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.
Potential Free Agent Starter for Next Year?
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 5, 2012 6:48:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Oct 5, 2012 12:14:05 GMT -5
Remember 04 was the first to mention Peavy.He had outstanding numbers this year and I think is well worth the 2nd round pick the Sox would have to give up. If the Sox could get him for Beckett money, it seems like something they should do. With up to 100 million to spend, I am with you kindasweaty in the belief the Sox can compete next year.Sorry Steve, just noticed you were the first to mention Peavy. He would look good at the front of that rotation if Chicago doesn't lock him up.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Oct 5, 2012 13:37:01 GMT -5
Remember 04 was the first to mention Peavy.He had outstanding numbers this year and I think is well worth the 2nd round pick the Sox would have to give up. If the Sox could get him for Beckett money, it seems like something they should do. With up to 100 million to spend, I am with you kindasweaty in the belief the Sox can compete next year. I'm pretty sure the Sox could get Peavy for Beckett money, but that would a very poor decision IMO (unless it was for 1 year).
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 10, 2012 18:36:22 GMT -5
If you believe, as I do, that pitching is a BIG part of consistently winning games and getting into post-season, what do you think of this trade:
Ellsbury for Tim LINCECUM?
Both are about the same age and both are coming off bad years and both are free agents after 2013.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 10, 2012 22:16:22 GMT -5
Last I checked the Sox have plenty of mediocre talent, at least in the starting rotation. I don't think they need more mediocre. That sort of underscores my point. They developed Lester and Buchholz, both who have underachieved this year. Doubront also came through the organization. Matsuzaka was signed as an elite talent, but wasn't (particularly in the last four years). Cook was a MLFA brought in as roster filler, in case he was needed. The Red Sox lost in 2011 because of their starting pitching. Instead of pursuing mid-range talent which could have made them better - Kuroda and Jackson, for example, both of whom would've been the best pitcher on the staff this year - they decided that their current crop was good enough. Edwin Jackson would make the Red Sox better. The response "he doesn't make them better enough" seems a little self-defeating to me. If he costs too much, or doesn't want to play here, or whatever else, that's fine, but it's always worth it to look into players who make the club better. I might be mistaken but I think Elguapo is trying to make a point that getting Edwin Jackson would be kind of like signing a John Lackey, a good pitcher, who will be overpaid and likely have his best performance in the past. For the Sox to sign Jackson, the odds are they'll have to shell out a 3 year deal and overpay him what he's truly worth. I'd be surprised if it were a 1 year deal for him, again. So yes, you can sign Marcum, or Sanchez, or McCarthy, or Kuroda, or Haren, or Jackson, but none of these guys are top of the line pitchers and it doesn't make sense if you have to overpay in years or annual value (ie - John Lackey gets signed to a $82 million deal over 5 years coming off numbers not so dissimilar to these aforementioned guys). That's what the Sox need to avoid. My complaint against the Sox last year is about how they boxed themselves into a corner where they couldn't even take on a 1 year deal - talk about true value.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 11, 2012 8:31:53 GMT -5
If you believe, as I do, that pitching is a BIG part of consistently winning games and getting into post-season, what do you think of this trade: Ellsbury for Tim LINCECUM? Both are about the same age and both are coming off bad years and both are free agents after 2013. Thoughts? Steve, my gut tells me that Lincecum's dominant days are behind him. He is no longer the "freak". His strikeouts are still high/innings pitched but he has lost that high velocity. I recall when he was throwing 97,98. The games I saw last year had him in the very low 90s. With his velocity loss his hrs/9 & BBs/9 have increased. I say no to this one. If Ells returns to form, (something like an average of what he has done in his career), he would be valuable for us or in trade. He is young enough that someone will bite on a trade. I think that the Sox will explore judicious trades of some of its better players for top prospects elsewhere...get young, get hungry, get more talented is what I am reading from managment. I do admit that my crystal ball is often quite cloudy tho.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 11, 2012 8:35:14 GMT -5
If the Red Sox had signed Lackey to a three year deal, he'd be off the books already (or pitching this year at the minimum, if it had included the same clause). So comparing signing Jackson to a three-year contract to the deal Lackey got misses the mark, I think.
My point is this - Jackson would almost certainly make the Red Sox better in 2013, the same way Lackey did in 2010. That doesn't mean they should dole out $80M for him or sign him regardless of price, it just means they should look into him, just as they should look into every player who makes them better.
