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 gregblossersbelly on Apr 22, 2014 7:15:45 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. That's why I'd try to trade for Cargo instead of Giancarlo Stanton. Miami will want an epic haul for their only valuable position player. Not going there. Cargo starts to get paid next year and maybe Colorado will be more likely to deal him than Miami would Giancarlo. Plus, Cargo's a LH bat and I think that's a bigger need. Not a lot of good-hitting of's out there. Which, brings us back to last year's draft. Nah, I won't go there. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 22, 2014 11:54:35 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. That's why I'd try to trade for Cargo instead of Giancarlo Stanton. Miami will want an epic haul for their only valuable position player. Not going there. Cargo starts to get paid next year and maybe Colorado will be more likely to deal him than Miami would Giancarlo. Plus, Cargo's a LH bat and I think that's a bigger need. Not a lot of good-hitting of's out there. Which, brings us back to last year's draft. Nah, I won't go there. And then if Betts turns out to be as good as Xander and we have to include a handful of other decent prospects, we got completely ripped off and have the salary burden of Cargo. I'm not trading Betts for anyone available just because we don't have room for him. I'd rather play him at a less valuable position than try to find a trade partner. The only guys I'd trade someone like Betts for and be happy about it, are guys like Joc Pederson but that never happens so I don't know why I bring it up. To me, Betts seems to have Xander-lite ceiling dreaminess and he seems to be on his way to realizing it. Those are the kinds of kids I'm keeping. If we could get Cargo for Cecchini or WMB, Vazquez and Barnes? Sure. But they're probably insisting on 4 top 10 including Betts and Swihart. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 22, 2014 14:00:31 GMT -5
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? Exactly. I think either of those ideas would work but you probably don't need both. The posts by PedroelGrande, SaraSoxer and Jimoh all suggest the similar need for an adjustment in presentation. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 23, 2014 5:02:03 GMT -5
Being sacrilegious here...
Re the 2016 roster, same players, I'd put Petey in RF, Mookie at 2B, Cecchini in LF, Nava at 1B. The 2016 as is would be perfect for Yankee Stadium. Yes I know how good a defender Pedroia is but he'll be 2 years older, Mookie is no slouch and Pedroia has the arm to handle RF. Nava in RF would be a disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Apr 23, 2014 7:37:04 GMT -5
Being sacrilegious here... Re the 2016 roster, same players, I'd put Petey in RF, Mookie at 2B, Cecchini in LF, Nava at 1B. The 2016 as is would be perfect for Yankee Stadium. Yes I know how good a defender Pedroia is but he'll be 2 years older, Mookie is no slouch and Pedroia has the arm to handle RF. Nava in RF would be a disaster. I don't think Pedroia has the arm for RF at all. It plays well at 2B, but he throws in such a way that I can't imagine him getting any oomph on long throws from the outfield. His average speed and short strides would also give him decent range at best, where as he still will likely be above average at 2B in 2016. Also, Nava in RF at Yankee stadium sounds like a perfect spot for him defensively. I don't think he'd be a disaster there at all, and would probably be better than Pedroia. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 23, 2014 7:40:37 GMT -5
I can't see Pedroia moving anywhere except to DH on occasion when he's 38. He's not even tall enough to play 1B.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 23, 2014 8:38:23 GMT -5
Being sacrilegious here... Re the 2016 roster, same players, I'd put Petey in RF, Mookie at 2B, Cecchini in LF, Nava at 1B. The 2016 as is would be perfect for Yankee Stadium. Yes I know how good a defender Pedroia is but he'll be 2 years older, Mookie is no slouch and Pedroia has the arm to handle RF. Nava in RF would be a disaster. I don't think Pedroia has the arm for RF at all. It plays well at 2B, but he throws in such a way that I can't imagine him getting any oomph on long throws from the outfield. His average speed and short strides would also give him decent range at best, where as he still will likely be above average at 2B in 2016. Also, Nava in RF at Yankee stadium sounds like a perfect spot for him defensively. I don't think he'd be a disaster there at all, and would probably be better than Pedroia. Pedroia makes decent relay throws on a line and his range would certainly be better than Nava, he runs the bases a whole lot faster and his general reaction times are much quicker. As far as Nava being the perfect RF in Yankee Stadium, the problem is, the Red Sox play in Fenway Park. That's where he'd be a disaster whereas, Pedroia would likely be acceptable. I was being sarcastic. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 23, 2014 11:11:49 GMT -5
Pedroia might be the best pivot in the game though. Why mess with that?
