2012-2013 Off-season thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bagwell368

Run the list of #1 specs since 1976. Then look at what happened to them. XB looks like the real deal, but the fact is, he's not until he proves it.

If 3 of the 4 of: XB, Barnes, Bradley, and Owens turn out to make just one AS game, it would be a major coup.

Hate to bring up him up, but didn't we have a can't miss CF 3 years ago? Casey Kelly remember all the ink spilled on that guy? SS no SP. SP no SS. Well he finally pitched in the Majors last year w/ a mid 6 ERA.

If TB came knocking for XB, Barnes and Rubby for Price, damn right you trade them. But TB isn't knocking, why would they?

---

Westmoreland? Yea he had an abnormal surgery, I can hardly see how that plays into your arguement

and Kelly... just turned 23, and pitched 29 MLB innings.... dont really have a point there either.

Then there is Rizzo, who looks like he is going to be the real deal.

4 or 3 for 1 rarely end up being better for the team that got one, when it involves there top prospects (in a good system)

Boagaerts, Bradley, and Rubby De La Rosa for David Price, would likely end up as a big win for the Rays, I would never do that deal, unless our team was only missing that piece of the puzzle, even then I wouldn't like it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papipapsmanny

Boagaerts, Bradley, and Rubby De La Rosa for David Price, would likely end up as a big win for the Rays, I would never do that deal, unless our team was only missing that piece of the puzzle, even then I wouldn't like it

---

Yes, that's why such deals are 50/50. If it wasn't fair value, teams would never trade established players for prospects. Look at what the Braves traded for Teixeira..almost any piece in that deal worked out. Harrison, Feliz, Andrus, Salty (later)
What were the odds of that happening?

And while I wouldn't take back the Gonzo-trade (it helped us getting rid of Crawford and Beckett + netting 2 similar prospects in terms of upside), it's way to early to judge the trade. Kelly's sample size is so tiny, it's not even worth bringing his name up. Rizzo looks like the real deal.

I love Price, but XB, Rubby and Bradley would give me pause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papipapsmanny

Westmoreland? Yea he had an abnormal surgery, I can hardly see how that plays into your arguement

---

Then open your eyes. Things happen. Car accidents. Knife wielding wives (see Jim Wynn), drunk driving charges, all sorts of odd non baseball and baseball injuries.

Quote:

---

and Kelly... just turned 23, and pitched 29 MLB innings.... dont really have a point there either.

---

Sure do. He was labeled a can't miss #1, then by the time we traded him he was a sure thing #2. Now he's trying to find a place in MLB. His spec rating when from 21 -> 31 -> 76 in 3 years. His ERA was 6.21 in the NL West in SD. He's got a 91 MPH fastball, how far do you think he's going to go? How about in the AL East?

Quote:

---

Then there is Rizzo, who looks like he is going to be the real deal.

---

Good, some of the guys have to work out. Go back to 1976 and start looking at the top 3 rated specs year over year and it will show you why the BRS have spent so much on FA's over the years.

Quote:

---

4 or 3 for 1 rarely end up being better for the team that got one, when it involves there top prospects (in a good system)

---

I agree. Are you sure our system is good? All I'm pointing out is how deep we'll have to dig to get serious impact players in trade. Unless they are awesome young talents, I don't want to hear about any deals using most of our top 12 specs.

Quote:

---

Boagaerts, Bradley, and Rubby De La Rosa for David Price, would likely end up as a big win for the Rays, I would never do that deal, unless our team was only missing that piece of the puzzle, even then I wouldn't like it

---

That's not who I listed, but your statement is complete conjecture and I doubt many GM's holding the Sox's hand would have such a strong negative reaction as you.

has anyone thought of a straight up james paxton for ellsbury would work or maybe hultzen for ellsbury. Paxton/hultzen are both very good prospects ellsbury would probably want to resign in seattle because hes near home andthey have the money. does anyone have any idea on hitting prospects for the mariners i know jesus montero is very young but who else is good for them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EwanSellars

has anyone thought of a straight up james paxton for ellsbury would work or maybe hultzen for ellsbury. Paxton/hultzen are both very good prospects ellsbury would probably want to resign in seattle because hes near home andthey have the money. does anyone have any idea on hitting prospects for the mariners i know jesus montero is very young but who else is good for them

---

Paxton yes, but as of right now with the regression that Hultzen showed over the course of the second half he's someone like Bauer that I would wait on. Walker all the way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrkGawdofWalkz

Paxton yes, but as of right now with the regression that Hultzen showed over the course of the second half he's someone like Bauer that I would wait on. Walker all the way!

---

yeah i feel like paxton is the most likely since hes the third best out of him/walker/hultzen but i would still love having paxton on our team

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bagwell368

Then open your eyes. Things happen. Car accidents. Knife wielding wives (see Jim Wynn), drunk driving charges, all sorts of odd non baseball and baseball injuries.



Sure do. He was labeled a can't miss #1, then by the time we traded him he was a sure thing #2. Now he's trying to find a place in MLB. His spec rating when from 21 -> 31 -> 76 in 3 years. His ERA was 6.21 in the NL West in SD. He's got a 91 MPH fastball, how far do you think he's going to go? How about in the AL East?



