A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Agreed that option A is to try to unload part of Dempster's contract, probably to a NL team like the Giants...etc. If we can do that and unload 8-10 mil I'm all for it. I don't have a huge problem keeping him though either. At least he's durable and probably wins half his games with the Sox. That's not bad out of a #5.

    [/QUOTE]

    With 6 starters plus Morales, Worman, Britton, Webster, de la Rosa, Ranaudo, Owens and other, subtracting about $7-9M from our budget by trading Dempster makes too much sense to not try. 

    Is the step down from Dempster to Morales and Co that large?

    Is the gain we can get by adding $7-9M to our winter spending budget significant enough to outweigh the possible loss at the 6 starter slot?

    I think it's a no-brainer.

    While the 6 starter is important, we have 4-5 major holes to fill this winter, and that $8M or so, can go a long way towards filling 1 or 2 of them.

     

    We might be able to keep Salty for about that amount.

    SP6 Dempster

    C  Ross/Lava

    or 

    SP6 Morales

    C  Salty/Ross

    [/QUOTE]


    This idea that we should trade a starter because we have a so called surplus is non sense. Last time we did that we lost Bronson Arroyo. Going into next season is there any gaurantees that Buchholz or Peavy will give us 30 starts or 190+ ip next year? or that Doubront doesn't show up to camp next yr out of shape and that he doesn't spend the first mos of season at the fat farm? Look Dempster was exactly what I thought he would be, a guy that basically makes 30 starts [something he's done for the past 7 seasons] and 170+ ip w/ a .500 record and a 4.5 era and gives his team a chance to win almost everytime out. There is a lot to be said for that! At this point I would have no problem w/ Dempster in the bullpen and as a spot starter should someone go down to start yr. If you want to trade anyone trade Morales a guy who has never proven he can give you 30 starts, but at his age would bring something back in return, not just a salary dump. While all the young guys you mention have a lot of promise, I would not like to throw any of them into the rotation to start the year because we traded our so called surplus. Makes better sense to do what RS did w/ Workman this yr and gradually work them into the staff, not throw them to the wolves so to speak. Pitchers take time most often, a guy like Raunado has taken 1 step forward then 1 step back almost his whole minor league career, anyone that thinks you could throw him into rotation to start yr is crazy. Same could be said for Workman wasn't like we all started last yr saying can't wait for Workman to come up this yr, he was a nice surprise. Counting on young pitchers to step in and make 30 starts usually ends horribly, thats why a guy like Dempster got the $ he did if it wasn't RS someone else would have. Pitching Wins! Never have too many starters.. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Very well said gary. Demp was exactly what I predicted he would be. Although it wasnt much of a prediction seeing hes been the same guy for years. The $$ was justified. Demp had bad run support at the start of the year, then that honor went to Lackey. Demp could have easily had 4-6 more wins if he had a little support.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Very well said gary. Demp was exactly what I predicted he would be. Although it wasnt much of a prediction seeing hes been the same guy for years. The $$ was justified. Demp had bad run support at the start of the year, then that honor went to Lackey. Demp could have easily had 4-6 more wins if he had a little support.

    He was not "the same guy". Even adjusting for the NL, no DH league, Dempster's 4.57 ERA (4.64 as a starter) was way too high for a $26.5M/2 year deal.

    His previous ERA:

    2012: 3.38 (NL and AL)

    2011: 4.80

    2010: 3.85

    2009: 3.65

    2008: 2.96

    He turned out not to be a good fit for Fenway: 4.84 ERA.

    He declined sharply as the season went on: 4.24 to 5.16 ERA 1st half/2nd half.

    $13.25M is still way too high for a 6th starter... even a 5th starter.

    We can do batter with the money, and Dempster's value to another team is higher than to us, so teams will pay a steep price for a quality starter, especially if we pay $3-5M of his deal.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here's a list of the Sox top prospects as ranked by soxprospects.com by position:

     

    C    8 Swihart, 13 Vazquez, 19 Denny, 30 Butler

     

    1B 26 Almanzar, 40 Longhi, 46 T Shaw

     

    2B 10 Betts, 20 W Rijo, 27 Coyle

     

    3B 3 Cecchini, 25 R Devers

     

    SS 1 Bogaerts, 17 Marrero, 37 T-W Lin

     

    OF 2 Bradley, 14 Margot, 18 Brentz, 21 Hassan, 31 Ramos, 32 de la Cruz

     

    SP 4 Owens, 5 Barnes, 6 Ranaudo, 7 Webster, 9 T Ball, 15 Johnson, 16 Stankiewicz, 

