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.
Re-sign Stephen Drew? (5/20 EDIT: Drew re-signed 1yr deal)
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 12, 2013 17:28:01 GMT -5
No player is riskless, but Middlebrooks is a HIGH risk player. Yeah, I still don't really buy this. I thought he was a .750 OPS guy coming up, and he has a career line right around there, some hot streaks, cold streaks, adjustments. How bad do you think he could be, at what likelihood? Any more likely than a random pitcher's elbow or shoulder exploding? first of all, OPS is a dumb statistic. Secondly, if Middlebrooks is going to be a .750 OPS guy then he probably has a sub .290 - .300 OBP and a .450 - .460 Slugging. In other words, not good at either. Even if you want to make the argument that a .750 OPS is good, compilation of the OPS matters. OBP is more valuable than Slugging percentage so a formula that just sticks the two together is dumb. With the OBP he's going to put up, he better be an .800 OPS guy to start making it worth while. Meaning close to a .500 slugging.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2013 17:33:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I still don't really buy this. I thought he was a .750 OPS guy coming up, and he has a career line right around there, some hot streaks, cold streaks, adjustments. How bad do you think he could be, at what likelihood? Any more likely than a random pitcher's elbow or shoulder exploding? first of all, OPS is a dumb statistic. Secondly, if Middlebrooks is going to be a .750 OPS guy then he probably has a sub .290 - .300 OBP and a .450 - .460 Slugging. In other words, not good at either. Even if you want to make the argument that a .750 OPS is good, compilation of the OPS matters. OBP is more valuable than Slugging percentage so a formula that just sticks the two together is dumb. With the OBP he's going to put up, he better be an .800 OPS guy to start making it worth while. Meaning close to a .500 slugging. Well, that was some kind of hissy fit. WMB has a career 100 wRC+, with ups and downs. Same question, less whine with your answer, please.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 12, 2013 17:55:55 GMT -5
W/RC 100 from an average to below average fielding 3B is probably a 2nd division starter. I think he can do better than that though.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 12, 2013 17:59:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I still don't really buy this. I thought he was a .750 OPS guy coming up, and he has a career line right around there, some hot streaks, cold streaks, adjustments. How bad do you think he could be, at what likelihood? Any more likely than a random pitcher's elbow or shoulder exploding? first of all, OPS is a dumb statistic. Secondly, if Middlebrooks is going to be a .750 OPS guy then he probably has a sub .290 - .300 OBP and a .450 - .460 Slugging. In other words, not good at either. Even if you want to make the argument that a .750 OPS is good, compilation of the OPS matters. OBP is more valuable than Slugging percentage so a formula that just sticks the two together is dumb. With the OBP he's going to put up, he better be an .800 OPS guy to start making it worth while. Meaning close to a .500 slugging. I understand your point, but saying that 450-460 slugging is not good overlooks the way that slugging in general and 3b offense have gone down lately. Number of major league 3b who qualified for the batting title and slugged over 432 in 2013: 7. And one of them has just been moved to 1b in Detroit. Number of guys with 500 SLG: Cabrera, Beltre.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 12, 2013 18:12:29 GMT -5
A 100 wRC+ third baseman with slightly below-average defense and neutral baserunning is about an average player (two wins, give or take). That's great for the league-minimum, but it also makes him probably the worst regular on the team (you can also make an argument for Pierzynski and Nava; Gomes is clearly worse but he's a bench player). If Drew ends up only requiring, say, two years and $26m (again, I think that's really unlikely, but that's the hypothetical we're all talking about here), that's probably by far the cheapest FA upgrade available. I'm totally guestimating here, but going from:
3B: Middlebrooks 600 PAs (2.1 wins), Holt 100 PAs (0.1 wins) SS: Bogaerts 600 PAs (3 wins), Holt 100 PAs (0.2 wins)
to:
3B: Bogaerts 400 PAs (2 wins), Middlebrooks 300 PAs (1 win) SS: Bogaerts 200 PAs (1 win), Drew 500 PAs (3 wins)
...would net you about 1.5 wins, and that's not even considering any advantages from platooning Drew and Middlebrooks and the huge depth upgrade in case of injury. That's huge, and totally worth the cash, draft pick, and playing time opportunity cost for me. (It also gives you the flexibility to deal Middlebrooks if you get a good enough offer, but I'm more inclined to keep him unless there's an offer I can't refuse.)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2013 18:51:47 GMT -5
