The Future Rotation thread

[toonsterwu]

I would love to land Lester and build aroud he Shark and Garza. Still confused as to where Boston feels they are at as an organization though.

 

Yeah, they're an odd case, and it's hard to get a read on wht they're trying to do. I get the impression there is some sort of disconnect/power struggle between elements in the FO. I'm thinking the noise about Lucchino's increasingly heavy handed meddling may be true.

 

I'm intrigued with Lester, but admittedly, am a bit concerned with how his fastball has lost a bit of velocity. He's still a solid starter, but he's not the same pitcher he was in 09/10. All that said, I think they are going to wait on moving Lester. The general feeling seemed to be that Beckett was the bad apple, and clearing Crawford/Gonzalez buys them a lot of flexibility/space. Even if this is Lucchino meddling, this is giving Cherington a lot of power, as he gets to remake the team.

 

They could have a really young team next year with Pedroia as the anchor, but there's one more domino, which is Jacoby Ellsbury. There have been some indications that he might want out. If they can get Ellsbury to stay, their rebuilding might not take that long, as Middlebrooks/Pedroia/Ellsbury could be joined by Kalish and Lavaranway on a full-time basis soon (2013), and Xander Bogaerts could replace a lot of lost power by 2014. Add in a rotation headed by Lester/Buchholz, and the money to add a pitcher or two, and things could turn around quick ... but they first have to figure out the Ellsbury situation.

[davell]

I can't see them in a rwbuild mode. Retool, more like it. That market and fanbase, partially because of the Yankees, will not let them do what we're doing.

[toonsterwu]

I can't see them in a rwbuild mode. Retool, more like it. That market and fanbase, partially because of the Yankees, will not let them do what we're doing.

 

If they can't keep Ellsbury, it's pretty much going to be a rebuild. I guess they could rebuild fast, if things fall their way, but to me, with only one core bat remaining (Pedroia ... Ortiz is too old IF he returns), it would feel more like a rebuild. May be an issue of semantics, though.

[davell]

I can't see them in a rwbuild mode. Retool, more like it. That market and fanbase, partially because of the Yankees, will not let them do what we're doing.

 

If they can't keep Ellsbury, it's pretty much going to be a rebuild. I guess they could rebuild fast, if things fall their way, but to me, with only one core bat remaining (Pedroia ... Ortiz is too old IF he returns), it would feel more like a rebuild. May be an issue of semantics, though.

I'm not completely sure if our market will be OK if we throw out an 80 mill payroll team next year. But theirs won't be for sure. They may sign shorter term deals and such, but I can't see them blowing things up. They just got to reset though, which is good for them.

[Lefty]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

 

I know it's politically fashionable to let someone else pay for everything, but is an industry that prices out its users (i.e., the fans) really sustainable? Salaries went down in the early 1930s. It is hard to imagine, but absent hyperinflation it will happen again.

 

The vast majority of fans watch their team on TV, which is really inexpensive to do and the source of most of the revenue.

 

Can we imagine that TV contracts will not be so flush in a Depression?

 

Maybe, hear me out here, but maybe, we aren't actually in a depression.

 

I find it interesting that John Henry oversaw such a trade. Depressions are hell on debtors and a long-term contract is a long-term debt. I am in the same business as John Henry (in the same way that Eric Jokisch and C.C. Sabbathia are in the same business). I wonder if he would articulate it the same way?

[jersey cubs fan]

I find it interesting that John Henry oversaw such a trade.

 

There's nothing interesting about that at all. A sane owner approves that trade 101 times out of 100.

[Lefty]

I find it interesting that John Henry oversaw such a trade.

 

There's nothing interesting about that at all. A sane owner approves that trade 101 times out of 100.

 

Not all sane owners are in the same situation. The Red Sox have been big spenders and are a big revenue team. While we as fans often fantasize about "blowing up" a team and starting from scratch, in real life there are considerations that trump that. One is putting a passable product on the field.

 

I think getting rid of Crawford and Beckett was outstanding. If the price was trading A. Gonzalez for prospects, still a good baseball move. But the totality of the salaries involved is large. You know my economic thoughts, Magic Johnson lives in a different world, new guy wants to make a splash etc. But what is Henry thinking? I'm just curious.

[jersey cubs fan]

I find it interesting that John Henry oversaw such a trade.

 

There's nothing interesting about that at all. A sane owner approves that trade 101 times out of 100.

 

Not all sane owners are in the same situation. The Red Sox have been big spenders and are a big revenue team. While we as fans often fantasize about "blowing up" a team and starting from scratch, in real life there are considerations that trump that. One is putting a passable product on the field.

 

I think getting rid of Crawford and Beckett was outstanding. If the price was trading A. Gonzalez for prospects, still a good baseball move. But the totality of the salaries involved is large. You know my economic thoughts, Magic Johnson lives in a different world, new guy wants to make a splash etc. But what is Henry thinking? I'm just curious.

 

He's thinking he had the opportunity to off load bloated contracts from a faltering team, so he took that opportunity.

[Little Slide Rooter]

@PWSullivan: Jed says Cubs will be aggressive in seeking free agent pitching help, and have money to spend. http://t.co/trUvl0ZK

 

Assuming that the weak market doesn't jack the prices of guys like Jackson, Marcum, and McCarthy to high, go for it. Also rumors that the Angels will decline Haren's 2013 option, which could make him the most expensive of the bunch.

[toonsterwu]

I'd be intrigued with a guy like Jackson, a guy still in his prime and for a 3-4 year deal, will likely still be in it at the end of it. His velocity did dip a bit this year, but I haven't heard of a serious injury. Still ... something for any team to consider.