    22 L Diaz, 22 Buttrey, 24 Callahan, 28 Kukuk, 33 Mercedes, 34 S Gomez, 35 P Light,

    36 D McGrath, 38 M Smith, 39 C Littrell, 42 Wright, 43 Couch, 45 M Pena, 50 Haley

     

    RP 11 Workman, 12 Britton, 29 Wilson, 41 Martin, 44 Ramirez, 48 Stroup

     

    [/QUOTE]


    When you have Almanzar as your best 1b prospect, you know things are bad at that position. Which is why I wanted Lavarnway to be handed a 1b mit last year.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Very well said gary. Demp was exactly what I predicted he would be. Although it wasnt much of a prediction seeing hes been the same guy for years. The $$ was justified. Demp had bad run support at the start of the year, then that honor went to Lackey. Demp could have easily had 4-6 more wins if he had a little support.

    He was not "the same guy". Even adjusting for the NL, no DH league, Dempster's 4.57 ERA (4.64 as a starter) was way too high for a $26.5M/2 year deal.

    His previous ERA:

    2012: 3.38 (NL and AL)

    2011: 4.80

    2010: 3.85

    2009: 3.65

    2008: 2.96

    He turned out not to be a good fit for Fenway: 4.84 ERA.

    He declined sharply as the season went on: 4.24 to 5.16 ERA 1st half/2nd half.

    $13.25M is still way too high for a 6th starter... even a 5th starter.

    We can do batter with the money, and Dempster's value to another team is higher than to us, so teams will pay a steep price for a quality starter, especially if we pay $3-5M of his deal.




    He was the same guy I predicted. He should have won 12 games this year if he had some run support early on. Im not saying dont trade him. Of course if the deal makes sense and it makes the team better, you pull the trigger. He was also dealing with a groin issue that he didnt make a big deal about. I had no issue with his salary.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Very well said gary. Demp was exactly what I predicted he would be. Although it wasnt much of a prediction seeing hes been the same guy for years. The $$ was justified. Demp had bad run support at the start of the year, then that honor went to Lackey. Demp could have easily had 4-6 more wins if he had a little support.

    He was not "the same guy". Even adjusting for the NL, no DH league, Dempster's 4.57 ERA (4.64 as a starter) was way too high for a $26.5M/2 year deal.

    His previous ERA:

    2012: 3.38 (NL and AL)

    2011: 4.80

    2010: 3.85

    2009: 3.65

    2008: 2.96

    He turned out not to be a good fit for Fenway: 4.84 ERA.

    He declined sharply as the season went on: 4.24 to 5.16 ERA 1st half/2nd half.

    $13.25M is still way too high for a 6th starter... even a 5th starter.

    We can do batter with the money, and Dempster's value to another team is higher than to us, so teams will pay a steep price for a quality starter, especially if we pay $3-5M of his deal.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He was the same guy I predicted. He should have won 12 games this year if he had some run support early on. Im not saying dont trade him. Of course if the deal makes sense and it makes the team better, you pull the trigger. He was also dealing with a groin issue that he didnt make a big deal about. I had no issue with his salary.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Moon the stats you seem to always skip over is the 30 starts and 170+ IP for 7 yrs in a row! That is a staff saver. While many want Morales or others to replace Dempster, remember the most starts Morales has ever made in a season is 9 and ended up on DL that season, his career W-L is 13-18 w/ a 4.38 era [mostly NL] almost identical to Dempsters career era in NL, and has pitched 281 IP in his career. The difference is Dempster will make his starts even w/ a hammy issue, which probably explains his 2nd half dip. With both Peavy and Buchholz already on the staff and neither a lock to give us a full season, Dempster is worth keeping on the team. We all most certain what he will give us 170+ 4.5 era 10-13 wins. We can not say that about alot of the so called replacements. Think the part you should take out of the equation is the salary, we're not paying it and seems to be thing most hold against him. He and Edwin Jackson alot alike they give there teams IP and make there starts, and there is great value in this, and why they earn the $ they do.

    If next yr one of the young guys prove to be ready, then as I said make the move then. But remember there is no such thing as a surplus in MLB pitching staff. It was one of the reasons we won a WS Championship last yr. Remember all the starts by Morales, Wright, Webster, and Aceves last yr. Trading the guy who had the 2nd most starts behind Lester could be a big mistake.

