Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!
posted at 2/26/2013 8:07 PM EST
In response to 111SoxFan111's comment:
In response to moonslav59's comment:
If we had traded Ellsbury for Bauer and Lester for Myers...
SP Buch, Lackey, Doub and 2 from: Morales, Bauer, DLR, Webster, Taz, Wright
The money spent on Dempster, Naps, SV, Drew, and Gomes could have netted us A Sanchez and a power RF'er or LF'er (Myers plays the other).
Tell me this would not have been a fantastic team to watch this year! (Even without Sanchez or a big bat and with SV in RF instead and maybe McCarthy or Marcum as another SP.)
Imagine how good the team would be if we traded Pimentel for Myers.
No offense Moon but the trades aren't realistic. Maybe I'm wrong, but IMO Lester and Ells had significantly lower market value this winter than you think.
Dude, the Indians traded Choo for Bauer. How much "lower" is Ellsbury's value? I'd say none. Perhaps we might have had to pay some of his contract at worst.
There was a rumor that the Sox turned down the Lester for Myers deal and then gave more prospects to get Shields- about an equal value as Lester. (They also got Wade Davis.) I'm pretty sure that a Lester for Myers deal was certainly realistic.
Plus, your starting 9 has three players who combined have less than 20 ABs above AA ball and a fourth who has yet to have an OPS above .625 in AAA. That isn't a recipe for success of the team or for the prospects themselves. Could you aggressively promote one, maybe even two prospects? Yes. Can you expect success from a team with only 8 veterans on the 25 man roster? Certainly not. Forget damage to the team's reputation and brand ... the potential damage to the young players is too much to risk.
We could have gotten a role player here and there to lessen the burden of bringing up so many prospects at once, but I don't buy the "high risk" argument about bringing some of these guys up. I never said all would come up at once, but listed what was possible.
8 Vets? The roster would have had 10 just on the pitching staff with the other 2 slots being won by Bauer, DLR, Webster, Wright, Tazawa, or maybe a vet in Bard, Mortensen, or someone out of nowhere:
Buch, Lackey, Doub, Morales, Hanarahan, Bailey, Uehara, Aceves, Breslow, Miller.
Then there would be these vets: Salty, Ross, Papi, Pedey
The only prospects would be, at most, 6-7 : Myers, Bradley, Bogaerts, Iggy and maybe 2 starting pitchers (and maybe Lava or another pitcher).
As constructed this team has potential to be sneaky good.
So do 24 other teams.
And no, it doesn't require everything to go just right. It only requires less bad luck than we had in the past two years (which was a bad run of epic proportions).
How much "less bad luck"?
They have plenty of room to add salary.
Not really, if we are going to stay under the luxury limit. Yes, enough for a deadline pick-up (2 months of pay), but not really a lot.
If the prospects appear ready to help, they can trade vets without making the team worse. If they are out of contention they can be net sellers with an eye to the future. They've got a lot of options right now. This is not my dream team by a long shot but I like the progress over the last 6 months.
The best part of this winter is the chance we might get someone valuable in trade this July from one of our signees.
I wasn't trying to say all the kids should be penciled in for FT duty in 2013, but my point was that the team I listed would have been very exciting to watch... to me, more so than the one we have now.