As I've said in the past, I am extremely intrigued by the possibility of Mookie in center. I think the ship has sailed for him at short. For this exercise, I think putting him as the Bonds-in-Pittsburgh/Crawford-in-Tampa LF, deferring to JBJ and his magic glove, makes the most sense.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 23, 2014 12:37:14 GMT -5
Pedroia might be the best pivot in the game though. Why mess with that? As I've said in the past, I am extremely intrigued by the possibility of Mookie in center. I think the ship has sailed for him at short. For this exercise, I think putting him as the Bonds-in-Pittsburgh/Crawford-in-Tampa LF, deferring to JBJ and his magic glove, makes the most sense. I started to wonder yesterday whether Mookie might move Bradley, with the better arm and less speed, to right. Especially because you now just have to fill LF defensively. A Cecchini / Betts / Bradley OF shapes up as better defensively than Betts / Bradley / Cecchini, no? Assuming, of course, that Mookie learns to run good routes. Bradley in RF has a chance to put up 2013 Victorino defensive numbers. The org is correct in thinking that you want to fill that position here with a second CF (and of course Drew, Nixon, and Evans in his prime were all guys with borderline CF range). In any Mookie to the OF scenario, though, I want him to be the backup MI. So I don't think they need to start playing Mookie all over: just some in CF and some at SS. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 23, 2014 12:39:40 GMT -5
Pedroia might be the best pivot in the game though. Why mess with that? As I've said in the past, I am extremely intrigued by the possibility of Mookie in center. I think the ship has sailed for him at short. For this exercise, I think putting him as the Bonds-in-Pittsburgh/Crawford-in-Tampa LF, deferring to JBJ and his magic glove, makes the most sense. I started to wonder yesterday whether Mookie might move Bradley, with the better arm and less speed, to right. Especially because you now just have to fill LF defensively. A Cecchini / Betts / Bradley OF shapes up as better defensively than Betts / Bradley / Cecchini, no? Assuming, of course, that Mookie learns to run good routes. Bradley in RF has a chance to put up 2013 Victorino defensive numbers. The org is correct in thinking that you want to fill that position here with a second CF (and of course Drew, Nixon, and Evans in his prime were all guys with borderline CF range). In any Mookie to the OF scenario, though, I want him to be the backup MI. So I don't think they need to start playing Mookie all over: just some in CF and some at SS. I agree with that. To me, in Fenway, the CF with the better arm belongs in RF. The defensive value for Fenway is probably reversed between typical CF/RF parks. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 23, 2014 12:59:47 GMT -5
Mookie might be a bit faster than Bradley, but it's almost impossible to imagine that he gets a better jump on the ball. Andruw Jones was the best defensive center fielder I ever saw, and he didn't have blazing speed. His natural instincts just got him to everything, straight off the bat.
|
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Apr 23, 2014 18:34:41 GMT -5
Personally I think only Margot has the chance to move JBJr off CF. I'd rather see Betts in LF and the backup 2B. RF has other alts in the short term future from Brentz to Middlebrooks to any number of FA or trade possibilities (Joc Pederson or Josh Bell for example).
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 23, 2014 22:40:49 GMT -5
Yeah, Eric, I dig what you're saying, for sure, but I'm with James, I think. Bradley isn't an elite CF because of speed. Plus, Cecchini in RF isn't really being put on the table by anyone. If he's in the OF, he's in left.