Something like a three year, $35M deal would not box the Red Sox in, they way they were stuck last offseason. And considering his durability, chances are he'd be worth it. Also - I have no sense what the market will be for Jackson, at all, so I really just pulled those numbers out of my backside. That's really the issue here - nobody knows what Jackson is going to be valued at. He got less than he should have last offseason. If the same thing happens this time through, the Red Sox should step in, because they have the spending flexibility and he improves their team.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 11, 2012 8:51:17 GMT -5
Jackson has always been a favorite. For me he appeared like a latter day Mike Torrez, a big, strong horse who can eat up innings. We are going to need another starter next year after jettisoning Cook & Dice and just because. If we have to pay a bit more for Jackson, so what...as we are so far under the cap, it won't matter. Jackson will help us be interesting for a couple of years until more young talent is ready to carry the load.
Certainly money talks but will he want to come here? That is going to be a question for all free agents over the near term.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 11, 2012 9:14:59 GMT -5
I like Jackson a lot but think he will cost our second round pick. Granted its supposedly not a great draft but there are going to be great players drafted after round one we just need to find them. I wouldn't mind Marcum or McCarthy bc of that and they might only get two years.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 11, 2012 9:46:50 GMT -5
I like Jackson a lot but think he will cost our second round pick. Granted its supposedly not a great draft but there are going to be great players drafted after round one we just need to find them. I wouldn't mind Marcum or McCarthy bc of that and they might only get two years. Well, if he will cost a pick, sayonara.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 11, 2012 10:25:53 GMT -5
I might be mistaken but I think Elguapo is trying to make a point that getting Edwin Jackson would be kind of like signing a John Lackey, a good pitcher, who will be overpaid and likely have his best performance in the past. My point is that the Sox need top starting pitching and Jackson isn't it. Someone like Jackson or Kuroda could be helpful, no doubt, but that's not the name of the game in my opinion. We need to put major league ready pitching prospects in the rotation and hope they blossom. We need to see if a guy like Morales can turn into a bona fide starter (and he won't do that in the bullpen). We need to sign top starters who hit free agency, if the contract is semi-reasonable. We need to trade for top starters with depressed value because of contract or performance - Lee, Ubaldo, Lincecum (if fixable). We need to fix Lester. We need to acquire top pitching prospects (trade, draft, intl). Signing a mid-level starter isn't on that list. Maybe it makes sense if you have room in the rotation and it frees you to flip a starter for young pitching, a la Oakland. It's hard to go wrong getting a good pitcher at a good price. But it's not what I consider the priority.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 11, 2012 11:00:34 GMT -5
I might be mistaken but I think Elguapo is trying to make a point that getting Edwin Jackson would be kind of like signing a John Lackey, a good pitcher, who will be overpaid and likely have his best performance in the past. My point is that the Sox need top starting pitching and Jackson isn't it. Someone like Jackson or Kuroda could be helpful, no doubt, but that's not the name of the game in my opinion. We need to put major league ready pitching prospects in the rotation and hope they blossom. We need to see if a guy like Morales can turn into a bona fide starter (and he won't do that in the bullpen). We need to sign top starters who hit free agency, if the contract is semi-reasonable. We need to trade for top starters with depressed value because of contract or performance - Lee, Ubaldo, Lincecum (if fixable). We need to fix Lester. We need to acquire top pitching prospects (trade, draft, intl). Signing a mid-level starter isn't on that list. Maybe it makes sense if you have room in the rotation and it frees you to flip a starter for young pitching, a la Oakland. It's hard to go wrong getting a good pitcher at a good price. But it's not what I consider the priority. I'm sorry, but not adding a player who improves the team because he doesn't improve the team enough is pure craziness. That's the way the New York Mets ran their team for much of the late '00's, bringing in superstars and totally neglecting to make incremental improvements where they could easily do so. After the Red Sox last losing season, they were able to trade for Pedro Martinez. That's awesome, but it also was largely luck - the Expos were in worse shape financially than any MLB team right now, and Pedro turned in, arguably, the greatest two season stretch of pitching by anyone ever. There's no equivalent situation right now. Should they inquire about Felix Hernandez? Of course! But if they can't get him (and, other than pundits saying Seattle should trade him, there's no indication that they're interested in doing so), that doesn't mean they should say "well, we can't get an elite starter, might as well hope we can get Lester and Buchholz back on track and sign some reclamation project guys." I mean, isn't that what caused the mess in 2012? Also, I'm talking about signing a player who wouldn't impair the chances of signing another, higher impact player to a contract. The Red Sox are FAR under their budget in terms of their 2013 payroll. Adding another pitcher at something like $12M annually for three years wouldn't change, at all, their ability (or inability) to trade for a superstar-level pitcher. Not improving the team because the available player isn't as much of an improvement as you'd like is the equivalent of a business who never gets the base of clientele they need because they're always chasing the "elephant" accounts.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 11, 2012 12:36:54 GMT -5
Someone like Jackson or Kuroda could be helpful, no doubt, but that's not the name of the game in my opinion... Maybe it makes sense if you have room in the rotation and it frees you to flip a starter for young pitching, a la Oakland. It's hard to go wrong getting a good pitcher at a good price. But it's not what I consider the priority. I'm sorry, but not adding a player who improves the team because he doesn't improve the team enough is pure craziness. I don't consider this an intelligent reading of my post. If you want to argue against a straw man, leave me out of it.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 11, 2012 12:42:51 GMT -5
James, I understand what you're saying and I agree that Jackson would marginally improve the team - I really don't think he's that good a pitcher. but he's decent and is an innings eater - which has value. Honestly, he's the kind of pitcher I'd rather see the Sox develop on their own (Doubront would be the guy most comparable) and if the Sox are to spend sizeable money for a pitcher, I'd rather it be on a top notch pitcher. I brought up Lackey because it's an example of big money paid to a non-elite pitcher, and that's the problem the Sox got into. They gave too much of their money to Lackey, Beckett, and Crawford, three non-elite players.