A 100 wRC+ third baseman with slightly below-average defense and neutral baserunning is about an average player (two wins, give or take). That's great for the league-minimum, but it also makes him probably the worst regular on the team (you can also make an argument for Pierzynski and Nava; Gomes is clearly worse but he's a bench player). If Drew ends up only requiring, say, two years and $26m (again, I think that's really unlikely, but that's the hypothetical we're all talking about here), that's probably by far the cheapest FA upgrade available. I'm totally guestimating here, but going from: 3B: Middlebrooks 600 PAs (2.1 wins), Holt 100 PAs (0.1 wins) SS: Bogaerts 600 PAs (3 wins), Holt 100 PAs (0.2 wins) to: 3B: Bogaerts 400 PAs (2 wins), Middlebrooks 300 PAs (1 win) SS: Bogaerts 200 PAs (1 win), Drew 500 PAs (3 wins) ...would net you about 1.5 wins, and that's not even considering any advantages from platooning Drew and Middlebrooks and the huge depth upgrade in case of injury. That's huge, and totally worth the cash, draft pick, and playing time opportunity cost for me. (It also gives you the flexibility to deal Middlebrooks if you get a good enough offer, but I'm more inclined to keep him unless there's an offer I can't refuse.) You could make the same argument about any free agent if all you cared about is this year. The Red Sox don't seem to have the same strategy. I have a feeling they will do whatever puts Boegarts in the position they want him to be in. If they view him as a shortstop, there's probably no chance they're considering Drew. Ditto if they believe that WMB can rebound. And if they don't think WMB can rebound, they should just trade him now because signing Drew won't help him do that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 12, 2013 19:02:01 GMT -5
You could make the same argument about any free agent if all you cared about is this year. I don't think you can, though. The only other current free agents who project to be meaningfully better than the current Red Sox options are Shin-Soo Choo (expensive) and Juan Uribe (an interesting, underlooked option). But I think it's a close enough call, and I won't belabor the point any further, especially since the chances of his market falling to the point where he'd represent an attractive option to the Sox still seem low to me.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2013 19:54:09 GMT -5
A 100 wRC+ third baseman with slightly below-average defense and neutral baserunning is about an average player (two wins, give or take). That's great for the league-minimum, but it also makes him probably the worst regular on the team Worst on the team I don't care about for this point - if your worst starter is average, that's outstanding. But even last year, which was majority pre-demotion suckage, he had positive fWAR, so absolute worst case, which does not seem likely to me, he's still replacement level and that's not going to kill the team. And of course Cecchini is climbing the ladder. Every starter on a "first division team" doesn't have to be a "first division starter", a trap some seem to fall into. That's a silly conceit.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 12, 2013 20:10:06 GMT -5
What about the max contract for Drew? Do we think he'd accept a 2 year deal? And would he be willing to platoon? He's going to have to answer those questions for himself. That might be some of what Cherrington wanted to discuss with him. Not easy at the age of 30, with the more productive part of your career likely in the rear-view mirror. Your big chance for a good long-term contract, or the playing time you need to establish yourself beyond a shorter one, hanging in the balance. That would require some introspection.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Dec 12, 2013 20:19:05 GMT -5
Boras bs not withstanding, Drew performed below average hitting for ss in the playoffs. As already discussed, Xander performed well above average against elite pitching. Xander will only get better and is not only the sox best option, but is arguably the best ss in the mlb for 2014.
Everything else is agent posturing and front office bs.
Drew is done in Boston and that is for the best.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 12, 2013 20:29:31 GMT -5
I disagree with the analysis presented. I think that the 1.5 win advantage is probably high, but for now I'd like to stick to a more important point. If the only advantage is 1.5 wins in 2014 I am not signing Drew for the amount you laid out. I believe you ignored several costs of to that win, mainly decreased payroll flexibility at the trading deadline and basically throwing away any future value that Will Middlebrooks might have which I believe you are under appreciating.
Today I don't believe that Middlebrooks would garner much of a return if traded. You might get a team like the White Sox to take a flier on him but they wouldn't give you a clear significant piece in return. If you sign Drew, Middlebrooks would basically be blocked from playing for two years. Even if you make him Drew's platoon partner, that's 150-200 PAs a year. Not enough to significantly raise his value even if he does well.
There is one very interesting quality about Middlebrooks. When he does make contact the contact is of high value. During his late season resurgence 13% of contact went for extra bases. What that means is that an increase in contact should have greater benefits for him than it would for another player. It could be nearly half a run for every one strikeout.
