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.
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 18:19:18 GMT -5
Bullpen performance is so variable that though it looks as though the Red Sox don't need bullpen help today. Come July they could very need it badly and good ones aren't available for cheap on the trade market. If it's a choice I'd prefer to keep as many live bullpen arms as I possibly could, because a few of those will be cheap bullpen options one day at the time you need them the most.
The question then becomes if there is a player on the 40 man roster that is less valuable than Fields. I'd say that Hassan is, I'd also say that Steven Wright maybe as well. Hassan is going to be 25 and isn't coming off a very good year in AAA. Reports don't show a lot of tools or very good bat speed and he's limited to a corner. I really think that if they wanted to get him through the Rule Five draft they could have done so. Asking why they protected Hassan over Fields is perfectly fair in my view.
David Lauria has an excellent blurb on fangraphs which describes Hazelbaker to a tee. To summarize he says that you can dream on Hazelbaker being Drew Stubbs who's a pretty good player. I'm a little surprised that no one took a flier on him, and brought him to spring training with the hope that he put it all together this spring. If he does, you have an everyday CF, if not you return him at the cost of 50K. Seems like a good gamble to me and I'm surprised no one took it.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Dec 7, 2012 19:25:59 GMT -5
i would like a list of the players who are DFA because their team picked up a new Rule 5er. And then we can lament how the Sox cannot get all of those valluable pieces ... some are almost as amazing as Fields.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2012 20:54:06 GMT -5
Actually Moonstone, my comment that you misconstrue above to be generally about Fields being left unprotected was directed at the specific comment "the sox need bullpen help" in the prior post. I don't disagree with anything you've said. I wrote on the News Page about how I thought it was incomprehensible that they protected Hassan, and that I don't get why Fields was left unprotected so they could protect him. However, I don't necessarily think that the decision to leave him unprotected was, in a vacuum, some monumental travesty either. I hope for his sake that he sticks, but we'll see.
But anyway, keep cherry picking parts of posts to make whatever point it is that you feel like making. It's worked out great for you before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 23:52:53 GMT -5
So basically I made a point that you agree with and you feel fit as the executive editor and a leader and owner of this site you feel fit to make a comment like this? Does it make you feel more powerful to step on others in this fashion?
I believed that your statement was attempting to make the point that the Red Sox should not protect Fields because they already had enough bullpen help and made a point disagreeing with that point. If that's not the point that you were trying to make, then I misunderstood and I apologize. But I certainly don't deserve to be attacked in this fashion.
I have started to post because I believe that I have something to add to the discussion . I did an an awful lot of work trying to formulate and research my argument in the Mike Napoli thread. If it is the policy of the executive editor to capriciously attack new posters, then please keep your message board to yourself.
As someone who was recently widowed I really don't need this.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Dec 7, 2012 23:56:25 GMT -5
Moon!!! Stoner! The reason we have that Hatfield guy around is so that we McCoys have somebody to make fun of.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 8, 2012 2:08:11 GMT -5
i like to say I T y s, so here goes: CHRIS HATFIELD, I TOLD YOU SO!!! Sox traded Stewart to PITT, I said PTBNL would be someone who survived Rule 5 and player would arrive after Rule 5 was complete. Hatfield scoffed at my amateur musing. Kyle Kaminska survives draft .... Sox got him tonight. Yee Haa!!! A ptnl worth the bus ticket. Just saw this. If I did say this, fair point (not sure I "scoffed" since I can't find the post, but I'll take your word for it). Godfrey's not awful either. Much more than I expected them to get. Given that the O's one is a PTBNL or cash, though, that one might be a list of guys to watch in ST or something, rather than guys who they were waiting to see get through Rule 5.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Henley on Dec 8, 2012 2:15:56 GMT -5
I have started to post because I believe that I have something to add to the discussion . I did an an awful lot of work trying to formulate and research my argument in the Mike Napoli thread. If it is the policy of the executive editor to capriciously attack new posters, then please keep your message board to yourself. At what point is a person no longer considered a new poster? 5 years? 7 years? I mean, come on. At least you used capricious instead of arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Dec 8, 2012 9:24:08 GMT -5
