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.
New Feature: Future Red Sox Rosters 2016-2019
|
Post by Mike Andrews on Apr 18, 2014 10:09:36 GMT -5
I'm happy to introduce a new feature to the site - Future Red Sox Rosters for the years 2016-2019. www.soxprospects.com/future.htm. For now, this new page is still in "beta" and will only be linked off of the 2015 Projected Rosters page. Note that we went out of our way to create a noticeable disclaimer on this:We can't stress enough that the rosters are not intended to be actual roster projections. Baseball America use to do something kind of similar to this - each year they would project a homegrown roster for a year five years in the future. I want to say that they got a bunch of complaints that the rosters weren't realistic by readers who didn't catch on to the point of the exercise (granted, I don't think that BA had a noticeable disclaimer on the issue). So I think they stopped doing it. I hope we can avoid that here. Ultimately, we hope this page can serve as a good conversation starter, and we certainly understand there is room for good debate and discussion. We'd love to hear your thoughts in this thread, and we'll take them into account when updating the page. Thanks, Mike
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 18, 2014 10:24:30 GMT -5
Mike et all, while it's fun to dream on this kind of stuff, and fun to see, your take, I'm not sure I understand the value of calling these "rosters". If the goal is to see where the system might be weak, then maybe these should have holes in them where help is needed? I guess I would prefer to see something like this called projected system all-stars or something like that. Like this is our 1st team all-system at that time.
Sorry to come off negative, cause I do enjoy doing this kind of stuff on the back of a napkin as well, and it's great to have a starting point for those kind of daydreams, but I'm not sure that the disclaimer does enough, while still keeping a real discussion alive.
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 408
|
Post by badfishnbc on Apr 18, 2014 11:02:56 GMT -5
I don't see Giancarlo Stanton anywhere. Would you please correct?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Andrews on Apr 18, 2014 14:10:03 GMT -5
Mike et all, while it's fun to dream on this kind of stuff, and fun to see, your take, I'm not sure I understand the value of calling these "rosters". If the goal is to see where the system might be weak, then maybe these should have holes in them where help is needed? I guess I would prefer to see something like this called projected system all-stars or something like that. Like this is our 1st team all-system at that time. Sorry to come off negative, cause I do enjoy doing this kind of stuff on the back of a napkin as well, and it's great to have a starting point for those kind of daydreams, but I'm not sure that the disclaimer does enough, while still keeping a real discussion alive. Are you saying you would see the value if the page had a different name? Would it be better if we put in the holes for the reader vs. allowing reader to that part of the analysis on their own?
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Apr 18, 2014 14:31:41 GMT -5
First hole I see is right field, and possibly a proven workhorse starter.
|
|
|
Post by coke0myfavdrink on Apr 18, 2014 16:39:50 GMT -5
I like the new feature. I think sporting news used to do something similar which I enjoyed reading.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Apr 18, 2014 17:26:09 GMT -5
I'm also a fan of the new feature and think its a useful exercise!
|
|
|
Post by lyle143 on Apr 18, 2014 18:27:40 GMT -5
Thanks for setting this up. It's a fun feature. Like it a lot.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 18, 2014 19:00:05 GMT -5
My eyesight can't extend beyond 2016....but I do not expect Ranaudo, Hinojosa or Noe Ramirez to be on the team. I have seen nothing to excite me about Ranaudo in the 2-3 years I have been following him, Hinojosa does not impress me and lacks control and Noe is a poor-man's Badenhop IMO. As far as the lineup is concerned the team BA needs to be about .285 because outside of Brentz, Middlebrooks and possibly Xander, there is precious little power there. Putting Mookie in LF I guess saves him for the team but wow, he is one small dude. I can't imagine the Sox would trade Pedey but that might be the best bet, assuming Betts continues to do well and Pedey's contract is oh so moveable. Nava, a great story, will not be the DH. I see Barnes as the hard thrower out of the buillpen and not a starter.