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Moon the stats you seem to always skip over is the 30 starts and 170+ IP for 7 yrs in a row! That is a staff saver. While many want Morales or others to replace Dempster, remember the most starts Morales has ever made in a season is 9 and ended up on DL that season, his career W-L is 13-18 w/ a 4.38 era [mostly NL] almost identical to Dempsters career era in NL, and has pitched 281 IP in his career. The difference is Dempster will make his starts even w/ a hammy issue, which probably explains his 2nd half dip. With both Peavy and Buchholz already on the staff and neither a lock to give us a full season, Dempster is worth keeping on the team. We all most certain what he will give us 170+ 4.5 era 10-13 wins. We can not say that about alot of the so called replacements. Think the part you should take out of the equation is the salary, we're not paying it and seems to be thing most hold against him. He and Edwin Jackson alot alike they give there teams IP and make there starts, and there is great value in this, and why they earn the $ they do.

    If next yr one of the young guys prove to be ready, then as I said make the move then. But remember there is no such thing as a surplus in MLB pitching staff. It was one of the reasons we won a WS Championship last yr. Remember all the starts by Morales, Wright, Webster, and Aceves last yr. Trading the guy who had the 2nd most starts behind Lester could be a big mistake.

    If one of our starters misses 32 starts, I'm fine with giving Morales 10 starts, Workman 10 starts and Webster 10 starts, or we trade for a guy like Peavy again.

    I am 100% sure a starter will be traded this winter, despite Ben's statement to teh contrary. The value of Dempster or Peavy is much greater for another team than ours. That is what usually drives a trade: desperation from one trade partner. They will overpay us for one, and we will not say no, since we win the trade (on paper).

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Very well said gary. Demp was exactly what I predicted he would be. Although it wasnt much of a prediction seeing hes been the same guy for years. The $$ was justified. Demp had bad run support at the start of the year, then that honor went to Lackey. Demp could have easily had 4-6 more wins if he had a little support.

    He was not "the same guy". Even adjusting for the NL, no DH league, Dempster's 4.57 ERA (4.64 as a starter) was way too high for a $26.5M/2 year deal.

    His previous ERA:

    2012: 3.38 (NL and AL)

    2011: 4.80

    2010: 3.85

    2009: 3.65

    2008: 2.96

    He turned out not to be a good fit for Fenway: 4.84 ERA.

    He declined sharply as the season went on: 4.24 to 5.16 ERA 1st half/2nd half.

    $13.25M is still way too high for a 6th starter... even a 5th starter.

    We can do batter with the money, and Dempster's value to another team is higher than to us, so teams will pay a steep price for a quality starter, especially if we pay $3-5M of his deal.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He was the same guy I predicted. He should have won 12 games this year if he had some run support early on. Im not saying dont trade him. Of course if the deal makes sense and it makes the team better, you pull the trigger. He was also dealing with a groin issue that he didnt make a big deal about. I had no issue with his salary.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Moon the stats you seem to always skip over is the 30 starts and 170+ IP for 7 yrs in a row! That is a staff saver. While many want Morales or others to replace Dempster, remember the most starts Morales has ever made in a season is 9 and ended up on DL that season, his career W-L is 13-18 w/ a 4.38 era [mostly NL] almost identical to Dempsters career era in NL, and has pitched 281 IP in his career. The difference is Dempster will make his starts even w/ a hammy issue, which probably explains his 2nd half dip. With both Peavy and Buchholz already on the staff and neither a lock to give us a full season, Dempster is worth keeping on the team. We all most certain what he will give us 170+ 4.5 era 10-13 wins. We can not say that about alot of the so called replacements. Think the part you should take out of the equation is the salary, we're not paying it and seems to be thing most hold against him. He and Edwin Jackson alot alike they give there teams IP and make there starts, and there is great value in this, and why they earn the $ they do.

    If next yr one of the young guys prove to be ready, then as I said make the move then. But remember there is no such thing as a surplus in MLB pitching staff. It was one of the reasons we won a WS Championship last yr. Remember all the starts by Morales, Wright, Webster, and Aceves last yr. Trading the guy who had the 2nd most starts behind Lester could be a big mistake.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    In an interview this morning, Curt Schilling called Dempster a "sabermatrician's nightmare" because there is no way to quantify his value to the Sox this season, especially as a veteran leader on that staff.  The fact that he made 29 starts in which the Sox went 17-12 is obviously valuable in itself, but the "stat guys" are going cite his "e.r.a" and call the signing "poor value," despite the fact that he gave them pretty much exactly what they hoped for.  

    They may move him or another starter this off season or possibly by the end of spring training, but it will be because they feel they are getting much more value in return, not because they have "too many starters."