i like to say I T y s, so here goes: CHRIS HATFIELD, I TOLD YOU SO!!! Sox traded Stewart to PITT, I said PTBNL would be someone who survived Rule 5 and player would arrive after Rule 5 was complete. Hatfield scoffed at my amateur musing. Kyle Kaminska survives draft .... Sox got him tonight. Yee Haa!!! A ptnl worth the bus ticket. Just saw this. If I did say this, fair point (not sure I "scoffed" since I can't find the post, but I'll take your word for it). Godfrey's not awful either. Much more than I expected them to get. Given that the O's one is a PTBNL or cash, though, that one might be a list of guys to watch in ST or something, rather than guys who they were waiting to see get through Rule 5. forum.soxprospects.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=188&post=7050OVER ON THE "2012 OFFSEASON" THREAD, i was talkin' 'bout the Stewart PTBNL: "I suspect any PTBNL could be determined after the Rule 5 draft, so I am predicting a draft eligible player (non-40-man). Sox don't want the player until after he survives the draft." C-Hat said: "As for what actually happened: - The players traded for PTBNL were basically given away for IOUs - you're over-thinking the Stewart thing. The Sox have trade histories with the Pirates and A's, so those are likely "we'll send you an org guy if you need depth somewhere" PTBNLs. Search the transaction pages - the Sox send one or two guys to the Pirates for a PTBNL or cash every year. This would explain why the Valencia trade terms were slightly different (PTBNL or cash) - there's not as much familiarity trading with the O's. - Again, the Rule 5 draft likely has nothing to do with it (who the Sox will receive anyway). The Sox HAD to get the deals done to avoid putting these guys on waivers and losing them for literally nothing. They had no bargaining power."
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 8, 2012 11:05:27 GMT -5
I have started to post because I believe that I have something to add to the discussion . I did an an awful lot of work trying to formulate and research my argument in the Mike Napoli thread. If it is the policy of the executive editor to capriciously attack new posters, then please keep your message board to yourself. At what point is a person no longer considered a new poster? 5 years? 7 years? I mean, come on. At least you used capricious instead of arrogant. According to his info line he joined two months ago, so I would consider him a new poster. And, I offer my condolences on the loss of his spouse.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Henley on Dec 8, 2012 11:32:41 GMT -5
We switched message board hosts in September.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Dec 8, 2012 14:03:26 GMT -5
We are going to litigate on here all winter against that Hatfield until we wipe the smile off his face. The freaking lying bastard lawyers have been driving me crazy all week, lying to the judge about accounting stuff. I don't need more freaking lawyers on here, expecially the ones who don't know the law! Baseball law that is!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 8, 2012 14:47:27 GMT -5
Alright alright. I suck. I'll admit it. Fine. Whatever smile hadn't been wiped off from finals is now gone. I was wrong, the Pirates are going to DFA Stewart and keep him in the minors for three more years or whatever your other idea was. It's all gravy. Let's get this back on track. Rule 5 stuff. BP's Mark Anderson analyzed the picks the other day. Here's what he said about the Sox guys: www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19099Favorite Pick: Josh Fields (RHP, Houston Astros) – Many in the industry were surprised when Fields was not protected by the Red Sox. The 27-year-old right-hander finished the season strong by not allowing a run in 10 appearances with Triple-A Pawtucket and then continued to show well in the Arizona Fall League. His fastball-curveball combination is big-league ready and his command has improved to the point that he can hang with the big boys. He has a setup reliever ceiling and could pitch in that role by the end of the season.
Least Favorite Pick: Chris McGuiness (1B, Cleveland Indians) ...
Most Likely to Stick: Ryan Pressly (RHP, Minnesota Twins) – I had extensive exposure to Pressly in 2011 and 2012, and while I liked him as a starter, his move to the bullpen has been a boon for his career. Pressly offers the Twins an arm that could still be a back of the rotation piece or a solid seventh/eighth-inning reliever. In the bullpen, his fastball, cutter, and curveball can all play immediately, and he should have a role on a Twins team that is rebuilding. I disagree with Pressly sticking, but who knows. An interesting thought. There are also scouting notes at that link for those who subscribe. (BTW, if you want to vent against all the lawyers and law students on the site (there's a bunch of us) feel free to take (well-deserved) pot shots in the Throwdown Subforum. Been slow in there since we switched boards.)
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 8, 2012 15:18:05 GMT -5
Chris, well-played.
