Hugh2

I think I still take our 2011 draft over the Pirates 2011 AND 2010 draft.

Top talent Delvin Perez failed a drug test and may slip out of the top ten, and first round altogether. http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/perez-shelby-fail-mlsb-drug-tests-2/#gLYEVwxuhqSVBrTt.97

I think the further down the draft you move the more it's about the scouting department and scouts. DD probably heavily influences the first pick or two and after that it's all the system. A lot of that comes from some of the insight from Baseball Americas J.J. Cooper.

I do generally believe a lot of their failure to develop pitching is just the fact that overall it is really hard to draft and develop good pitching and probably a dose of bad luck as well as they've done great overall drafting and developing talent. However, they do seem to be better at position players, so something could be said about focusing on what you're good at. As I said before, generally it is harder to draft and develop pitching. And while the Sox have failed at this, they've had a lot of guys who worked their way up but just couldn't make that last leap. Some of it was due to injuries like Brandon Workman and Brian Johnson(although I saw workman as a bullpen arm and Johnson as a BOTRS) They've traded promising guys like Logan Allen, and some have turned out to be felons like Cody Kukuk. Also, while they don't have TORS potential you can't close the book on someone like Owens being a decent MLB starter if he can improve his command and Barnes looks like he can be a guy in the pen. Still their record at developing pitchers lately leaves a lot to be desired. There is also this. http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/what-draft-history-tells-us-about-phillies-best-bet/#O6Rkgj32qOGi3xk7.97 Still I think if you have a draft process overall that works, you stick to it. If they get to the 12th pick and someone like Jason Groome is there and they really believe in him, I say take him. But if recent success is any influence coupled with DD's taste for college players in tough conferences I can see a guy like ZacK Collins, or Nick Burdi being their pick. Even with the strength of HS talent in this draft, There's always talent at the top and with DD's record of loving college guys at the top someone they like in a college program might fall to them.

Can't forget Soxprospects, they have excellent draft coverage. http://news.soxprospects.com/2016/06/2016-red-sox-draft-preview.html And I would highly recommend their draft preview podcast that I just finished as well. http://news.soxprospects.com/2016/06/podcast-ep-98-2016-draft-preview-with.html It's an easier listen if you download it on stitcher or itunes.

I don't think draft the best player available and focus on pitching need to necessarily be mutually exclusive. I think the further you move past the #1 pick the more fluidity there is between players and teams probably have draft boards that are tiered. Also, remember pitchers are generally 1/2 of the players that are going to be drafted and on your roster. The Sox will easily take 18-20 arms this weekend.

Oh no, I'm no expert guys. I just love following the soxprospects and read soxprospects.com and baseball america all the time. I'd like to consider myself a well informed fan of the minor leagues.

I agree with that statement, every sport is unique in it's own way. However, (and I'm just playing devils advocate here) I also think we don't know how he would be in another sport. The only other sport he would probably have a chance of performing is in football but as big as he is he's not that big for a football player. BUT, for all we know the difference in nutritional intake or exercise programs that he would have been on if he played football his entire life could have resulted in a much more buff Ortiz. He's a big guy, and while big guys put on fat easier they also bulk up easier. If Ortiz trained to be a football player he might be anywhere from 40-80 lb's heavier right now and a lot of that might be pure muscle. He could be a completely different animal and might have made it as lineman/linebacker. That's pure speculation on my part and I wouldn't bet on it, but we just don't know. Tom Brady was drafted as a catcher, perhaps he would have been a good catcher......but I highly doubt anyone would argue he chose the right sport. There's nothing wrong in your argument, but I don't think it's the same argument me and User name and others are making. Which is that Ortiz likely has a lot of wear and tear on his body that probably has a lot to do with why he is ready to retire. No matter how much easier his position is or should be, or how that compares to injury levels in other sports invalidates that sport in any way.