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Very well said gary. Demp was exactly what I predicted he would be. Although it wasnt much of a prediction seeing hes been the same guy for years. The $$ was justified. Demp had bad run support at the start of the year, then that honor went to Lackey. Demp could have easily had 4-6 more wins if he had a little support.

    He was not "the same guy". Even adjusting for the NL, no DH league, Dempster's 4.57 ERA (4.64 as a starter) was way too high for a $26.5M/2 year deal.

    His previous ERA:

    2012: 3.38 (NL and AL)

    2011: 4.80

    2010: 3.85

    2009: 3.65

    2008: 2.96

    He turned out not to be a good fit for Fenway: 4.84 ERA.

    He declined sharply as the season went on: 4.24 to 5.16 ERA 1st half/2nd half.

    $13.25M is still way too high for a 6th starter... even a 5th starter.

    We can do batter with the money, and Dempster's value to another team is higher than to us, so teams will pay a steep price for a quality starter, especially if we pay $3-5M of his deal.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He was the same guy I predicted. He should have won 12 games this year if he had some run support early on. Im not saying dont trade him. Of course if the deal makes sense and it makes the team better, you pull the trigger. He was also dealing with a groin issue that he didnt make a big deal about. I had no issue with his salary.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Moon the stats you seem to always skip over is the 30 starts and 170+ IP for 7 yrs in a row! That is a staff saver. While many want Morales or others to replace Dempster, remember the most starts Morales has ever made in a season is 9 and ended up on DL that season, his career W-L is 13-18 w/ a 4.38 era [mostly NL] almost identical to Dempsters career era in NL, and has pitched 281 IP in his career. The difference is Dempster will make his starts even w/ a hammy issue, which probably explains his 2nd half dip. With both Peavy and Buchholz already on the staff and neither a lock to give us a full season, Dempster is worth keeping on the team. We all most certain what he will give us 170+ 4.5 era 10-13 wins. We can not say that about alot of the so called replacements. Think the part you should take out of the equation is the salary, we're not paying it and seems to be thing most hold against him. He and Edwin Jackson alot alike they give there teams IP and make there starts, and there is great value in this, and why they earn the $ they do.

    If next yr one of the young guys prove to be ready, then as I said make the move then. But remember there is no such thing as a surplus in MLB pitching staff. It was one of the reasons we won a WS Championship last yr. Remember all the starts by Morales, Wright, Webster, and Aceves last yr. Trading the guy who had the 2nd most starts behind Lester could be a big mistake.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    In an interview this morning, Curt Schilling called Dempster a "sabermatrician's nightmare" because there is no way to quantify his value to the Sox this season, especially as a veteran leader on that staff.  The fact that he made 29 starts in which the Sox went 17-12 is obviously valuable in itself, but the "stat guys" are going cite his "e.r.a" and call the signing "poor value," despite the fact that he gave them pretty much exactly what they hoped for.  

    They may move him or another starter this off season or possibly by the end of spring training, but it will be because they feel they are getting much more value in return, not because they have "too many starters."

    [/QUOTE]

    They said the same thing about Drew's defense. When I told people that he was a much better defender than the numbers say I got blasted by most of the numbers guys on this board. They all changed their tune though, every one of them. There are just some things in baseball that you cant put a number to. Players have different values to different teams. The Sox wanted that stability at the back of the rotation and they got it. Id keep Dempster over a revolving door and constant call ups to fill that spot. Id pay for that kind of stability. Just knowing you can hand the ball to him every 5 days. Hes also a great leader in that clubhouse, which we all now realize is also an impoortant component.

    Like I said though. If a deal makes sense and will improve the team overall, Im for it.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Very well said gary. Demp was exactly what I predicted he would be. Although it wasnt much of a prediction seeing hes been the same guy for years. The $$ was justified. Demp had bad run support at the start of the year, then that honor went to Lackey. Demp could have easily had 4-6 more wins if he had a little support.

    He was not "the same guy". Even adjusting for the NL, no DH league, Dempster's 4.57 ERA (4.64 as a starter) was way too high for a $26.5M/2 year deal.

    His previous ERA:

    2012: 3.38 (NL and AL)

    2011: 4.80

    2010: 3.85

    2009: 3.65

    2008: 2.96

    He turned out not to be a good fit for Fenway: 4.84 ERA.

    He declined sharply as the season went on: 4.24 to 5.16 ERA 1st half/2nd half.

    $13.25M is still way too high for a 6th starter... even a 5th starter.

