SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 20, 2017 12:31:58 GMT -5
When I think starter, I think a 1.5 win or better player. It's a shorthand measure for player quality, not whether a guy could be a replacement-level player who starts for a bad team that doesn't care about winning games. That's maybe Travis' median projection (and even that is optimistic, in my opinion), not his floor. I have not seen that article (and could not quickly find it on Google), but the front office and ownership have every incentive to pump up their own prospects and justify a move (the signing of Moreland) that was mildly unpopular and one that was mainly driven by financial (luxury tax) considerations. You have always been down on Travis. www.baseballamerica.com/minors/red-sox-top-10-prospects-chat/#A8qEAmjheyVu4CqA.97Baseball America shows his range as 55-45, most likely 50 which they call solid everyday first baseman. So his floor is what a semi solid everyday first baseman, a 2nd division starter. I have no problem saying his floor is a 1.5 win player. I have no clue which article it was, I read 10 plus articles a day and this was a couple months ago. Maybe it was front office trying to save face, but so far DD has meant everything that has come out. So maybe they do really like Travis. Outside of big power, what's not to like about his bat? He hits everywhere he's played. In our lineup we don't need another Travis Shaw with a so-so average but good power, I'd prefer the better pure hitter with good on base skills and so-so power.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 22, 2017 10:08:03 GMT -5
Don't you agree that a below average starting player (A player with less than the 1.5 WAR) could hold more value if he's cost effective and under team control like Travis and Swihart? That's what I take into consideration of value when thinking about them as starters in this league, especially for a mid market team like a Arizona. I am one of the leading advocates of the value of prospects who project to be "just" average or below-average players on this forum. That kind of player (think Reddick or Lowrie or Iglesias or, more recently, Margot or Shaw) can provide immense value as depth or in platoons or as cheap fill-in starters. You can't get to the playoffs on stars alone, and those kinds of players are crucial to filling in the middle and back of a roster and providing cheap production to supplement your front-end players. Not having those kinds of players is why stars-and-scrubs rosters like the recent White Sox have crashed and burned despite carrying multiple All-Stars. But those kinds of players just aren't very valuable trade assets, at least when compared to guys like Moncada and Kopech. Sam Travis is probably not a top 150 prospect. He was ranked just ahead of Basabe right before the Sale trade. He's more of a throw-in than a headliner in a trade for a guy like Goldschmidt.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 22, 2017 10:26:51 GMT -5
When I think starter, I think a 1.5 win or better player. It's a shorthand measure for player quality, not whether a guy could be a replacement-level player who starts for a bad team that doesn't care about winning games. That's maybe Travis' median projection (and even that is optimistic, in my opinion), not his floor. I have not seen that article (and could not quickly find it on Google), but the front office and ownership have every incentive to pump up their own prospects and justify a move (the signing of Moreland) that was mildly unpopular and one that was mainly driven by financial (luxury tax) considerations. You have always been down on Travis. www.baseballamerica.com/minors/red-sox-top-10-prospects-chat/#A8qEAmjheyVu4CqA.97Baseball America shows his range as 55-45, most likely 50 which they call solid everyday first baseman. So his floor is what a semi solid everyday first baseman, a 2nd division starter. I have no problem saying his floor is a 1.5 win player. I have no clue which article it was, I read 10 plus articles a day and this was a couple months ago. Maybe it was front office trying to save face, but so far DD has meant everything that has come out. So maybe they do really like Travis. Outside of big power, what's not to like about his bat? He hits everywhere he's played. In our lineup we don't need another Travis Shaw with a so-so average but good power, I'd prefer the better pure hitter with good on base skills and so-so power. Travis is an average defender at first base who won't provide any baserunning value. His value needs to come from his bat, and without plus power, that's a ton of pressure on his hit tool. Remember, major league pitchers generally have good enough control that it's hard to walk a lot without plus power (if they're not afraid of him, pitchers will just throw him strikes and dare him to hit it). He's got a good hit tool, but it's not Pedroia-esque-- Travis strikes out a decent amount (21.1% in AAA last year), for instance, and he's not an elite bat speed guy who may struggle with hard inside fastballs. If the hit tool doesn't translate perfectly and he hits .260 with average patience and slightly below-average power, he's something like a 1.0 win player (think Joe Mauer or James Loney). That's not supposed to be an insult-- as mentioned, those guys are really valuable. But that's a very real possibility (honestly, probably one of the more likely possibilities), and to call him a player with a 1.5 win floor seems far too aggressive to me.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 22, 2017 10:35:38 GMT -5
