SoxHawk1980

You've read? You've read where? Of course he says that he's 35. I live in New York and I have read extensively about Contreras. Back when the Yankees and the Red Sox were battling over signing him after his defection, the issue of his age was all over the sports news in New York. At the time (early offseason before the 2003 season), the consensus opinion was that he was that he was about 36. If that's true, that would mean that he turned 41 on December 6. And this was the Yankee-friendly media which was hyping the hell out of Contreras at the time.

KW has definitely made some good trades in the past. Do you think he's made any bad ones? If so, why do you have faith that every trade he makes must be a good one?

And what makes you think this, when everyone in baseball recognizes that this simply isn't true?

I didn't say he was injury prone. But everyone knows that he is over 40. This isn't about "mocking Cuban birth records." This is about when a Cuban defector comes to the U.S., he can say he is any age he wants to say because the records can't be checked. Like every other Cuban who wants to play in MLB, Contreras fudged his age by some number of years. This is obvious. When talking about Contreras, we can either recognize that he is somewhere over 40 (probably over 41), or we can pretend that he is the age he pretends to be. I choose reality.

No one knows what will happen in 2007 with any team. But that doesn't mean all speculation is equally valid. That doesn't mean that there is equal reason to believe that the team will be better as that the team will be worse. There is more evidence and logic supporting the contention that the Sox will be worse. If KW had traded way all of the rotation, Thome and Dye for a bunch of rookie league prospects, we still wouldn't know if the 2007 would be better or worse than the 2006 team. But evidence and logic would tell you that the they would most likely be worse.

LF, CF, SS, backup C, bullpen. CF is also a need. At the plate, Anderson improved from horrible hitting in the first half to merely bad hitting in the second half. He could easily be bad again in 2007. His significant improvement is anything but certain. Uribe is also good defensively, but can't hit at all. He's not just a bad hitter. In the last two seasons he was one of the very worst hitting regulars in the AL. In at least one of those three spots (LF, CF, SS), we needed a significant upgrade. We've gotten nothing and no FA's remain who would be a significant upgrade. We got a good backup catcher. Unfortunately, that was the smallest hole we had to fill. Do you think KW did a good job of upgrading the bullpen? Aardsma and Sisco? I don't think Aardsma is better than Cotts. If any, I think the improvement is minor. Sisco is awful. He'll only be good if he can be fixed. We don't know if he can be fixed. It will probably take some time, if it ever happens. Therefore, except for backup catcher, these holes were not filled with real upgrades. That makes no sense. Now we only have 4 good SP's and no depth. By that I mean depth with guys who are ready to step in and pitch like at least mediocre major league pitchers. That is an obvious and significant downgrade.

I know, but I think because people really want the 2007 team to be better, it colors their analysis.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think blind faith in any GM is misplaced. GM's make mistakes. Kenny has made mistakes. I don't really think KW thinks the McCarthy trade makes us better in 2007. I think he's gambling on rebounds from other Sox players making the 2007 team better and that we can thus afford this trade which is strictly to benefit the future. Don't go by what KW says pubicly. His public statements are about leverage, spin and PR, not honesty (which is fine).

An improved major league team. And this isn't an improved team. We've "added a lot of talent"? Not major league talent. Adding guys like Terrero, Sisco and Aardsma is only technically filling holes. Those aren't upgrades. Actually, maybe the bullpen is a little bit better. But only a little. KW signed a good back up catcher. That small hole was filled. The nearly automatic outs in LF, CF and SS remain. We also lost 2 of our 6 good SP's. Now we have no good, major league ready #5 starter and if/when a SP goes down, we have no depth to fill that spot. The 2007 major league team hasn't been improved.

I assume that the optimism in Masset is because of his stuff. I can't believe people would put much faith in winter ball performances.

Speaking of fallacies, I'll do my best to debunk this one. While some players will undoubtedly improve their performance over 2006, others have a good chance to decline. Jermaine Dye has never had a year anywhere near as good as 2006. And he's not exactly at the age where one can conclude that he's still improving. We should expect a significant drop off for Dye. Conteras is over 40 years old. Pitchers of that age are usually deteroriating. There is more reason to believe he'll be worse in 2007 than better. Guys like Garland and Vazquez pitched at about their career averages in 2006. I think that's about as good as they are. Many expect them to improve in 2007, but I don't think there's any good reason to expect that. I won't even get into why we shouldn't expect improvement from truly and persistently awful hitters like Pods and Uribe.