I think the Sox go outside and use their cash reserve to pick up a top of the line power hitter for outfield or DH....as well as a couple of other relief pitchers and perhaps a starter. That team, on paper, looks like it could be a bingle hitting, second division club.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Apr 18, 2014 19:14:24 GMT -5
My eyesight can't extend beyond 2016....but I do not expect Ranaudo, Hinojosa or Noe Ramirez to be on the team. I have seen nothing to excite me about Ranaudo in the 2-3 years I have been following him, Hinojosa does not impress me and lacks control and Noe is a poor-man's Badenhop IMO. As far as the lineup is concerned the team BA needs to be about .285 because outside of Brentz, Middlebrooks and possibly Xander, there is precious little power there. Putting Mookie in LF I guess saves him for the team but wow, he is one small dude. I can't imagine the Sox would trade Pedey but that might be the best bet, assuming Betts continues to do well and Pedey's contract is oh so moveable. Nava, a great story, will not be the DH. I see Barnes as the hard thrower out of the buillpen and not a starter. I think the Sox go outside and use their cash reserve to pick up a top of the line power hitter for outfield or DH....as well as a couple of other relief pitchers and perhaps a starter. That team, on paper, looks like it could be a bingle hitting, second division club. As Mike mentions in the disclaimer, this is not a projection of what the roster will look like.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Apr 18, 2014 19:36:11 GMT -5
I hope people don't trip over themselves with this. Not saying there is anything wrong with this but I hope people look at it more as a depth chart thing to see where the system is strong or not so strong rather that a projection of the 2016 roster and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Apr 18, 2014 19:58:45 GMT -5
I love this feature and I think it is a great way to see the possibilities by cost controlled assets of not a likely roster but the potential players included
|
|
|
Post by godot on Apr 19, 2014 7:17:04 GMT -5
Seems many already do what the change intends to do in their regular post, Can it hurt? Well, could make the board "too busy" and take away some of the dialogue from many of the regular post. Sometimes it is best not to "improve" and do things that really may be redundant . Quiet is nice and maybe smart.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 19, 2014 9:22:34 GMT -5
My eyesight can't extend beyond 2016....but I do not expect Ranaudo, Hinojosa or Noe Ramirez to be on the team. I have seen nothing to excite me about Ranaudo in the 2-3 years I have been following him, Hinojosa does not impress me and lacks control and Noe is a poor-man's Badenhop IMO. As far as the lineup is concerned the team BA needs to be about .285 because outside of Brentz, Middlebrooks and possibly Xander, there is precious little power there. Putting Mookie in LF I guess saves him for the team but wow, he is one small dude. I can't imagine the Sox would trade Pedey but that might be the best bet, assuming Betts continues to do well and Pedey's contract is oh so moveable. Nava, a great story, will not be the DH. I see Barnes as the hard thrower out of the buillpen and not a starter. I think the Sox go outside and use their cash reserve to pick up a top of the line power hitter for outfield or DH....as well as a couple of other relief pitchers and perhaps a starter. That team, on paper, looks like it could be a bingle hitting, second division club. As Mike mentions in the disclaimer, this is not a projection of what the roster will look like. Mike also said it was a conversation starter.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 19, 2014 9:29:38 GMT -5
My eyesight can't extend beyond 2016....but I do not expect Ranaudo, Hinojosa or Noe Ramirez to be on the team. I have seen nothing to excite me about Ranaudo in the 2-3 years I have been following him, Hinojosa does not impress me and lacks control and Noe is a poor-man's Badenhop IMO. As far as the lineup is concerned the team BA needs to be about .285 because outside of Brentz, Middlebrooks and possibly Xander, there is precious little power there. Putting Mookie in LF I guess saves him for the team but wow, he is one small dude. I can't imagine the Sox would trade Pedey but that might be the best bet, assuming Betts continues to do well and Pedey's contract is oh so moveable. Nava, a great story, will not be the DH. I see Barnes as the hard thrower out of the buillpen and not a starter. I think the Sox go outside and use their cash reserve to pick up a top of the line power hitter for outfield or DH....as well as a couple of other relief pitchers and perhaps a starter. That team, on paper, looks like it could be a bingle hitting, second division club. Pedey has limited no trade protection, but beyond that he's not someone you trade as an organization. He's like Jeter in NY, it's just not happening.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 19, 2014 10:28:12 GMT -5
As Mike mentions in the disclaimer, this is not a projection of what the roster will look like. Mike also said it was a conversation starter. This serves to show that either I cannot read or that I was too lazy to do so. Either way, I was not being critical of Mike. I would be interested in seeing some discussion tho beyond 'this is a good exercise'...
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Apr 19, 2014 12:24:06 GMT -5
I would be interested in seeing some discussion tho beyond 'this is a good exercise'... Great idea! Thanks Mike and the staff for putting this together. Two things on there caught my eye and am wondering about. The first being Ranaudo/Barnes shown in the 2016 rotation over Webster, is this more of an optimistic view of Ranaudo/Barnes or a concern it will take Webster that long to harness his stuff? Second is Xander staying at SS. I wasn't overly impressed with his defense at 3B last year as he seemed to react slowly to balls hit at him. Watching him at SS now he seems to have the same problem but its more glaring at a premium defensive position. Any thoughts he may be the one move to the OF instead of Mookie?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Andrews on Apr 19, 2014 15:16:59 GMT -5
I would be interested in seeing some discussion tho beyond 'this is a good exercise'... Great idea! Thanks Mike and the staff for putting this together. Two things on there caught my eye and am wondering about. The first being Ranaudo/Barnes shown in the 2016 rotation over Webster, is this more of an optimistic view of Ranaudo/Barnes or a concern it will take Webster that long to harness his stuff? Second is Xander staying at SS. I wasn't overly impressed with his defense at 3B last year as he seemed to react slowly to balls hit at him. Watching him at SS now he seems to have the same problem but its more glaring at a premium defensive position. Any thoughts he may be the one move to the OF instead of Mookie? Thanks. Webster/Barnes/Ranado was a close call, almost a coin flip. That could bounce back and forth. I don't see Ranaudo as a great reliever, and I like Barnes slightly more than Webster right now. But like I said, it's close - in either situation the last one out would be more of a spot starter type. I agree with your comment on Bogaerts' defense to a point, but I believe he deserves time to develop at SS and then be given a shot at 3B if SS doesn't work out. I don't think it's out of the question that he moves to LF down the line, but it's no ideal.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Apr 19, 2014 16:00:24 GMT -5
Appreciate the feedback, Mike. I'm hopeful with Xander, it almost looked like a reaction time issue that I was hoping a move back to SS would solve. He still seems to react late to things there, too. But as you said, there's a long way to go in his development being just 21.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Apr 19, 2014 22:16:07 GMT -5
I was considering the other day who was more likely to handle CF duties in the future between Bradley and Margot when the time comes to make that decision. I actually thought it may be Margot with Bradley having the stronger arm as he seems very much capable of duplicating the level of RF defense Victorino gave us last season. Margot has better speed if not equal instincts but lesser arm. I see the 2018 roster however has JBJr holding down CF which is easily arguable. Just think personally it may go the other way.