So if I wanted to look at things from the other side of the argument (which I'm not) then I could infer from this Data that Ortiz has been 62% more likely to be injured than the average football player because he's played 6 years to 1 year on average compared to the average football player.

I understand what this data is telling us, I just don't see how it means David Ortiz should easily be able to play more or that he doesn't nor will accumulate more wear and tear. This is an analyst of one player not every athlete in every sport in the aggregate. Between 20 MLB years and several years in the minors Ortiz has about 6 years of playing time compared to the average NFL player so the capacity for more wear and tear is there. Some players can play for 20 years, some sustain injuries they can't recover from and play no more than 3-4 years whether it is football, baseball, or hockey. Every player, every case is different...and if you've played through injury then the wear an tear your own body endures follows a different formula. But like I said before the difficulty of a sport, or generally how much wear and tear it creates is really irrelevant here. We are talking about one guy, not what happens to the entire population on average. Whether or not Ortiz could play another year is irrelevant, he likely has a ton of wear and tear and the degree to how much that will impede him going forward (in life in general) is yet to be known. No matter how much easier baseball is to play, or how fat you can be and still play it does nothing to change that that is a fact that could be a huge contribution to David Ortiz wanting to retire.

In general I shy away from starting threads but it is almost draft day and prospects are my favorite subject. Here is some relevant information leading up, feel free to add some analysts, articles, mock drafts, conversation, and hopes and desires. http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/mock-draft-4-0/#05R41kJm2qygLr0l.97 http://www.minorleagueball.com/2016/6/6/11837308/2016-minor-league-ball-mock-draft http://www.halosheaven.com/2016/6/3/11848308/2016-mlb-draft-consensus-rankings-2-0 http://m.mlb.com/news/article/181759132/mlb-mock-draft-puk-senzel-lewis-are-top-3 http://espn.go.com/blog/mlb-draft/insider/post?id=2754 From what I've gathered this is a generally strong draft compared to recent years yet it seems to be lacking a lot strong college pitching at the top and seems to be flush with a lot of high upside high school arms at the top. Of course, the last week leading up to the draft there are usually a few names that come flying up the draft boards and some college players get pushed to the top.

Bill Belichick said something that stuck with me last year. Players win games, but Coaches can lose them. I think people give too much credit to the outcome of games, win or lose to the manager. With that said, at times they can make decisions that just seem very stupid at times that end up with horrible results.

Exactly, I think some goal posts were moved, perhaps on both sides but I think the original point that David Ortiz should be able to play a few more years just because he is a DH is generally invalid. Whether or not his position is generally less physically demanding than another is truly irrelevant. I also want to point out that the BDC posters that I'm disagreeing with in here are some of my favorite posters from BDC who I generally admire and agree with. I just happen to think they are in the wrong here....I argue in peace.

I don't understand what this is trying to prove. Just because a sport requires more physical fitness or is "physically more demanding" doesn't mean it causes more wear and tear. You may be 100% right in what you're saying but that doesn't mean someone like Bartolo Colon doesn't have significant wear and tear that might not significantly change the quality of his life in 5-15 years from now. We just don't know. And conversely even if a sport on average produced much less wear and tear it doesn't mean none would be there, and it certainly doesn't mean that significant wear and tear might be there. Every person is different, every body is different, and even if you took two completely identical athletes over time the motions and injuries they accumulate would create different levels of wear and tear through out the ages. Even if you took two identical athletes and gave them the same job with the same work load the wear and tear could be 100% different. Player A could have a job that is 50% less physically demanding than player B, Player A could also have a much better career and yet still have much more wear and tear. If player A spent 1 year playing through more injury than player B at age 25 that could effect the amount of wear and tear on the body the proceeding 15 years. You guys are looking at this argument all wrong, we realistically have zero ideal how much wear and tear David Ortiz may have. We know he's played the sport a long time, we also know he's accumulated injuries and we also know he's played through injuries (which is insightful here) If anything, the fact that he wants to retire....should shed some perspective on the issue as well.