I think the simple fact is that, on the off chance that all of these guys (Betts, Bradley, Cecchini, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts) pan out, the optimal usage is probably going to be trading one. If you HAD to make a lineup with those three in the outfield, I'd agree with Eric. If you HAD to put them all in a lineup with Pedroia, I'd do what we have on the page.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 23, 2014 23:00:57 GMT -5
Personally I think only Margot has the chance to move JBJr off CF. I'd rather see Betts in LF and the backup 2B. RF has other alts in the short term future from Brentz to Middlebrooks to any number of FA or trade possibilities (Joc Pederson or Josh Bell for example). Who knows? I doubt they'd do this because of the lack of power, but several years from now the outfield could feature Betts in LF, Margot in CF, and Bradley in RF. Now that's an OF that can get to the ball. Not much would drop in. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 23, 2014 23:43:21 GMT -5
Yeah, Eric, I dig what you're saying, for sure, but I'm with James, I think. Bradley isn't an elite CF because of speed. Plus, Cecchini in RF isn't really being put on the table by anyone. If he's in the OF, he's in left. I think the simple fact is that, on the off chance that all of these guys (Betts, Bradley, Cecchini, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts) pan out, the optimal usage is probably going to be trading one. If you HAD to make a lineup with those three in the outfield, I'd agree with Eric. If you HAD to put them all in a lineup with Pedroia, I'd do what we have on the page. True that (the trade part) but it's not the spirit of this thread as I see it. Didn't mean to single you out, we seem to have traversed a different path. It's pretty clear that other than Bradley, we don't have a right fielder and we're going to acquire one by trade or free agency but I thought the purpose of this thread was what to do with the current hand we're holding. In fact, Ortiz is options and it's not guaranteed that he's going to be worth anything two years from now given his age. |
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on May 2, 2014 13:20:19 GMT -5
Yeah, Eric, I dig what you're saying, for sure, but I'm with James, I think. Bradley isn't an elite CF because of speed. Plus, Cecchini in RF isn't really being put on the table by anyone. If he's in the OF, he's in left. I think the simple fact is that, on the off chance that all of these guys (Betts, Bradley, Cecchini, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts) pan out, the optimal usage is probably going to be trading one. If you HAD to make a lineup with those three in the outfield, I'd agree with Eric. If you HAD to put them all in a lineup with Pedroia, I'd do what we have on the page. Replace Cecchini with Nava in the comparison and I'd have to agree with Eric. An outfield of Nava-Betts-Bradley sounds much better than Betts-Bradley-Nava. I'm not saying Mookie will be better in CF than Bradley, but that OF as a whole seems better, especially at Fenway. That should work regardless of which bat-first-glove-second player ends up manning the wall. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 4, 2014 12:44:18 GMT -5
Daniel Nava will be 33 for the 2016 season. There's no way he's keeping one of the prospects out of the line up in his mid 30s.
Theoretically, for the 2016 season the Red Sox could have a lineup that looks like this.
LF Bogarts
CF Betts
RF Bradley
3B Middlebrooks
SS Marrero
2B Pedroia
1B Cecchini
C Vasquez/Swihart
DH Ortiz/Swihart/Carp
The question is if this lineup will hit for enough power to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on May 4, 2014 13:07:22 GMT -5
Daniel Nava will be 33 for the 2016 season. There's no way he's keeping one of the prospects out of the line up in his mid 30s. Theoretically, for the 2016 season the Red Sox could have a lineup that looks like this. LF Bogarts CF Betts RF Bradley 3B Middlebrooks SS Marrero 2B Pedroia 1B Cecchini C Vasquez/Swihart DH Ortiz/Swihart/Carp The question is if this lineup will hit for enough power to win. almost all home grown which is impressive. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on May 4, 2014 17:21:07 GMT -5