It sounds as tho both moonstone and designated have recently gone thru some emotionally tough times and that can throw us all out of whack.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 8, 2012 15:58:34 GMT -5
...Favorite Pick: Josh Fields (RHP, Houston Astros) – Many in the industry were surprised when Fields was not protected by the Red Sox. The 27-year-old right-hander finished the season strong by not allowing a run in 10 appearances with Triple-A Pawtucket and then continued to show well in the Arizona Fall League. His fastball-curveball combination is big-league ready and his command has improved to the point that he can hang with the big boys. He has a setup reliever ceiling and could pitch in that role by the end of the season. I know the "Fields should have been protected" argument has been made and hashed and rehashed several times, but I've been wondering lately about letting him walk and signing Uehara. If Fields comes anywhere close to what the quote says, then there's no way Uehara's worth more than an extra half a win, right? Is that worth letting Fields walk for, especially given the overall composition of the 2013 Sox? Granted that sounds like a perfect world scenario for Fields, and Uehara should still be better - and I like Uehara on the Sox - I'm not trying to say it was one or the other, but I'm not sure I see so great a difference that I would let Fields walk for nothing while signing Uehara for 4+ million.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 8, 2012 18:13:30 GMT -5
I think Fields has a number of red flags that significantly distinguish him from Uehara and might help explain why he wasn't protected in Rule 5:
(a) There are reports that his fastball doesn't have enough movement to get swings-and-misses at the major league level. Think Clay Buchholz-- he can dial up the velocity enough to get minor league hitters to swing through it, but it's straight as an arrow and major league hitters won't be fooled by it and can square it up. This is an especially acute problem when we're talking about a two-pitch reliever's fastball. (b) Fields has had major problems in the past with maintaining his release point, and when his mechanics start wavering, he really struggles with his command. That has been his MO throughout his career until about July 2012, when he basically started walking three times fewer batters than he had over his career while maintaining an excellent strikeout rate. Given Fields' performance in the winter leagues, his release point problems may have reoccurred and the FO might have decided that they were likely to continue to reoccur going forward. (c) More generally, Fields' age (27) and small frame (6'0", 185) probably ensure that he has little to no projection left in his arm, and if Boston's scouts deemed his present performance lacking, there is little chance he can really improve on it much.
Sidenote: unless I'm mistaken, Fields didn't pitch in the AFL this offseason, so that bit of the BP column is an error, right?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 8, 2012 18:28:54 GMT -5
Yeah, he didn't pitch in the AFL. I'm guessing it was a brain fart and he meant to refer to his run in the IL playoffs. He was the best pitcher of a dominant PawSox bullpen that was a huge reason they won the IL championship. I was watching an interview with Hazelbaker that Aaron Goldsmith did the other day, and Hazelbaker spoke as if the game was over once they reached the ninth and Fields "came out of the bullpen throwing gas" or some such.
That said, there could be something to the hypothesis of Fields' problems recurring in the Dominican. Cibaenas released him after he walked 7 batters in 6 innings (although, if you look at his game-by-game, he basically was good in half of his games and bad in the other half, making me wonder if there was something they saw beyond the stats that led them to just cut him).
|
|
|
Post by aardsmacarta on Dec 8, 2012 21:34:08 GMT -5
It seems amazing that a team with a roster that lost 93 games couldn't find a way to manage things so they wouldn't lose not just one promising arm in Fields in this draft, but Olmstead before that as well. They probably should have worked some trades months ago.
It'll be a bummer when, mid-season, the Sox have to think twice about selling Andrew Bailey in the next Slocumb-for-D-Lowe/Varitek deal because they're worried about not having enough bullpen arms.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Dec 8, 2012 21:47:55 GMT -5
I've reached Nirvana again. One day away from the ruthless, brutal American workplace is all it took. Next thing, Hatty will loosen that yellow power tie.
I still wonder about Bozo. Fields will do fine. But he won't make it long-term in the bigs. Sox can get him off waivers in May 2014, but they won't claim him. I am losing Nirvana thinking that the Sox might lose/trade Mortensen or Morales.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Mar 6, 2013 11:03:32 GMT -5
Rule 5 update.
Fields (3G, 3.1IP, 0H, 3/3 K/BB) - he is a virtual lock to begin the season with the Astros, according to reports.
Pressly (4G, 5.1IP, 2H, 0/2 K/BB) - he is likely to be offered back, although there are some injuries on the Twins, so it may not occur until the end of ST.
|
|
|