Hugh2

I hope the Sox go ape-s*** crazy on July 2nd 2017 and just sign every single highly regarded International free agent as a giant F.U. to MLB.

Perhaps the Sox were more open and deliberate about it and they thought they had to put their foot down as slasher said. The thing that doesn't sit right with me is that these guys were signed over a YEAR ago, and it wasn't that secretive. You would think that the league would have been clearer and warned teams or clarified the rules prior. Do I think the Sox probably did it more than any other team and thats' why they are being punished? Yes, but I'm skeptical that if they were a smaller market team that they'd be coming down on them like this. All these spending rules, and bonus penalties are derived from the fact that baseball is trying to pump up small markets and create more parity in baseball.

Well....to be fair that's so pretty legit credento's there. Still I think you'd need maybe a year or two as an assistant G.M. before you might be able to take over a team. You could call it your "minor league development"

I actually new the Sox were doing this a year ago. There was talk all around baseball BEFORE they signed any of these guys that this is what all the teams who went over budget prior years and were limited to 300K per player were talking about doing. Soxprospects were talking about teams doing it, baseball america were talking about teams doing it, it was an open secrete. It really seems a bit odd that the Sox are being made an example of here when there are other teams that surely should be penalized as well.

You think you could run a team better? I bet I couldn't.

They didn't go over budget, they tried to circumnavigate the rules to try and bring in talent without handing out big bonuses. It wasn't technically wrong as their is/was no policy against what they did. It was an open secrete, they weren't hiding it and while anyone can make a good argument that what they did was wrong and perhaps they do deserve penalties the frustrating thing is that many other organizations have been doing the same exact thing.

Just realized this sounded sort of stand offish, didn't mean for it to be.

I think we need to give up on Ball and drop the expectations based on his draft spot. Guys are what they are and Ball isn't in the same Tier as the other two, and Espinoza is in a tier of his own. I know they drafted him because everyone they liked was off the board, the 2013 class was very very weak and they saw him as raw but highly athletic, perhaps he's a late bloomer and still has #3#4 starter potential. But Espinoza is easily this organizations best bet for a TOTRS, Groome too if we sign him.

"A's pitchers always look good pitching at home. It seems when they leave they get crushed." Yes, you didn't say every but you didn't say some either. When you say A's pitchers it infers everyone who has pitched for the A's, when replying to comment about an A's pitcher who used to pitch for Boston and has a 1.65 ERA there. The question now becomes.....which way do you wish to move the goal posts now?

Do you seriously lack any reading comprehension skills? Yes I said they are overrated, that is not analogous with non existent. If it was I wouldn't call them overated I would call them wrong, false, or make believe. Also the example I used when using the term "pitcher friendly ballpark" was used in such a manner to point out of pitchers have pitched better in hitters parks and sometimes worse in pitcher friendly thus strengthening my argument that they are over-rated. This isn't complicated stuff here.

So what you're saying is sometimes guys leave teams, and past their prime or in a new market underperform? You do realize that happens everywhere. But thank you for your 3 person sample size. FTR, Zito went to a NL ballpark that is notoriously pitchers friendly in a division that is also pitcher friendly. Guys leave teams all the time and thrive/struggle. Saying there is some huge correlation because it's Oakland is just dumb.

Estimation? I'm not a scout nor do I professional evaluate talent. Also scouting isn't exactly an "estimation business" and up until recently no, Benintendi and Moncada are elite but just reached Portland. AA/AAA do have some very intriguing bullpen arms, with some guys reaching triple digits and high 90's. I also wouldn't completely rule out guys like Henry Owens or Brian Johnson.

So you are judging the whole system, based on one night, in one game, against one pitcher??? I'm sure you could have gone to see Babe Ruth one night and he might have gone 0-4 and anyone could decipher he sux from that.

If you knew anything about the Red Sox system you would know that the Portland team was empty of any talent. Up until recently they didn't have one single guy who projects as a MLB starter. You also do realize that there are multiple levels of minor league baseball? AAA, AA, high A, low A, short season A, rookie leagues and Dominican summer leagues? Taken the weakest team of 8 in the system and using that as an indictment of the system as a whole seems a bit biased to me. Yes the top of the system is weak, but that's because in recent years they've graduated Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, JBJ, Barnes, Wright, Shaw, Vasquez. No team, not even those with some of this decades best farm systems have elite talent at all levels, that is virtually unheard of. I see a very nice wave of talent coming up behind our recent graduates....who by the way were called by many Sox fans grossly overrated and busts because they had an adjustment period at the MLB level.

He must of meant everyone else besides those guys.