Don't you agree that a below average starting player (A player with less than the 1.5 WAR) could hold more value if he's cost effective and under team control like Travis and Swihart? That's what I take into consideration of value when thinking about them as starters in this league, especially for a mid market team like a Arizona. I am one of the leading advocates of the value of prospects who project to be "just" average or below-average players on this forum. That kind of player (think Reddick or Lowrie or Iglesias or, more recently, Margot or Shaw) can provide immense value as depth or in platoons or as cheap fill-in starters. You can't get to the playoffs on stars alone, and those kinds of players are crucial to filling in the middle and back of a roster and providing cheap production to supplement your front-end players. Not having those kinds of players is why stars-and-scrubs rosters like the recent White Sox have crashed and burned despite carrying multiple All-Stars. But those kinds of players just aren't very valuable trade assets, at least when compared to guys like Moncada and Kopech. Sam Travis is probably not a top 150 prospect. He was ranked just ahead of Basabe right before the Sale trade. He's more of a throw-in than a headliner in a trade for a guy like Goldschmidt. Ahh okay. What do you see in the value of Swihart?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 22, 2017 12:07:15 GMT -5
Off the cuff, maybe a top 50 prospect. Manny Margot pre-Kimbrel trade.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2017 1:34:07 GMT -5
You have always been down on Travis. www.baseballamerica.com/minors/red-sox-top-10-prospects-chat/#A8qEAmjheyVu4CqA.97Baseball America shows his range as 55-45, most likely 50 which they call solid everyday first baseman. So his floor is what a semi solid everyday first baseman, a 2nd division starter. I have no problem saying his floor is a 1.5 win player. I have no clue which article it was, I read 10 plus articles a day and this was a couple months ago. Maybe it was front office trying to save face, but so far DD has meant everything that has come out. So maybe they do really like Travis. Outside of big power, what's not to like about his bat? He hits everywhere he's played. In our lineup we don't need another Travis Shaw with a so-so average but good power, I'd prefer the better pure hitter with good on base skills and so-so power. Travis is an average defender at first base who won't provide any baserunning value. His value needs to come from his bat, and without plus power, that's a ton of pressure on his hit tool. Remember, major league pitchers generally have good enough control that it's hard to walk a lot without plus power (if they're not afraid of him, pitchers will just throw him strikes and dare him to hit it). He's got a good hit tool, but it's not Pedroia-esque-- Travis strikes out a decent amount (21.1% in AAA last year), for instance, and he's not an elite bat speed guy who may struggle with hard inside fastballs. If the hit tool doesn't translate perfectly and he hits .260 with average patience and slightly below-average power, he's something like a 1.0 win player (think Joe Mauer or James Loney). That's not supposed to be an insult-- as mentioned, those guys are really valuable. But that's a very real possibility (honestly, probably one of the more likely possibilities), and to call him a player with a 1.5 win floor seems far too aggressive to me. www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=6172Keith Law doesn't agree just ranked Travis #98 on his top 100 prospect list. Says he's an above average defender at 1B, will be an average to above average player there. Compares him to Mark Grace, good average and on base %, to go along with 30-40 doubles.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 24, 2017 7:07:00 GMT -5
That's fine. I disagree. I also still think that if you asked Law, he'd disagree that Travis' floor is a 1.5 win player. There are no more than a few prospects in any given year who have a floor of a 1.5 win player.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2017 23:56:39 GMT -5
That's fine. I disagree. I also still think that if you asked Law, he'd disagree that Travis' floor is a 1.5 win player. There are no more than a few prospects in any given year who have a floor of a 1.5 win player. www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospectsAccording to that 31% of the top 100 prospect were at or above 1.5 war. Those numbers ended in 2003 and rankings have got a lot better in the last 13 years. So how are there only a few prospects with a floor of 1.5 war in a given year? Before Sale trade we had 3 players not named Travis who in my opinion had a 1.5 war floor.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 25, 2017 7:15:08 GMT -5
Uh, that means 31% of the top 100 ended up as 1.5 win players, not that their floor was 1.5 wins. Floor means realistic downside. As an empirical matter, not even the number one prospect in baseball ends up with, say, 80%+ of its cohorts as 1.5 win players.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 25, 2017 11:39:58 GMT -5