Yet even if Middlebrooks merely becomes the 2-3 win player projected by Steamer it would give the Red Sox significant options especially if Cecchini develops as expected. They could trade Middlebrooks or Checchini for a young OF. They could keep both players and put Cechhini in LF. Either way it gives the team a good chance to be set up for several years to come. All of that disappears however if you sign Drew a player whom they don't really need. To give that up, pay a draft pick and $24M for the privilege for what even your projections say is a small overall team improvement seems foolhardy to me. I don't think the Sox will do it.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2013 20:41:14 GMT -5
And would he be willing to platoon? I think platooning is out of the question.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 12, 2013 20:49:37 GMT -5
A 100 wRC+ third baseman with slightly below-average defense and neutral baserunning is about an average player (two wins, give or take). That's great for the league-minimum, but it also makes him probably the worst regular on the team Worst on the team I don't care about for this point - if your worst starter is average, that's outstanding. But even last year, which was majority pre-demotion suckage, he had positive fWAR, so absolute worst case, which does not seem likely to me, he's still replacement level and that's not going to kill the team. And of course Cecchini is climbing the ladder. Every starter on a "first division team" doesn't have to be a "first division starter", a trap some seem to fall into. That's a silly conceit. Every team decision should be looked at in the paradigm of risk, cost, and reward. As you mention the risk really isn't that high from a team perspective. Just as many portfolios should invest in high upside high risk low cost tech stocks, teams should also invest in players that are higher risk too if the price is right. As you mentioned, they can still be pretty good even if Middlebrooks flames out.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2013 20:57:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 12, 2013 21:02:45 GMT -5
Would their draft pick slot any better than the Mets, another possible Drew landing spot?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2013 21:29:23 GMT -5
At some point they really need to suck it up and tell Old Man Jeets that they're signing Drew and that he's no longer the everyday shortstop. Because failing to do that is basically admitting that they're spending near $200m to run not a competitive ballclub, but rather an 85 win Derek Jeter farewell tour. He's an absolutely perfect fit for them.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 12, 2013 21:37:49 GMT -5
If the only advantage is 1.5 wins in 2014 I am not signing Drew for the amount you laid out. I believe you ignored several costs of to that win, mainly decreased payroll flexibility at the trading deadline... I'm pretty confident that this move would be a much more efficient upgrade than anything you're going to get at the deadline, where you have to overpay in talent and only get a half season's worth of production. But it's a fair point that even if they move Dempster, adding Drew still makes it rather difficult to slide under the $189m CBT threshold. But looking at how little salary they have committed next year, I increasingly think that the front office would be willing to go over the tax this year for the right move, and I think this is the right move (see below). ...and basically throwing away any future value that Will Middlebrooks might have which I believe you are under appreciating. Today I don't believe that Middlebrooks would garner much of a return if traded. You might get a team like the White Sox to take a flier on him but they wouldn't give you a clear significant piece in return. If you sign Drew, Middlebrooks would basically be blocked from playing for two years. Even if you make him Drew's platoon partner, that's 150-200 PAs a year. Not enough to significantly raise his value even if he does well. I've never advocated for trading Middlebrooks, so I don't really care that adding Drew might hurt Middlebrooks' "value." With that said, I'm not sure why platooning Middlebrooks instead of playing him full time hurts his trade value that much. Most smart GMs are comfortable extrapolating from part-time samples (see the trades for Adam Eaton or Craig Gentry, for instance). I'm confident that putting him in a situation that plays towards his strengths (mash left-handers without having to worry as much about breaking balls) and gives him some defensive flexibility filling in at 3B, 2B, and 1B will at least come close to making up for whatever trade value boost he loses out on by not having an extra year's worth of "full time starter" status. Yet even if Middlebrooks merely becomes the 2-3 win player projected by Steamer it would give the Red Sox significant options especially if Cecchini develops as expected. They could trade Middlebrooks or Checchini for a young OF. They could keep both players and put Cechhini in LF. Either way it gives the team a good chance to be set up for several years to come. All of that disappears however if you sign Drew a player whom they don't really need. If you're concerned about flexibility and options, doesn't adding Drew only increase them? If you don't add Drew, you don't really have the option to trade Middlebrooks, because then you're trading your starting 3B without a strong backup plan. You can trade Cecchini and still have Middlebrooks as a potential long-term option at 3B, even after Drew reaches free agency. Flexibility is an argument for Drew, not against him. To give that up, pay a draft pick and $24M for the privilege for what even your projections say is a small overall team improvement seems foolhardy to me. I don't think it's a "small overall team improvement" when you consider where the Red Sox are on the win curve. I want to push this team from "playoff contender" to "heavy favorite to win the division", because in the WC play-in era, winning the division is more important than ever (literally doubles your chances of winning the WS). Right now the team is projected to win around 94-95 wins; I think this move pushes them to a solid 96, and I'm willing to spend some cash/a pick to get there.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 12, 2013 21:44:10 GMT -5
Agree with jmei. This team is at a point where marginal improvements can be a big difference in the long run. Adding a win or two has a major marginal effect. It's not like it takes them from average to a tick above. They are at a point where they are already one of the top teams in the league, and small improvements are all that it takes. Certainly pass if it requires 3 years, I'd even be a bit hesitant at 2 years but realize it might be what it takes. I think Drew + Xander is significantly better than Xander + WMB, and that doesn't even take into account the hopeful L/R matchups if they maintain all 3.