Good, some of the guys have to work out. Go back to 1976 and start looking at the top 3 rated specs year over year and it will show you why the BRS have spent so much on FA's over the years.



I agree. Are you sure our system is good? All I'm pointing out is how deep we'll have to dig to get serious impact players in trade. Unless they are awesome young talents, I don't want to hear about any deals using most of our top 12 specs.



That's not who I listed, but your statement is complete conjecture and I doubt many GM's holding the Sox's hand would have such a strong negative reaction as you.

---

1. That works both ways **** can happen to anyone

2. For kelly, small sample size, young and late into the season maybe as he ages his fastball averages 93 in his prime, which is well enough to get by

3. every player is independent, all our prospects could turn into something or none of them

4. I truly believe we have a top 5 system right now, I think it is that good. I go to SC I truly believe JBJ will be extremely good at the mlb level, and i believe the other guys are good too, honestly out of our top 6 I believe Brentz has the most to prove and he is in AAA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papipapsmanny

1. That works both ways **** can happen to anyone

---

What's that supposed to be flip? or rhetoric - whatever it is, I accounted for unwanted events - freak and otherwise.

Quote:

---

2. For kelly, small sample size, young and late into the season maybe as he ages his fastball averages 93 in his prime, which is well enough to get by

---

"Getting by" is not the #1 ace he was supposed to be about a year before we dealt him, is it?

Quote:

---

3. every player is independent, all our prospects could turn into something or none of them

---

That's right. My point all along.

Quote:

---

4. I truly believe we have a top 5 system right now, I think it is that good. I go to SC I truly believe JBJ will be extremely good at the mlb level, and i believe the other guys are good too, honestly out of our top 6 I believe Brentz has the most to prove and he is in AAA

---

It's better then at any time since at least 2008, but I'd say #8 is the top we are at now. Easily wiped out by trades, failures, and bringing them up and trying them out.

Players that have huge years in the low levels get overrated and overhyped because they
re new and exciting. Kelly falls into that group along with players like Lars, Almanzar, Britton, and more. It's why on my personal list I would have JBjr and Webster higher than Barnes. Top talent in the upper level minors should be more untouchable than the hyped prospects in the lower levels that are much more likely to bust.

http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseb...rts&position=3

How interesting would this be? Hey we have the money...?

Has the Red Sox made any offers to big time free agents? Or do they want to be in last place and miss the playoffs again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoxFan101NlB

http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseb...rts&position=3

How interesting would this be? Hey we have the money...?

---

I commented on that article.under username JustA.I hope inot breaking any rules on this site.still don't know all this rules here.Anyways soxfan becareful.people on that red sox herald forum are crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bagwell368

What's that supposed to be flip? or rhetoric - whatever it is, I accounted for unwanted events - freak and otherwise.



"Getting by" is not the #1 ace he was supposed to be about a year before we dealt him, is it?



That's right. My point all along.



It's better then at any time since at least 2008, but I'd say #8 is the top we are at now. Easily wiped out by trades, failures, and bringing them up and trying them out.

---

im not saying kelly will be an ace i always thought he had the potential of a 2-3 pitcher

im not saying every prospect is gonna turn out, but lets say Stanton became available, I would absolutely hate to give up JBJ and Bogaerts in the same deal, in fact I would overpay with other specs to not include either of them

If such a deal were possible for Stanton, I would offer Rubby, Barnes, Brentz, Cecchini, Jacobs, and Iglesias

And be very happy that I had kept Owens, JBJ, and Bogaerts

again in the end 6-1 we most likely lose, but with their potential

JBJ
Pedroia
Stanton
Bogaerts
Middlebrooks

Sounds like the makings of a deadly lineup, again if they live up to their potentials

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoxFan101NlB

http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseb...rts&position=3

How interesting would this be? Hey we have the money...?

---

Well, I am not surprised people jumping on the "short term deal" bandwagon, that's the best possible approach, because it protects our near future (top prospects) and gives us a chance to contend in 2013. We wouldn't be the clear cut favorites, but that's not necessary.
So, 2 year deals max. Not enough for Hamilton (he should make a call if he's ready to take 4 years)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papipapsmanny

im not saying kelly will be an ace i always thought he had the potential of a 2-3 pitcher

im not saying every prospect is gonna turn out, but lets say Stanton became available, I would absolutely hate to give up JBJ and Bogaerts in the same deal, in fact I would overpay with other specs to not include either of them

If such a deal were possible for Stanton, I would offer Rubby, Barnes, Brentz, Cecchini, Jacobs, and Iglesias

And be very happy that I had kept Owens, JBJ, and Bogaerts

again in the end 6-1 we most likely lose, but with their potential

JBJ
Pedroia
Stanton
Bogaerts
Middlebrooks

Sounds like the makings of a deadly lineup, again if they live up to their potentials

---

I get where you're coming from, and I don't believe in draining the farm for spare parts and wash rags either.

But, if Stanton ever becomes available, yeah, I'd deal XB and or JBJ. He would be one of a very short list of guys I would be willing to deal top prospects for, but he is one.

You have to give to get, and you are getting a legitimate young stud hitter, who just turned 23 and under control for the next 4+years.

It might change the team building template slightly...might accelerate things, but my view on prospects are just that...they are prospects until they prove otherwise, and many,many turn out to be much less than anticipated.....not all, but most....