceived ability to replace them with similar pitchers at the same financial cost. (For example, trade Lester for players and then sign an equal pitcher at the same money.) It didn't work out well. We didn't get good return and we didn't replace these guys in kind.

Would you trade Swihart, Benintendi, Devers plus Kopech or Lakins for Teheran & Vizcaino ?