Uh, that means 31% of the top 100 ended up as 1.5 win players, not that their floor was 1.5 wins. Floor means realistic downside. As an empirical matter, not even the number one prospect in baseball ends up with, say, 80%+ of its cohorts as 1.5 win players. How are you determining what a players floor is? For me Benintendi, Moncada and Kopech all have a 1.5 floor, with Kopech being the only one you could debate. Even then Law has said the floor for Kopech is high end reliever. That study shows war average of team control years, it wasn't meant to say all those players floors were that high. With today's better rankings I would guess that about 40% of the top 100 would average at least 1.5 war over team controlled years. Also lets say Moncada busts, it doesn't change the fact that his floor, hence realistic downside was clearly 1.5 war or higher. So I would say in a given year 20-40 prospects have a realistic downside of being 1.5 war players or better. What would you rank the floor as for players like Margot and Frazier? I don't love Margot, but with his D his floor has to be close to if not 1.5 war. It might be a little early to say Devers and Torres have a 1.5 floor, but a good half a season next year and they would seem to be those type players. Really a 1.5 war floor is very low, it's below an average player which was 1.7-1.8 last year. That's only looking at a handful of the top 30-40 guys, I just don't see how only a couple of guys a year have a realistic downside of 1.5 war, a below average player.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 26, 2017 17:44:38 GMT -5
I don't want to be too pedantic here, so I'll just say that I don't think we're using the word "floor" in the same way and leave it as that.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 3, 2017 13:29:05 GMT -5
Getting back on track, maybe, I for one am ready at this point to trade every remaining prospect of significance for Goldschmidt.
I do think there's a good chance he goes too, because that Diamondbacks roster is miserable.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Apr 29, 2017 20:05:50 GMT -5
I must admit, outside of three errors, I have been more impressed with Moreland than anybody Dave dumbrowski has traded for.
but we need a veteran leader/hitter to focus the kids and give them the confidence and killer instincts they need.
Right now our hitters, not named benintendi, are totally lacking in intensity.
Somebody needs to get in bogey, betts and Bradley's faces and get them to ratchet up the intensity and quick going through the motions. Sadly pedroia is not the leader we need in the clubhouse.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 30, 2017 0:41:44 GMT -5
The Sox are at something like a 4% HR/FB rate. That's unsustainably, ludicrously low. Even the worst power-hitting teams in baseball hit between 8 and 9%. Some of it might be weather (although their opponents haven't had any problems), but most of it is just dumb bad luck. They'll regress to middle-pack power (they're up there in BA/OBP) and the offense will improve. I'm not too worried about it, although I still think they should've signed Turner.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 30, 2017 0:55:06 GMT -5
The Sox are at something like a 4% HR/FB rate. That's unsustainably, ludicrously low. Even the worst power-hitting teams in baseball hit between 8 and 9%. Some of it might be weather (although their opponents haven't had any problems), but most of it is just dumb bad luck. They'll regress to middle-pack power (they're up there in BA/OBP) and the offense will improve. I'm not too worried about it, although I still think they should've signed Turner. They probably had no shot at Turner with the CBT being a issue. He would of been a great fit, but it just wasn't in the cards. Speaking of Goldshmidt, Arizona needs to start stinking by July. Arizona won't trade him if they're competitive. I bumped this thread before the baseball season, predicting that he would come here, so it'd be cool to get a prediction right. That and the fact that the Sox could benefit a lot from adding a Goldshmidt. I could see a lot of people disagreeing with the long-term outlook in mind but this particular year, the Sox could definitely use him if he's available.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 1, 2017 17:29:15 GMT -5
I must admit, outside of three errors, I have been more impressed with Moreland than anybody Dave dumbrowski has traded for. but we need a veteran leader/hitter to focus the kids and give them the confidence and killer instincts they need. Right now our hitters, not named benintendi, are totally lacking in intensity. Somebody needs to get in bogey, betts and Bradley's faces and get them to ratchet up the intensity and quick going through the motions. Sadly pedroia is not the leader we need in the clubhouse. The one thing you need in order to take a round bat and make square contact with a round ball is intensity, that's for sure......... ? Also, you're more impressed with Moreland than Chris Sale or Craig Kimbrel? I mean Moreland has had a fine start but Sale was one of the two best pitchers in baseball the first month and Kimbrel has probably been the best closer in baseball for the past three weeks.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 8, 2018 11:52:57 GMT -5
Since Heyman just tweeted something about Goldschmidt getting a ton of interest, I wonder if it's appropriate to bump this thread up. He's a rental, so the cost shouldn't be outlandishly stupid.