He's basically a #4 starter on a good team. With a team like the Sox he'd probably improve them 2 or 3 games and his real value would probably be what he could fetch in a deal by the time De La Rosa, Webster, and Barnes reach the majors.
At this time, he'd be a $36 million placeholder as the Sox would be battling to make 75 - 80 wins.
It wouldn't be the worst deal they could make, but by the time the Sox are truly good, I doubt he'd offer much value for the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 11, 2012 13:10:16 GMT -5
K Law chat today. espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/45628Joe (New York) Do you buy this "Greinke can't pitch in a big market" thing? The whole narrative makes me a little uncomfortable, like people see anxiety as a weakness rather than a treatable disorder. Klaw (2:03 PM) I don't buy it either.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Oct 11, 2012 14:15:33 GMT -5
"He's basically a #4 starter on a good team."
Edwin Jackson has averaged 3.5 WAR for each of the last three seasons.
He would have been the third most valuable pitcher on the Yankees. The most valuable pitcher on the Orioles. The third most valuable starter on the Rays
The third most valuable pitcher on the White Sox The second most valuable pitcher on Oakland The Third most valuable pitcher on the Rangers The Third (really second, as Grienke only played half the season for them) most valuable pitcher on the Angels
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 11, 2012 16:01:36 GMT -5
Everyone, let's leave out the baseless speculation. If a player is ACTUALLY a free agent, or if we have reason to believe a player will be available via trade, then fine, but the Trade Proposal Subforum is for the out there stuff.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 11, 2012 16:41:51 GMT -5
"He's basically a #4 starter on a good team." Edwin Jackson has averaged 3.5 WAR for each of the last three seasons. He would have been the third most valuable pitcher on the Yankees. The most valuable pitcher on the Orioles. The third most valuable starter on the Rays The third most valuable pitcher on the White Sox The second most valuable pitcher on Oakland The Third most valuable pitcher on the Rangers The Third (really second, as Grienke only played half the season for them) most valuable pitcher on the Angels If I'm the Yankees in the playoffs and I have Jackson on my team, I start Sabathia, Pettitte, and Kuroda ahead of him. Don't you? On Washington, he's their 5th best starter. In Cincy, he'd be #4 behind Cueto, Latos, and Bailey. If I were the Rays, I take Price, Shields, Moore, and Hellickson ahead of him (despite the FIP argument from last year where you're telling me that Boston's rotation stacked up with Tampa's) I won't quibble with Baltimore and Texas. He'd be 1 or 2 on Baltimore, who should have been a .500 team, and he'd be a #3 on Texas whose starting pitching is suspect. So basically, all of this is an exercise to say he'd be a #3 starter on a team with decent starting pitching, a #4 starter on a team with good starting pitching, and a #2 starter on a team with bad starting pitching. Ultimately the Sox will sign one of Kuroda/Haren/Marcum/Jackson/Sanchez (and I'm sure I missed somebody and it won't be Zack Greinke - the Sox won't be giving out any huge contracts this offseason). They have a hole that needs filling and they'll fill it. I just hope that they don't over-commit in years or drastically overpay.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 11, 2012 17:36:16 GMT -5
It's not just a question of who you'd start before him in a playoff series, it's a question of what pitcher would add more value over the course of a season. Jackson has pitched 180+ innings five years in a row, combined with virtually no history of serious injury, which makes him a great bet to be somewhere around a 3.5 WAR player. Moreover, value means more than rank order-- it means grouping. Take a look at this custom leaderboard of the players you identified by name in your post ( link). Of their 2012 performances, ranked by xFIP, Jackson ranks 8th of 11. If you divide the players into tiers, however, he ranks pretty favorably in that second or third tier with players like Kuroda, Latos, and Bailey. He's clearly not a top-tier player, but on the right contract, he can certainly supply lots of surplus value.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Oct 12, 2012 15:56:34 GMT -5