 

That said, I'm still taking a wait and see on Jed's comments as it relates to spending big on FA's. I tend to think that we're looking at more, say, 2-3 Maholm-esque signings, than 1 big fish. I hope I'm wrong - a rotation of Garza/Shark/top Edwin Jackson looks fairly good, and much as I'd love to get someone like Rodon in 2013, it would feel a bit better to not go through two horrible seasons (that said, I'm not that against a 2nd horrible season if they opt for that course).

[WrigleyField 22]

I'd be intrigued with a guy like Jackson, a guy still in his prime and for a 3-4 year deal, will likely still be in it at the end of it. His velocity did dip a bit this year, but I haven't heard of a serious injury. Still ... something for any team to consider.

 

That said, I'm still taking a wait and see on Jed's comments as it relates to spending big on FA's. I tend to think that we're looking at more, say, 2-3 Maholm-esque signings, than 1 big fish. I hope I'm wrong - a rotation of Garza/Shark/top Edwin Jackson looks fairly good, and much as I'd love to get someone like Rodon in 2013, it would feel a bit better to not go through two horrible seasons (that said, I'm not that against a 2nd horrible season if they opt for that course).

I'm not sure what Jackson will cost, but we should have enough to spend more than just one big fish. Dempster 14M, Zambrano 17M, Byrd 6M, Soto 4.3M and Maholm 4.25M is some of the notable salary we are losing, without much in the way of raises due. I don't think we'll go crazy with Greinke and Hamilton or something, but Zambrano alone is 2-3 Maholms plus some. And I don't think we have enough 40 man spots for 9 Maholms.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[davell]

We've definitely got the money to go get any two starters we want. I doubt Jackson gets any consideration though, if he gets qualified, which I suspect he will. The more I've thought about it, I could see us getting serious on Greinke honestly. Evidently he wants to play for an immediate contender though, so that could be a tough sell. The risk involved with him is something our guys will study like hell though. But a guy like that, at his age and the fact he won't even cost a pick probably won't come around often. Especially with the Yanks and Red Sox being unlikely to get involved. If the Dodgers somehow move towards a Dempster or Haren type, we would have a legit shot. He's risky as hell and may be too much so for Theo's first big FA signing with the Cubs, but damn......With the money we've got available, I've waffled on this one bigtime. I hope we get serious on him, I think.

[toonsterwu]

Wrigley, we have the money, obviously, but I'm just not sure I completely buy them giving a 4-5 year contract at prime money to land a big fish. And Edwin Jackson will likely be one of the prime fish this offseason. Maybe I'm off on their intent ...

 

That said, davell is probably right. If Jackson gets a qualifying offer and turns it down (almost no chance of him taking a one year deal.. IMO ... as I think he'd want a multi-year deal if possible, and he's coming off a good season), I doubt we'd be in on him.

 

____

 

I have my doubts we'd get in on Greinke (which I assume would take at least a 5 year deal), but I guess I could see it if the price is reasonable enough for them. As a total side note, I wouldn't be surprised if a surprise club or two get involved in the Greinke bidding. For example, I'm thinking that the Orioles might ponder it. They have some money to spend, and they could use an ace (and another bat, but my hunch is that a staff ace might get prioritized as a need this winter).

Edited September 29, 2012 by toonsterwu

[WrigleyField 22]

I don't see the concern on a 5 year deal other than injury, with pitchers just being susceptible to injuries. We don't have an outlook of wildly exploding costs and hopefully we have an outlook of large revenue increases (Wrigley renovation and I think a new T.V. contract soon). Now mixing in some less risky contracts may be prudent, but one or two 5 year deals shouldn't be a concern when looking at our guaranteed contract outlays and who's hitting FA soon.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Assuming that we were to keep Garza, trade for James Shields, and sign one of the available mid rotation FAs, we could end up with a very good rotation: Garza, Shields, Shark, Sanchez, Wood could be a hell of a rotation.

[Backtobanks]

Assuming that we were to keep Garza, trade for James Shields, and sign one of the available mid rotation FAs, we could end up with a very good rotation: Garza, Shields, Shark, Sanchez, Wood could be a hell of a rotation.

 

And then trade Garza, Shields, and Sanchez at the deadline to get more prospects and start all over again. :lol:

[Sammy Sofa]

Assuming that we were to keep Garza, trade for James Shields, and sign one of the available mid rotation FAs, we could end up with a very good rotation: Garza, Shields, Shark, Sanchez, Wood could be a hell of a rotation.

 

And then trade Garza, Shields, and Sanchez at the deadline to get more prospects and start all over again. :lol:

 

http://6358.s3.amazonaws.com/images/KickInTheNuts/KickInTheNuts.jpg

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Assuming that we were to keep Garza, trade for James Shields, and sign one of the available mid rotation FAs, we could end up with a very good rotation: Garza, Shields, Shark, Sanchez, Wood could be a hell of a rotation.

 

And then trade Garza, Shields, and Sanchez at the deadline to get more prospects and start all over again. :lol:

 

Don't be silly. Epstein only promised we'd trade 40% of the rotation next year.

[davell]

It's like when Hulk Hogan joined the NWO.......

[CubsWin]

Assuming the Red Sox are still in salary dumping mode and open to trading him, which I doubt, I'm still intrigued by finding out what it would take to get Lester. It won't be cheap but they would definitely be buying low. The winter meetings can't come soon enough...

[toonsterwu]

Assuming the Red Sox are still in salary dumping mode and open to trading him, which I doubt, I'm still intrigued by finding out what it would take to get Lester. It won't be cheap but they would definitely be buying low. The winter meetings can't come soon enough...

 

I'd be more inclined to wait out the pitching market than giving up talent, unless the price is surprisingly cheap.