    We can do batter with the money, and Dempster's value to another team is higher than to us, so teams will pay a steep price for a quality starter, especially if we pay $3-5M of his deal.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He was the same guy I predicted. He should have won 12 games this year if he had some run support early on. Im not saying dont trade him. Of course if the deal makes sense and it makes the team better, you pull the trigger. He was also dealing with a groin issue that he didnt make a big deal about. I had no issue with his salary.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Moon the stats you seem to always skip over is the 30 starts and 170+ IP for 7 yrs in a row! That is a staff saver. While many want Morales or others to replace Dempster, remember the most starts Morales has ever made in a season is 9 and ended up on DL that season, his career W-L is 13-18 w/ a 4.38 era [mostly NL] almost identical to Dempsters career era in NL, and has pitched 281 IP in his career. The difference is Dempster will make his starts even w/ a hammy issue, which probably explains his 2nd half dip. With both Peavy and Buchholz already on the staff and neither a lock to give us a full season, Dempster is worth keeping on the team. We all most certain what he will give us 170+ 4.5 era 10-13 wins. We can not say that about alot of the so called replacements. Think the part you should take out of the equation is the salary, we're not paying it and seems to be thing most hold against him. He and Edwin Jackson alot alike they give there teams IP and make there starts, and there is great value in this, and why they earn the $ they do.

    If next yr one of the young guys prove to be ready, then as I said make the move then. But remember there is no such thing as a surplus in MLB pitching staff. It was one of the reasons we won a WS Championship last yr. Remember all the starts by Morales, Wright, Webster, and Aceves last yr. Trading the guy who had the 2nd most starts behind Lester could be a big mistake.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    In an interview this morning, Curt Schilling called Dempster a "sabermatrician's nightmare" because there is no way to quantify his value to the Sox this season, especially as a veteran leader on that staff.  The fact that he made 29 starts in which the Sox went 17-12 is obviously valuable in itself, but the "stat guys" are going cite his "e.r.a" and call the signing "poor value," despite the fact that he gave them pretty much exactly what they hoped for.  

    They may move him or another starter this off season or possibly by the end of spring training, but it will be because they feel they are getting much more value in return, not because they have "too many starters."

    [/QUOTE]

    They said the same thing about Drew's defense. When I told people that he was a much better defender than the numbers say I got blasted by most of the numbers guys on this board. They all changed their tune though, every one of them. There are just some things in baseball that you cant put a number to. Players have different values to different teams. The Sox wanted that stability at the back of the rotation and they got it. Id keep Dempster over a revolving door and constant call ups to fill that spot. Id pay for that kind of stability. Just knowing you can hand the ball to him every 5 days. Hes also a great leader in that clubhouse, which we all now realize is also an impoortant component.

    Like I said though. If a deal makes sense and will improve the team overall, Im for it.

    [/QUOTE]

    "Sabermetrician's nightmare" is becoming a popular term!  I posted the same thing about Drew last spring several times, after listening to an interview with a guy who covered his entire career in Arizona.  He used that exact term, as did Schilling this morning.  The Arizona reporter also said he never saw Drew make a bad play in a big spot.  He was "spot" on.  I think it's pretty obvious that the Sox preferred substance over "flash" at a premium position & they were obviously correct, at least for 2013.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Like I said though. If a deal makes sense and will improve the team overall, Im for it.

     

    If we don't get a good return, then I do not trade Dempster at all, but to me, the return includes who we get with the money saved. If I can get a decent prospect and they afford to spend on Rajai Davis and B Ryan or C Barnes, I say yes.  The money saved on Dempster could also help us afford Salty or Ruiz instead of going with Lava.

    I realize trading Dempster puts us at risk, but so is leaving important positions in the hands of Lava, JBJ, Middy or Carp (or two of these).

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    They said the same thing about Drew's defense. When I told people that he was a much better defender than the numbers say I got blasted by most of the numbers guys on this board. They all changed their tune though, every one of them. There are just some things in baseball that you cant put a number to. Players have different values to different teams. The Sox wanted that stability at the back of the rotation and they got it. Id keep Dempster over a revolving door and constant call ups to fill that spot. Id pay for that kind of stability. Just knowing you can hand the ball to him every 5 days. Hes also a great leader in that clubhouse, which we all now realize is also an impoortant component.

    I was one who suspected Drew's defense was sub par. I was wrong. I have seen Dempster, so here  there is a difference right off the top. 

    The other huge difference is in 2013, Dempster was our 5th starter. Going into 2014, he will be our 6th starter at $13.25M. That's about 8% of our total payroll budget. That's way too much to pay a 6th starter, and he's too good to not be worth more to another team in need of a in the rotation starter.