If the total $ for 2 years falls beneath the QO value, then you make the move. At that cost, if he performs even at a moderate level with plus defense, he could be very easily be an attractive choice to a team in need of a SS at the deadline or after the 2014 season
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 13, 2013 9:51:23 GMT -5
The awesome thing is that this thread probably doesn't get closed for another 2 months and we can continue arguing in circles.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 13, 2013 10:03:22 GMT -5
The entire 1.5 wins needs to be taken with a grain of salt as well. Those calculations are only "somewhat" accurate if everyone is healthy and performs to expectations. The actual affects could be MUCH greater. In addition to the way JMEI looked at it. Adding Drew really should be looked at with regards to the upgrade he gives you over the other likely utility player (Holt?) if that player needs significant PT over the year. Iglesias had to play a lot of games last year because WMB sucked and Drew got injured.
The worst case scenario the Middlebrooks supporters are throwing out are grossly exaggerated in your favor. The worst case truly is that he cannot hold down a major league job. It's not only the worst case it's not far fetched, because we saw it last year... Twice.
So far, it seems we all agree he's a below average fielder and unfortunately it doesn't have much to do with hands or throwing, but rather it seems to me a lack of quick twitch reactions so that will probably only get worse as he ages. He's not good, but serviceable, if he brings positives to the lineup.
So what is the plan with no Drew, if Middlebrooks can't perform or gets injured (he does seem to get hurt quite a bit as well)?
This isn't an advocation that they should go all out for Drew.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 13, 2013 10:18:32 GMT -5
Why not go after Uribe if we're not sold on WMB? We get an extra pick and he probably costs less.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 13, 2013 10:23:53 GMT -5
The entire 1.5 wins needs to be taken with a grain of salt as well. Those calculations are only "somewhat" accurate if everyone is healthy and performs to expectations. The actual affects could be MUCH greater. Or MUCH less. That's why you look at the expected value. And yet WMB was still above replacement level last season. You're demanding that he be well above average with the bat to be worth playing. He's been worth ~ 2 fWAR/full season in the majors with a line of .254 / .294 / .462 (100 wRC+) and you're demanding a major improvement to .500 SLG or he's worthless. That's just not rational. Every player goes through slumps - Napoli was terrible for a good part of last season - and you would expect players breaking into the majors to struggle more often. That doesn't mean you get to ignore his 2012 and 2013-post-demotion results. A little over a full season of -3 UZR/150 is more or less average. Certainly competent.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 13, 2013 10:30:28 GMT -5
Why not go after Uribe if we're not sold on WMB? We get an extra pick and he probably costs less. He was atrocious at the plate in 2011 & 2012, so I think it comes down to whether scouting can answer the why to his collapse & resurgence.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 13, 2013 10:40:33 GMT -5
The awesome thing is that this thread probably doesn't get closed for another 2 months and we can continue arguing in circles. Ah, the truth in this statement. I'm considering adding it to my sig....
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 13, 2013 10:41:13 GMT -5
Why not go after Uribe if we're not sold on WMB? We get an extra pick and he probably costs less. He was atrocious at the plate in 2011 & 2012, so I think it comes down to whether scouting can answer the why to his collapse & resurgence. Well he seems to be good in the field and can play 3B/SS/2B. Main difference is he's right handed. It's a shame we couldn't get him to be our super utility IF.
|
|
|