From where does this great optimism in Masset come? Is it just his stuff? Because his statistical record doesn't look that good. It takes more than stuff to excel in the majors. I'll repost something I posted earlier in this thread about Masset:

I bet McCarthy will have at least twice as many wins as Haeger. As far as ERA, I would prefer to use ERA+ which normalizes for park factors. And I think McCarthy's ERA+ and WHIP will be much better than Haeger's. Frankly, I think if Haeger starts the season as the #5 starter, I doubt he'll make more than 10 starts before he is replaced by Floyd or Danks due to performance. If the Sox again don't make the playoffs, the I-love-KW crowd will give Kenny no blame whatsoever. They will say: 1) We wouldn't have made the playoffs anyway, even with Garcia and McCarthy. and 2) Thank God Kenny loaded us up with pitching prospects because next year we're going to have at least 3 young aces in Danks, Floyd, and Gio. And if they don't pan out in 2008, it will be "wait until next year, they'll surely arrive then." And if they don't pan out in 2009...

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I will just point out that I don't think there is a person involved in scouting or analyzing prospects, or anyone in baseball who agrees with you. Actually, what I said is that KW's moves have made our chances of contending "more remote," as in we have less of a chance of contending in 2007 than we did before KW's moves this offseason. Say what you will about these trades KW has made. Feel free to recognize that KW has restocked our minors with some really good top pitching prospects. And yes the future of Sox pitching looks good because of it. But at the same time, let us not pretend that KW has not made the 2007 Sox team worse in the process.

I think it is pretty clear that McCarthy is a hell of a lot better than Haeger, Phillips or Floyd. That is, unless Coop has a silver bullet fix for Floyd, but I think Floyd's problems go deeper than that. I haven't seen any scouting report or read any prospect analysis that puts Haeger or Phillips anywhere near the prospect status of McCarthy. And Floyd was once a top prospect, but continual and repeated failures in both the majors and AAA has caused his star to fall, and quite rightly so. Compare McCarthy's major league numbers to Floyd's and you'll see a world of difference. The only hope for Floyd to pitch anywhere near as well as McCarthy in 2007 is if Coop has a magical quick fix for him. Yes, they can contend with this team. Yes, anything can happen. Of course there are many variables. But by decreasing the talent level of the major league team in 2007, KW has made that team's chances to contend more remote.

This isn't entirely true. We have limited data on this kid, but we can at least accurately analyze what little data there is. It is true that when he first went up to AA Frisco (Texas League), he struggled (5.49 ERA, 1.54 WHIP). That was for 18 games in 2005. But then when he started the 2006 season in Frisco (before his call up to AAA), he didn't exactly "dominate" (4.15 ERA, 1.39 WHIP). Then, of course, he didn't exactly dominate when he got to AAA (4.33 ERA, 1.44 WHIP). I know his stuff looks great according to everyone's scouting report, but it appears that he has yet to dominate or even pitch very well at a level above A-ball. I think the significance of this is twofold: 1) From the statistical record, it appears that he isn't particularly major league ready, and we shouldn't think that he'll be able to help the major league club in 2007. 2) He is definitely not a can't miss prospect. Yes, we can factor him [Masset) in. I don't think he has "three plus pitches". If he does, then he certainly doesn't know how to throw them yet. Have you looked at his stats? He has 8 ip in the majors which were a mixed bag, but I don't think 8 ip tell us anything (except that he has very little major league experience). Before that, he had only 67 ip in AAA and didn't pitch very well there (4.81 ERA, 1.60 WHIP), and that was mostly as a reliever. So, I'll buy that the stuff looks good, but he has had difficulty putting it together. I am skeptical that a guy who couldn't pitch very well in AAA can come up to the majors and pitch well this year. Maybe with more seasoning, he can develop into a good major league reliever. So again, this trade still hurts the Sox in 2007.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense at all to me. McCarthy is a pitcher with 151 ip in two major league seasons, including 12 starts. Danks is a pitcher who has 70 ip in AAA and no major league experience. McCarthy had more time in the minors as well. And, in his time in the majors, McCarthy compiled a near major league average ERA of 4.68. He has major league experience, some major league success, he knows AL hitters. Danks has none of that AND we don't even know if he will ever be able to handle major league hitters. Being merely a completely untested prospect at this point, his question mark is considerably bigger than McCarthy's, particuarly for 2007. There is a lot of room for debate over which pitcher will eventually be better. But I think all evidence, common sense and rationality tells you that in 2007, McCarthy >> Danks.