    Again, his value to another team as a #3,4 or 5 starter is much more than to us as a 6th starter. I'm not saying he has no value to us, but it certainly is less to us than a team with no 3rd or 4th starter that can even give you 170 IP and 48% quality starts. That value will force a GM somewhere to make an offer we cannot refuse. Ben is playing it cool by saying he will not trade any of the 6 starters. He does not want to appear to be desperate to dump anyone and lower the return value.

    Someone will make an offer we cannot refuse, and one of our 6 starters will be traded by opening day.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Like I said though. If a deal makes sense and will improve the team overall, Im for it.

     

    If we don't get a good return, then I do not trade Dempster at all, but to me, the return includes who we get with the money saved. If I can get a decent prospect and they afford to spend on Rajai Davis and B Ryan or C Barnes, I say yes.  The money saved on Dempster could also help us afford Salty or Ruiz instead of going with Lava.

    I realize trading Dempster puts us at risk, but so is leaving important positions in the hands of Lava, JBJ, Middy or Carp (or two of these).

    [/QUOTE]

    Good points, Moon & the Sox are supposedly listening on all of their starting pitching, as they obviously should, as they at least "seem" to be in a position of strength.  One thing is for certain though, there is no way they will go into spring training with Lavarnway as the starting catcher.  It won't even be a last resort.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    He was "spot" on.  I think it's pretty obvious that the Sox preferred substance over "flash" at a premium position & they were obviously correct, at least for 2013.

    But, we ended up trading for "flash"... in 2013.

    We traded for Peavy as insurance against Buch's injury and to make sure we didn't need Dempster to start a playoff game.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Like I said though. If a deal makes sense and will improve the team overall, Im for it.

     

    If we don't get a good return, then I do not trade Dempster at all, but to me, the return includes who we get with the money saved. If I can get a decent prospect and they afford to spend on Rajai Davis and B Ryan or C Barnes, I say yes.  The money saved on Dempster could also help us afford Salty or Ruiz instead of going with Lava.

    I realize trading Dempster puts us at risk, but so is leaving important positions in the hands of Lava, JBJ, Middy or Carp (or two of these).

    [/QUOTE]

    Good points, Moon & the Sox are supposedly listening on all of their starting pitching, as they obviously should, as they at least "seem" to be in a position of strength.  One thing is for certain though, there is no way they will go into spring training with Lavarnway as the starting catcher.  It won't even be a last resort.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree, and reports seem to indicate we might get Ruiz, maybe at $18-20m/2, unless it is just a ploy to get McCann or Salty to sign.

    If we spend $10M on a catcher, that leaves about $22M to spend on CF, 1B, SS/3B and RP.  Right now we are sure Bogey will start at SS or 3B, so we have $22M to keep one of these guys from being a FT'er or to make sure they have a capable back-up in case they struggle or flop:

    CF: JBJ

    1B: Carp/Nava/Papi/Middy

    3B: Middy

    RP: Miller/Morales/Workman/Britton

    We can maybe absord one or two of these slots going to just the players I listed, but I seriously doubt we can let 3 go. Maybe we can sign 3 capable guys at $7M each- maybe not. We definitely cannot go with Holt as our utility IF'er if we have Bogey and Middy as our FT leftside IF'ers. That won't cost much, but it will take away from what we can spend on 1B and CF and the pen.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I


    Positions of need and what order I trust our in-house solutions:

    Weak to strong

    C: Ross/Lava/Butler/Vazquez

    3B: Middy (assuming Bogey at SS)

    CF: JBJ (Victorino)

    1B: Carp/Nava/Papi/Middy

    RP: Miller/Morales/Workman/Britton and others

     

     

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    If I had a chance to move Dempster straight up for just cash only (some team absorbing his entire contract), I'd do it in a heartbeat but if it happened there would probably be 1-2 throwaway players in the deal back to us for appearance purposes. He might come back and give us decent innings again and probably even better numbers but we need the cash guys. That luxury tax limit is an issue. The Redsox will be going over it again by 2016 but not this year IMO. It's a complicated process I'd rather not explain but I'm pretty sure they don't go over the cap this year.

    Which probably means they trade one of our starting pitchers and Dempster has an X on the back of his jersey. He's option A for us.