* Thanks for this added content. Personally enjoy looking at the future system implications. All good planning accounts for some combination of a 1, 3 and 5 year outlook or forecast.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Apr 19, 2014 23:32:20 GMT -5
If Betts stays in the org, and Marrerro hits enough to warrant a starters load, what about moving Xander to left, Petey to third with BettandMarrerro at 2nd and ss?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 20, 2014 2:03:15 GMT -5
BA used to do this prominently whenever they did a Top 30 ranking: the "projected: team 5 years in the future.
These are the lineups should the Sox be forced to fill all positions via talent currently within the system. Maybe using language that strong in the disclaimer will clarify the point of it for folks who aren't used to this kind of thought exercise.
One way of looking at things is to list the guys who look to be starting caliber, position by position.
Here's 2016, arranged by defensive spectrum:
C: Swihart, Vazquez SS: Bogaerts, Marrero 2B: Pedroia, Betts 3B: Middlebrooks, Cecchini CF: Bradley RF: LF: 1B: DH: [Ortiz option]
To say there's an imbalance here would be an understatement. The only way to fill the three open spots that I can see is Cecchini in RF (loss of 8 runs of value per 150 games), Middlebrooks at 1B (loss of 12), Betts in LF (loss of 9*), Bogaerts at 3B (loss of 11). That's 4 wins of lost value, and with the possible exception of Bogaerts, none of these guys project to be the specified number of runs better defensively at their new position than at their old.
*Which, however, could be reduced if Betts also served as the backup infielder. And if he doesn't learn 3B, he can be the backup 2B and SS, and whoever is at SS backs up 3B.
I think the decision comes down to this: from among Betts, Cecchini, Middlebrooks, and Marrero, do you trade one player, and fill one of the vacant positions from outside the organization, or do you trade and fill two? (Note that in the latter scenario, you can trade two of these 4, along with a catcher, to get Stanton or the equivalent, and fill the other open spot through free agency.) Right now, in theory, I like the idea of Betts in LF and as backup MI, and trading Marrero, Vazquez, Middlebrooks or Cecchini, and an excess SP for a 1B or RF, filling the other position via free agency, etc. Whether there is actually a trade that fits that description, that would be fair and work for both clubs, is another matter entirely.
What could change that: some combination of Marrero breaking out at the plate and Bogaerts struggling defensively at SS makes them the SS / 3B pair, and you trade both Cecchini and WMB. Further exception: if, in this scenario, Cecchini projects to be tremendous, I can see him at 1B.
And the underlying principles are:
1) Don't move a less than extraordinary player to a position that's too easy for him. Somebody can always use him as his optimum position. Make a trade.
2) Don't trade an extraordinary prospect; move him to an easier position if he's blocked. You could trade him to a team that could use him at his natural position, but because prospects have risk, you have a very real chance of losing that deal on the field, not just on paper. You don't want to bundle Betts plus 2 or 3 other guys for a Stanton, only to find out that Betts as LF / backup MI would have been nearly as good as Stanton, period, meaning that the other players in the deal were given away for nothing.
What you can do is consider trading the player after a couple of years, once his trade value has been fully established. But for the time being, keep your potential superstars until you find out just how good they are.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 20, 2014 20:26:06 GMT -5
My underlying principle is don't over think yourself. If a guy can hit major league pitching, he can hit it regardless of his position. Xander is the only one you potentially can't move which would make Marrero trade bait. The rest of them can be moved around if they are good major league hitters.
The reason there is a hole at first is because most first basemen are converted from another position and similar things go for corner OF. They are good holes to have.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 20, 2014 20:31:40 GMT -5
Since prospect for prospect trades pretty much never happen, the only possible trades are completely lopsided in which you have to give up several for a great player which you then have to pay $30 million a year. If Betts is potentially a great player, I'm keeping him to see how great he is, even if he's playing a position that makes him not as valuable. IOW, I'm not making the next Beckett trade and giving up Hanley and Sanchez.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Apr 21, 2014 5:27:08 GMT -5
Since the disclaimer is so crucial I would work it into the title of the page: something like "Current Sox on Future Rosters"
|
|
|