Even if you have to overpay a guy like Jackson for 3 years, you have that flexibility right now. It's worth taking a risk, it won't keep you from getting someone else. It's the opposite of the Kuroda effect last year, where they couldn't offer him a few million more because they didn't have it. Would Kuroda have saved the season and made them a playoff team? Probably not, but they also wouldn't have been the trainwreck that they were
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Oct 12, 2012 19:07:35 GMT -5
K Law chat today. espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/45628Joe (New York) Do you buy this "Greinke can't pitch in a big market" thing? The whole narrative makes me a little uncomfortable, like people see anxiety as a weakness rather than a treatable disorder. Klaw (2:03 PM) I don't buy it either. This. And Greinke is exactly what this team needs: an elite talent that can fit into the front end of the rotation and help anchor it for years.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 13, 2012 1:14:58 GMT -5
K Law chat today. espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/45628Joe (New York) Do you buy this "Greinke can't pitch in a big market" thing? The whole narrative makes me a little uncomfortable, like people see anxiety as a weakness rather than a treatable disorder. Klaw (2:03 PM) I don't buy it either. This. And Greinke is exactly what this team needs: an elite talent that can fit into the front end of the rotation and help anchor it for years. The anxiety issues along his age and what he'll be looking for worry me a little. I haven't seen him pitch much lately but what I saw a couple years ago fits this bill. Its all a moot point though as the Angels off season plans seem to be doing whatever they have to do to re-sign him.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 13, 2012 8:52:25 GMT -5
I just don't know what to think about Grienkie. Like 04 says most seem to think he will resign with LAA so it probably wouldn't matter. In the end I think I would roll the dice. At 29 a five year deal takes him to 33 so you'll get mostly prime years and he has said he would be fine in a big market he would just have to ignore more. Who didn't love this quote? www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9791If the internet made crowd noises, the sabermetrics section would have belted out quite a cheer when Zack Greinke, upon winning his 2009 American League Cy Young Award, uttered, "That's how I try to pitch, to keep my FIP as low as possible."
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 13, 2012 12:03:35 GMT -5
I just don't know what to think about Grienkie. Like 04 says most seem to think he will resign with LAA so it probably wouldn't matter. In the end I think I would roll the dice. At 29 a five year deal takes him to 33 so you'll get mostly prime years and he has said he would be fine in a big market he would just have to ignore more. Who didn't love this quote? www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9791If the internet made crowd noises, the sabermetrics section would have belted out quite a cheer when Zack Greinke, upon winning his 2009 American League Cy Young Award, uttered, "That's how I try to pitch, to keep my FIP as low as possible." Funny story, his ERA exceeds his FIP every damn year. At some point that's not a fluke. I know he's pitched like an ace in the (increasingly distant) past, but that doesn't make him an ace. If you sign him you can realistically count on getting a #3. If he ends up being available for #3 starter money, fine, but otherwise pass.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 13, 2012 12:39:39 GMT -5
Here are two players. I want you to look at the stats before going below and seeing who the players are.
Player A: 8 seasons, entering age 31 season, 1501 IP, 3.81 ERA, 1201 K, 441 BB, 1.306 WHIP, 9.1 H/9, 0.9 HR/9, 2.6 BB/9, 7.2 K/9, 116 ERA+
Player B: 9 seasons, entering age 29 season, 1492 IP, 3.77 ERA, 1332 K, 379 BB, 1.247 WHIP, 8.9 H/9, 0.9 HR/9, 2.3 BB/9, 8.0 K/9, 114 ERA+
Player A is John Lackey before he signed with the Sox. Player B is Grienke right now. Both players had one great year where they put it all together ('07 for Lackey, '09 for Greinke), and were merely very good for the rest of those periods.
Is Greinke still an ace to you? I think he's a good #3, perhaps even a serviceable #2, and he's going to get overpaid as an ace by someone because he's the best free agent pitcher available in a down pitching market, just like Lackey was. I'm not saying the deal would backfire as spectacularly as Lackey's did, but I think he's only a marginally better pitcher.
|
|
|