    That doesn't mean any other team will bite though. It wouldn't surprise me if Doubront is the guy moved because he is probably worth as much as anyone on the staff not named Buchholz. Lester only has 1 year on his contract. They've got to love what they have in Lackey right now and he's cheap and under 2 years control. Peavy is also expensive but maybe a step above Dempster. A decent chance he gets moved. But 4 years of prearb Doubront after the numbers he put up last year is very attractive. For example for a real solid 1st baseman or catcher.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Dempster is just not cut out for Fenway. Should have seen it coming as some were clearly saying it was a problem waiting to happen. Trade him to San Diego for Denorfia or something and pick up half his cash if necessary. He'd be great in San Diego. 

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    The Sox probably feel Workman can give them better numbers than Dempster going forward and I think they are right. Webster might be able to also. Ranaudo is not that far away. We have the knuckleball guy down there also. We have some decent depth in Pawtucket. Not to mention Morales.

    I've said I like Workman in the pen but maybe they are planning to sign at least one reliever and want to add to Workman's value by making him a starter. There is some logic to that for sure. If Workman does pan out as a starter they have a guy worth $60-$80 mil maybe, as compared to the worth of an above average reliever ( maybe $40 mil at best generally over 6 years time ).

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    And maybe they even have another starter in mind to sign already. For example the Hudson rumors are interesting!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcri. Show jcri's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Guys, I'm an amateur, not a pro.  I play these games for fun, so I'm going to roll this way.  I keep  Doobie.  I loved what I saw from him (and Workman) in the WS, the way they stepped up in the big show and weren't t intimidated by the moment.  His potential is worth more to us than anyone else.  Trade Peavey or Dempster .  But I would seriously consider trading Buch for a big package . People here won't want to and BC won't either.  But I ask everyone to think about what he really is for us right now.  No. 1?  No.  No. 2?  No.  No. 3?  Yes.  Shouldn't our  No. 3 guy who used to be our No. 1 or 2 guy--why not anymore--be giving us a full season?  How much did he really help us post season?  The whole thing this summer was strange--doctor said he was fine and said he would have to pitch through discomfort, him saying he couldn't, him coming back and winning though not fine tuned for three or four games then-- sort of disappearing?  I've never really read or heard what happened.  One of the plaYers said, He's doing his best.  Someone (him?) said tired arm.  I like him when he's healthy and pitching and living up to that great potential like the first half season or pitching a no hitter, but how often do we see that?  I think I'm starting to doubt his mental toughness.  If we can get somebody's best AAA pitcher plus power hitter OF or 3rd baseman plus top AA Prospect (s) I think I do this trade.   Like I said, I'm an amateur...

    PS.  Who would you bet if you had to is going to miss more time next year, Doobie or Buch?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If I had a chance to move Dempster straight up for just cash only (some team absorbing his entire contract), I'd do it in a heartbeat but if it happened there would probably be 1-2 throwaway players in the deal back to us for appearance purposes. He might come back and give us decent innings again and probably even better numbers but we need the cash guys. That luxury tax limit is an issue. The Redsox will be going over it again by 2016 but not this year IMO. It's a complicated process I'd rather not explain but I'm pretty sure they don't go over the cap this year.

    Which probably means they trade one of our starting pitchers and Dempster has an X on the back of his jersey. He's option A for us.

    That doesn't mean any other team will bite though. It wouldn't surprise me if Doubront is the guy moved because he is probably worth as much as anyone on the staff not named Buchholz. Lester only has 1 year on his contract. They've got to love what they have in Lackey right now and he's cheap and under 2 years control. Peavy is also expensive but maybe a step above Dempster. A decent chance he gets moved. But 4 years of prearb Doubront after the numbers he put up last year is very attractive. For example for a real solid 1st baseman or catcher.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree 100%.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to jcri's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Guys, I'm an amateur, not a pro.  I play these games for fun, so I'm going to roll this way.  I keep  Doobie.  I loved what I saw from him (and Workman) in the WS, the way they stepped up in the big show and weren't t intimidated by the moment.  His potential is worth more to us than anyone else.  Trade Peavey or Dempster .  But I would seriously consider trading Buch for a big package . People here won't want to and BC won't either.  But I ask everyone to think about what he really is for us right now.  No. 1?  No.  No. 2?  No.  No. 3?  Yes.  Shouldn't our  No. 3 guy who used to be our No. 1 or 2 guy--why not anymore--be giving us a full season?  How much did he really help us post season?  The whole thing this summer was strange--doctor said he was fine and said he would have to pitch through discomfort, him saying he couldn't, him coming back and winning though not fine tuned for three or four games then-- sort of disappearing?  I've never really read or heard what happened.  One of the plaYers said, He's doing his best.  Someone (him?) said tired arm.  I like him when he's healthy and pitching and living up to that great potential like the first half season or pitching a no hitter, but how often do we see that?  I think I'm starting to doubt his mental toughness.  If we can get somebody's best AAA pitcher plus power hitter OF or 3rd baseman plus top AA Prospect (s) I think I do this trade.   Like I said, I'm an amateur...