When McCarthy was at the point in his development that Danks is in now, people were talking about McCarthy as a potential ace. With most prospects, the closer they get to the majors and the more playing time they get in the majors, the more their ceiling is lowered. It is easy to talk about a 21 year old who has only had 70 ip as high as AAA as a potential ace. The reality usually turns out to be a bit more moderate than that. Remember these once "potential aces" from Sox history? Garland, Wright, Rauch, Kip Wells and Ruffcorn. I'm not saying Danks will be a bust. Not at all. Certainly not all of the pitchers in that list are busts. But there are many potential paths for the careers of top pitching prospects. Very, very few of them become aces. So the opinion of a Rangers fan is worthless because of their obvious bias, but the opinion of a Sox fan (you) has more value? Do you think that you have no pro-Sox bias? Do you think for a second that you are not focusing on the positive because you want this to be a good trade for the Sox? There's one more factor that you didn't mention. Yes, this was a trade of potential for potential. But this wasn't just a swap of two top prospects who are in AA. We traded away a major league pitcher. We traded away a guy who appeared ready to pitch well in the majors in 2007 (I'm not talking about pitching like an ace or anything like that). McCarthy has major league experience and some major league success. Danks on the other hand, has a great deal of potential but little chance of pitching well in the majors in 2007. Even if he becomes great, it is unlikely that he's show up in Chicago this year and show it this early. So Danks might be better than McCarthy in the future, but it hurts the 2007 team. And the AL Central's 3rd place team didn't need a downgrade, it needed an upgrade. That is, if we wanted to contend this year.

And it is Chisoxfn's interpretation of the meaning of this information that leads him to say that this trade was a good one. Would the rest of us interpret the information that way? If the info is that Brandon has a torn rotator cuff, then that would be one thing. But if the info is that the Sox scouts see something particularly great in Danks, then that is another thing entirely. Or is it about JR and the payroll (in the near future)? Or is it something else ambiguous? We really have no idea what this "information" tells us about how good this trade is.

The info would have to be pretty huge to make this deal look like a good one. This trade seriously hurts a WS contender. At this point, I wouldn't expect the Sox to win the AL Central, much less the WS. This team needed an upgrade. Instead, we have gotten an overall downgrade this offseason. And the future looks bright, but pitching prospects have a particularly high failure rate. And by the time these guys are ready to actually be good at the major league level, will the good position players like Thome, Konerko and Dye still be playing for the Sox? Will they still be playing baseball at all? This is a big gamble for a still very uncertain future.

Brandon could flame out, of course, but he's had much more major league success than both Olivo and Reed. McCarthy has actually shown something in the majors. There is real reason to believe he could be a reliable #3 starter in the majors. It isn't just scouts and fan optimism. It is scouts, optimsim and results on the field.

It isn't about not trusting Jason. He hasn't even said what the information is, much less whether it is believable/credible.

I still don't know who the source is, how credible that source is or what the nature of the info is. Is the info about Danks, BMac or other things which might push the blame off of KW but don't affect how good the trade was for the Sox? or is the info about something else entirely? Without knowing some of these things, this inside info, which hasn't even been actually described in even the most general terms is essentially meaningless.

It makes no sense to say that BMac has the same injury risk as a pitcher over 40 years of age like Contreras or with as many innings and pitches on their arms as Buehrle and Garland. All pitchers have injury risk, but those risks are not all equal. I'm just calling it like I see it. I know the upside of this trade, and of the Garcia grade. But the upsides alone don't determine the value of the trade. I can't pretend that there isn't a downside too.

I consider trusting info when I get it. I haven't gotten any of this inside info yet. Until then, claims that it exist are worthless. Maybe this inside info is that JR is looking to trim the payroll this year (Garcia) and in the relatively near future (McCarthy) and that is what these trades are significantly about. If so, that doesn't make the deal any better. It just puts the blame on JR, not KW. Again, my point is that we have no idea what this supposed information is, what its source is, how credible or reliable it is. So, it is basically nothing.