Bobby Dalbec or Michael Chavis for Goldschmidt.
Would anyone do that?
Add- Moreland going back to Arizona on top of Chavis or Dalbec as a dump.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 8, 2018 12:00:13 GMT -5
I don't see how it's possible to outbid just about any other team interested unless Arizona is in love with one of our prospects.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 8, 2018 12:09:40 GMT -5
I don't see how it's possible to outbid just about any other team interested unless Arizona is in love with one of our prospects. Well Hazen would know the Sox prospects better than anyone else's I'm sure. It doesn't hurt that Hazen use to work under Dombrowski either for trade negotiations sake.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Nov 8, 2018 12:12:19 GMT -5
Since Heyman just tweeted something about Goldschmidt getting a ton of interest, I wonder if it's appropriate to bump this thread up. He's a rental, so the cost shouldn't be outlandishly stupid. Bobby Dalbec or Michael Chavis for Goldschmidt. Would anyone do that? Add- Moreland going back to Arizona on top of Chavis or Dalbec as a dump. Maybe you could start there - I would imagine you'd have to include Hernandez and maybe another lottery ticket type to really get any kind of conversation started. He may be a rental, but he's an MVP-caliber player so I can't imagine he'll be wildly cheap. I can't really see us winning a bidding war, but if dombrowski decides he really wants to double down on this core and blow out the farm again, I think we might actually be able to get it done - not sure I'd be all the way on board, but next year would probably be a lot of fun anyway
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 8, 2018 12:17:00 GMT -5
Maybe Swihart could also be a piece going back to Arizona too?
You start the conversation with Dalbec and Swihart, you might get somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 8, 2018 17:34:40 GMT -5
I don't see how it's possible to outbid just about any other team interested unless Arizona is in love with one of our prospects. Well isn't that how most trades work? Given there GM he could very well like our prospects. To make it clear I'm not saying to trade for him either. I just think our farm system is being underrated like we have nothing. It likely won't take a massive package to get him with only one year left on his deal.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 8, 2018 17:44:12 GMT -5
I don't see how it's possible to outbid just about any other team interested unless Arizona is in love with one of our prospects. Well isn't that how most trades work? Given there GM he could very well like our prospects. To make it clear I'm not saying to trade for him either. I just think our farm system is being underrated like we have nothing. It likely won't take a massive package to get him with only one year left on his deal. Maybe you don't look at other farm systems? We have almost nothing compared to other teams. The Red Sox from 2014 could trade their 10th and 12th best prospect and it would be like trading their 2nd and 3rd best now. It's so easy for many teams to outbid the Sox and not even take much of a hit to their system where it would demolish what is left of ours.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 8, 2018 22:30:45 GMT -5
So you think Cecchini and Marrero are equal to Cassas and Groome? Those were the guys ranked 10th and 12th at this time in 2014.
Sure I look at other teams prospscts, but lets not act like a guy going into his age 31 season with one year on his deal will cost a Sale package. That is what your saying if your talking about demolishing our system. Like it would take 4-5 top ten guys, including Chavis and Groome as the main pieces. Is that what you think?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2018 9:30:01 GMT -5
So you think Cecchini and Marrero are equal to Cassas and Groome? Those were the guys ranked 10th and 12th at this time in 2014. Sure I look at other teams prospscts, but lets not act like a guy going into his age 31 season with one year on his deal will cost a Sale package. That is what your saying if your talking about demolishing our system. Like it would take 4-5 top ten guys, including Chavis and Groome as the main pieces. Is that what you think? I wasn't being literal. I mean just go look at the list of prospects in 2014 and compare it to now. I'm saying that other teams could easily beat Chavis and Groome by giving up back end of their top 10 and not think twice. But for the Red Sox, they would lose their top 2 prospects, so yeah that would gut the system.
|
|
|