    PS.  Who would you bet if you had to is going to miss more time next year, Doobie or Buch?

    [/QUOTE]

    I have been pretty harsh on Doubront and his attitude, but have always said the guy has "nasty stuff".  I think we should avoid trading Doubront and look to try and find soemone to take all or most of Dempster's contract off our hands. That money can net us two players at key positions, probably a good relief pitcher like Crain or Mujica and a good CF'er R Davis.

    If there are no takers, I'd look to move Peavy. Lester should be extended as lefties who do well in Fenway should be held onto. Buch has too much upside to trade, IMO. Maybe it's a good thing he didn't try and pitch through the pain, as it may have messed with his mechanics.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here is the list of MLBTR's top 50 FAs:

    Red = QO

    1) Cano

    2) Ellsbury

    3) Choo

    4) McCann

    5) Tanaka

    6) E Santana

    7) Garza

    8) Kuroda

    9) Burnett

    10) Napoli

    11) Jimenez

    12) Beltran

    13) Granderson

    14) S Drew

    15) Salty

    16) Kazmir

    17) Nelson

    18) Infante

    19) Nathan

    20) Nolasco

    21) Peralta

    22) Colon

    23) Arroyo

    24) Byrd

    25) Balfour

    26) Benoit

    27) Feldman

    28) K Morales

    29) C Ruiz

    30) J Johnson

    31) T Hudson

    32) Rodney

    33) Pierzynski

    34) Haren

    35) Vargas

    36) Suk-min Yoon

    37) Loney

    38) Hughes

    39) C Hart

    40) Mujica

    41) McLouth, 42) Uribe, 43) Maholm, 44) Joe Smith, 45) Morneau

    46) Crain, 47) B Wilson, 48) J Hammel, 49) Halladay, 50) C Young

     

    FYI...

    Going by this list, the best non QO players at slots the Sox need (CF/RF, 1B, C, SS/3B) are:

    C: Salty

    SS: Peralta

    CF/RF: Byrd

    1B: Loney

      

    [/QUOTE]


    If we signed Tanaka, only his contract goes against the luxury limit.

    Then, we trade Peavy and Dempster for cap space and a piece that fills a need (CF, C, 1B, RP & 3B/SS). We should then be able to fill all the other needs easily.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If I had a chance to move Dempster straight up for just cash only (some team absorbing his entire contract), I'd do it in a heartbeat but if it happened there would probably be 1-2 throwaway players in the deal back to us for appearance purposes. He might come back and give us decent innings again and probably even better numbers but we need the cash guys. That luxury tax limit is an issue. The Redsox will be going over it again by 2016 but not this year IMO. It's a complicated process I'd rather not explain but I'm pretty sure they don't go over the cap this year.

    Which probably means they trade one of our starting pitchers and Dempster has an X on the back of his jersey. He's option A for us.

    That doesn't mean any other team will bite though. It wouldn't surprise me if Doubront is the guy moved because he is probably worth as much as anyone on the staff not named Buchholz. Lester only has 1 year on his contract. They've got to love what they have in Lackey right now and he's cheap and under 2 years control. Peavy is also expensive but maybe a step above Dempster. A decent chance he gets moved. But 4 years of prearb Doubront after the numbers he put up last year is very attractive. For example for a real solid 1st baseman or catcher.

    [/QUOTE]

    Boom, how does trading Doobie do anything for our cash conundrum? The most logical pitcher to trade, if I were of a mind to trade one, would be the one with the biggest tax hit, and that is Peavy. I'm of the mind that you don't trade pitchers unless you're 100% certain that you won't wish you hadn't.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Boom, how does trading Doobie do anything for our cash conundrum? The most logical pitcher to trade, if I were of a mind to trade one, would be the one with the biggest tax hit, and that is Peavy. I'm of the mind that you don't trade pitchers unless you're 100% certain that you won't wish you hadn't.

    I don't mean to speak for boom, but I think he means that if we trade Doubront, we get a much better player than we'd get for Dempster or Peavy , if that player is cheap and under team control for 3-4 years, we'd "save" by not having to fill that slot with an overpriced FA. Then, that money could be spent on another upgrade.

    (Note: I am not for trading Doubront, because I think we can get someone to take Dempster and all of or almost all of his contract, so that would free up the cash to fill a slot all by itself.)

     

Share