Oh...and what are the historical numbers? that's a simple and lazy argument. While ballpark factors are very real, they are also much more marginal and often over accounted for. Pitchers all too often do the exact opposite of what their league and park suggest (for better or worse) Me and you had this same exact argument years ago about John Lackeys numbers at Fenway park. If I seem to recall, he pitched much better at home than away at Fenway park. And guess what....I just looked it up!!!!!! in his first season his ERA was Home: 4.34 Away: 4.45 In 2013 it was 2.47 vs. 4.48 in 2014 it was 2.94 vs. 4.73 Despite pitching in a hitters friendly park none of that seemed to matter. If teams score appx 20% more runs, then a very rough quick assessment could be to assume a 20% higher ERA. A 3.00 ERA pitcher becomes a 3.6 ERA pitcher which is still really really really good in the A.L. EAST. Also you're talking about Rich Hill here, and in case your forgot he pitched for the Red Sox with a 1.65 career ERA at Fenway park. Sonny Gray has a career 3.07 in Oakland with only a slightly higher 3.27 on the road. Ballpark factors are often not as big as people like you try to narrate as such, and sometimes they are completely irrelevant. And lets not forget that the home team factors into 50% of the numbers that calculate those factors and if it is an organization with little to no offensive talent then those number are often skewed. So, how many times do we see any pitcher from any team go to a new ballpark and lay an egg?

Well it's not really the same thing, it's probably a poor analogy. The point is that teams always try to work around the rules, not necessarily break them. It should be up to MLB to change the rules if they don't like it but they shouldn't penalize and make an example out of a team just change the dang rule.

I'm not exactly an angel here, but I've always been bothered by people who refuse to do an ounce of research and just post what they think, feel, or trust base don their own recollections. This is 2016, and when talking sports their is a whole world of knowledge and verifiable information clicks away.

Maybe I should read all comments before just posting one by one lol, I pretty much just reiterated Users point.

What I find frustrating is reportedly this was common practice, in that other teams were doing it. They didn't break any real rules, it was more like working around them. In the same way that it's common practice to throw a draft pick with a 500K slot value 10K and then pocket 490K to allocate to another pick teams who couldn't sign guys to more than 300K were signing multiple guys with the same agent from the same camp to 300K deals. This isn't like what St. Louis did, it feels more like the Sox are being turned into an example.

Short answer Yes. semi short answer. If you suck at your job you inevitably get fired or go to jail. Not trusting the experts without knowing any of them would be like not believing or trusting any doctors because you don't know anything about medicine or personally know the doctor. If 99 out of 100 doctors tell you to take this medicine or you will die......odds are you're swallowing that pill.

Devers is old enough to be a sophomore in college, playing in high A. He's one of the youngest guys in the league. You can count on one hand how many pitchers he's faced in his pro career who are younger than him. In June he's batting .313/.352/.386. He effectively had one bad month, which given his age and need for adjustment is meaningless. In fairness so is this sample size and I would like to see more power, but he's young it's a SSS, Salem and the Carolina league is notorious for no power. But you're right, he's young and so far away. I think you're spot on with your analysis with Groome and Rutherford, BTW I think the Yankees might have finally broken their streak of horrible 1st round draft picks with this kid. Still young and far away but on perceived talent alone he's easily your most exciting pick in over a decade from what I can remember.

Rosario, Coyle, and Romanski are organizational prospects. Maybe not Romanski, he has a chance but I doubt he's more than a back up catcher. Why do you think our system is overrated???

Yes/No We get the #13 pick next year if we fail to sign him along with our other 1st round pick. Guys like Groome fall, but it's very rare that a guy who was rated the #1-3 prospect by every scouting source on talent pre draft falls that far. It would be highly unlikely someone as talented as him falls. The 13th pick is consolidation enough to not blow up their draft the next two years for Groome, but I think they are going to make a serious push for him. They haven't signed all 1-10 yet, Groomes team could be posturing in the hopes that the Sox try to save as much money on other picks to give to him. Think of it this way, If Groome turns down 4 million he'd be turning down the 2nd highest offer ever turned down to re-enter the draft in a much deeper draft and even though he still might be top 10 talent a LOT can happen. He has a rookie agent, this guy is probably just posturing and trying to make a name for himself. If he signs Groome to anything above slot he looks like a hero.

Well, left field isn't THAT far fetched but at this point 1B seems highly improbable for Moncada. Unless he turns into a balloon but can still hit I think he'd be traded before he ever touches first base in this organization. He's not just really good at baseball, he's an ELITE talent on just pure athleticism. IDK I could be wrong but I'd be pretty comfortable betting my first born child on that. Have you ever seen him Moon? If I'm not mistaken you are close to the Portland area no? so you should go check him out. The guy is so built he really stands apart on the field. Funny to see him stand next to Benintendi who looks like the skinniest guy on earth next to him yet he has some really big deceiving power. That's what strong wrists and bat speed will do for you!!!