All good things must come to an end....let the man leave in peace. You can never replace a guy like Ortiz, but the offense will be fine without him. Use that money on pitching, this team is one elite starter away from being a playoff contender for years to come. IMO.

I think there is a bit of misalignment in what we are exactly arguing here. I'm no "expert" but I would easily argue I probably know much more than the average person when it comes to anatomy, physiology, human performance, kinesiology etc etc. I know enough to know when people generally don't know what they are talking about and as I said before this was...sort of my field for some time. Saying something is "physically demanding" and something creates "wear and tear" over time are in no way perfectly analogous and that is what I sense on one side of the argument. So therefore that argument is invalid. If we were comparing how hard jobs were, and how much they physically required would anyone consider sitting at a desk as a lawyer, accountant, or data analysts a "tough" job? no you wouldn't. But that person could be subjected to tons of physical problems due to the wear and tear of every day life. Carpal tunnel, scapular imbalances, poor posture which could lead to back issues, shoulder impingement etc etc. Let me lay out an example, lets say I sit at my computer every day 8 hours a day writing on forums like this talking about baseball. This is NOT physically demanding, but yet it is creating wear and tear. The action of typing causes my scapula to protract forward which causes my pectoral and shoulder muscles to tighten and the muscles in my shoulder blades that stabilize the scapula such as the Rhomboids and the Serratus Anterior become weaker leaving one susceptible to other injuries and problems. My experiences in life have led me to effectively be able to just look at someones posture and tell if they sit in front of a computer all day. People who fit this description tend to have weaker shoulders and more rotator cuff injuries. Their job day in and day out is VERY easy physically yet over time can cause serious physical problems. I'm pretty sure if you went and asked a surgeon who fixes rotator cuffs who he sees in his office more than anyone else he would say it's people who sit at their computers all day.....Get it???? Just because the act of playing baseball might require less physical activity doesn't mean it can't cause considerable wear and tear. Just because David Ortiz doesn't play Football doesn't mean he should easily be able to play a few more years with no wear and tear and risk of injury that could effect him the rest of his life. Also, you HAVE TO look at this on a case by case basis. One of moons lists says boxing is the most physically demanding sports, I would agree with this as I was an amateur boxer and kick boxer for 10 years. Yet it can also be a very mature sport as some of the very best boxers in our lifetimes have fought well into their 40's. Despite how physically demanding it is, it really is a thinking mans game. My main gripe in here has been the narrative that because of the position David Ortiz plays he should be able to play into his 40's. The reality is, no matter how physically demanding the sport may or may not be we have zero ideal how he would hold up for another year or 3. We have zero ideal how much his feet, Achilles, shoulder, his knees are hurting him no matter what his performance level may be. Even if he could play another 1-4 years we have no ideal for how much longer he could be productive and to think that it might not take a considerable toll on his body, and the quality of his life for the next 20-40 years is very ignorant. And the decision to weight the cost vs. benefit of playing for one more year vs the toll it could take on his body and quality of life is his alone. If he wants to retire, then I respect that decision and if ANYTHING that might be the closest thing we have to clue on how he's actually feeling and how much the daily grind is getting to him. He wants to retire after this year, and I don't care if he hits 100 home runs this year, that should tell you something.

I beg to differ. Running on a treadmill for 30 minutes is 100X more physical than sprinting 60 feet 4 times in 30 minutes (at least it requires more physical activity) but the latter will dramatically increase your chance of injury and thus provide for much wear an tear. I think people who are saying that baseball isn't that physically taxing don't understand human physiology that much. Something being physically challenging to do, and something being physically taxing on your body ARE NOT analogous. A lot of the motions that are functional in baseball are very unnatural movements. The Act of swinging a baseball bat, pitching a pitch, and going from 0-60 in a split second are very taxing on the body. Also, someone who sits down and only has to get up to bat is probably less warmed up sitting on the bench, which if anything puts someone at a much larger risk of suffering an acute injury. People who are looking at this, are looking at it from the wrong angle. I worked as a trainer, I was 30 credits shy of a degree in health and human performance before I switched to a business degree, I've worked in gyms my whole life and I've worked with a PT and professional athletes as well.....I know what I'm talking about. P.S....I come in peace!!! not trying to sound stand offish.