Daniel Nava will be 33 for the 2016 season. There's no way he's keeping one of the prospects out of the line up in his mid 30s. Theoretically, for the 2016 season the Red Sox could have a lineup that looks like this. LF Bogarts CF Betts RF Bradley 3B Middlebrooks SS Marrero 2B Pedroia 1B Cecchini C Vasquez/Swihart DH Ortiz/Swihart/Carp The question is if this lineup will hit for enough power to win. almost all home grown which is impressive. Well, you've lost 44 runs of value by moving guys to easier positions. That's less impressive. Solid veteran bats that can play 1B or an OF corner (e.g., Napoli) are not hard to come by. There's only one scenario (including Bogaerts at 3B, WMB at 1B, and Cecchini in LF, which is probably better defensively than the above) involving all home-grown players where this might make sense: if Xander just can't play SS, and has to move to 3B, and Middlebrooks blossoms into such a RH power stud that it seems hard to improve the team by trading him. Betts to the OF seems smart, because you can recover most of that lost value by using him as the backup infielder. Cecchini to LF (or 1B) is an option, because he may be much more valuable to us than anyone else if his swing is as suited to Fenway as it seems it might be. And of course Xander will be at either SS or 3B. But Marrero and Middlebrooks are very likely to be mutually exclusive. In theory, you could deal one, along with Vazquez and a pitcher, and get a 1B or corner OF who would be a significant upgrade. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 5, 2014 10:57:51 GMT -5
almost all home grown which is impressive. Well, you've lost 44 runs of value by moving guys to easier positions. That's less impressive. Solid veteran bats that can play 1B or an OF corner (e.g., Napoli) are not hard to come by. There's only one scenario (including Bogaerts at 3B, WMB at 1B, and Cecchini in LF, which is probably better defensively than the above) involving all home-grown players where this might make sense: if Xander just can't play SS, and has to move to 3B, and Middlebrooks blossoms into such a RH power stud that it seems hard to improve the team by trading him. Betts to the OF seems smart, because you can recover most of that lost value by using him as the backup infielder. Cecchini to LF (or 1B) is an option, because he may be much more valuable to us than anyone else if his swing is as suited to Fenway as it seems it might be. And of course Xander will be at either SS or 3B. But Marrero and Middlebrooks are very likely to be mutually exclusive. In theory, you could deal one, along with Vazquez and a pitcher, and get a 1B or corner OF who would be a significant upgrade. I no longer believe in "significant upgrades". At least not long-term reliable ones (see variable results for Pujols, AGon, Votto, Morneau, Teixeira.) But that's a side note. Everything else here is spot-on. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on May 5, 2014 15:35:58 GMT -5
Well, you've lost 44 runs of value by moving guys to easier positions. That's less impressive. Solid veteran bats that can play 1B or an OF corner (e.g., Napoli) are not hard to come by. There's only one scenario (including Bogaerts at 3B, WMB at 1B, and Cecchini in LF, which is probably better defensively than the above) involving all home-grown players where this might make sense: if Xander just can't play SS, and has to move to 3B, and Middlebrooks blossoms into such a RH power stud that it seems hard to improve the team by trading him. Betts to the OF seems smart, because you can recover most of that lost value by using him as the backup infielder. Cecchini to LF (or 1B) is an option, because he may be much more valuable to us than anyone else if his swing is as suited to Fenway as it seems it might be. And of course Xander will be at either SS or 3B. But Marrero and Middlebrooks are very likely to be mutually exclusive. In theory, you could deal one, along with Vazquez and a pitcher, and get a 1B or corner OF who would be a significant upgrade. I no longer believe in "significant upgrades". At least not long-term reliable ones (see variable results for Pujols, AGon, Votto, Morneau, Teixeira.) But that's a side note. Everything else here is spot-on. I think Pedro Martinez was a significant upgrade to Carl Pavano.  I share your skepticism, actually, which is why I said "in theory." Such trades definitely do happen, but they succeed less often than hoped. What we might actually do with our excess depth is actually a topic for a thread I may start at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 5, 2014 19:01:00 GMT -5
If Bogarts can't play SS you have to have Marrero at SS. It's not easy to find a good veteran SS. The Sox got very lucky last year with Drew.
The guys you would really look to trade are Bradley and Middlebrooks because you aren't playing them at their optimal positions. You would look to get a slugging right fielder while covering 1B and OF through free agency and Cecchini.
I do think that they will sign an outfielder to a muli-year deal this winter. I would imagine they would be in on Denofria.
I am more worried about the rotation though especially if they don't sign Lester. None of the big six are taking the bull by the horns.
|
|
|