Part of that is because baseball is a very 0-100 sport. I mean, freak accidents can happen in any sport, or even in our everyday lifes. You literally go from standing still to an all out sprint in the game, couple that with the risk of running into walls and other people and it's easy to see how easy freakish accidents can occur. Going from doing nothing, to giving something your maximum effort probably puts you more at risk of an acute injury than almost any other physical type of activity. And when you also consider everything inbetween including guys playing through injuries and it's easy to see how baseball can add a lot of wear and tear to an individual.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/youngch04.shtml

Young certainly has picked a good time to start stepping it up. He now has a .295/.368/.577 slash line on the year with a .807 OPS vs. RHP.

If people want to argue that playing other positions are more physically demanding they have a point. But that is a stupid argument to make if your point is that David Ortiz should be more able to handle playing baseball because he doesn't have any "wear and tear" I apologize but if that is your mind set then you really have very little knowledge of health and human performance. Sitting at a desk all day shouldn't produce any wear and tear, yet those people see just as much shoulder impingements and rotator cuff injuries. This isn't because they have a "physically demanding position" or they play a lot of basketball or softball rather it is because of the muscular imbalance that sitting in front of a computer all day creates. Not only do you need to understand that the physiological aspect of swinging a baseball bat is a very violent and unnatural movement, but you also should consider these things HAVE to be looked at on a case by case basis. Yes, David Ortiz plays a less physically demanding position yet that does absolutely zero to validate the argument that he should be able to play well into his 40's due to "less wear and tear". We know for a fact he's been injured, and has played through multiple inuries in the past and that is way more harmful than running around more in the outfield everyday. Also, every time he runs the bases he does so with more weight pounding down on his knees than most other players. That is just one thing of many to consider. David Ortiz is probably going to spend the rest of his life with a heightened risk of foot, knee, and shoulder injuries in retirement. I hope he takes care of himself well. If you want to offer Ortiz more money to entice him to play another year that is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion but if anyone thinks David Ortiz SHOULD NOT be worn down at his age because of the nature of his work.....then I'm calling you out for having no ideal what you're talking about.

I was just thinking the same thing. If there was a catcher who can catch a knuckleball well to be had he could help increase our chances of winning every 5th day. As good as wright is, the Sox are 5-5 in his starts.

Not really, deals happen like this because a team is in sell mode and they find a buyer. Just because it happens doesn't mean the market is flush with sellers in early June. Yes, Shields got put on the market but the majority of guys who will be for sale in 6-8 weeks from now have G.M.s who are either not taking calls or it would take a much higher offer to get them to bite early.

I think just about anyone would delay retirement or come out of retirement for one more year for the right price, and that applies to all ranges of self interest. I say respect Papis decision....if he really wants to come back for one more year he will/should express interest. I really think there is something to be said about a guy who goes out on top of his game.

I'll eat crow, I lost our bet and I'll be the one to remind you. He started more than 10 games. But calling it "stupid" is absurd. As evidence of my last post. I would have been 100% signing him, he would have been a great depth option but the risk was very very very high. High risk/high pay out. It's paying out for Oakland but lets not all pretend that the risk wasn't/isn't there. I still very highly doubt he can start 32 games, and if he does his arm will have been fatigued by October time. He has not pitched that many innings in over a decade, and even a fully healthy, young spring chicken can't double or triple their workload in one year. It would be almost unprecedented for him to pitch 190 innings + and that's before even talking about being available for the playoffs.