|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 21, 2014 17:47:03 GMT -5
“@chriscotillo: Per @ryanlawrence21, #Padres are selling Upton and Kemp jerseys in their team store, but no Myers jerseys are for sale.”
|
|
|
Post by PedroKsBambino on Dec 21, 2014 20:59:32 GMT -5
I would love to see the Sox trade for Hamels in a deal involving E-Rod or Owens and a mix of guys like Barnes, Coyle, and Marrero but I don't know if Amaro is insisting on Betts, Bogaerts, or Swihart or if Cherington doesn't want to include Owens. If Hamels goes to San Diego or another team instead then the best option would be to pony up for Scherzer in my opinion. He has been one of the top pitchers over the last few years and he will only cost money, allowing the Sox to hold onto their top prospects. With teams dropping out for his services left and right we may be able to get him at a reasonable contract. Somewhere around 7 years for 170.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 21, 2014 21:07:06 GMT -5
I would love to see the Sox trade for Hamels in a deal involving E-Rod or Owens and a mix of guys like Barnes, Coyle, and Marrero but I don't know if Amaro is insisting on Betts, Bogaerts, or Swihart or if Cherington doesn't want to include Owens. If Hamels goes to San Diego or another team instead then the best option would be to pony up for Scherzer in my opinion. He has been one of the top pitchers over the last few years and he will only cost money, allowing the Sox to hold onto their top prospects. With teams dropping out for his services left and right we may be able to get him at a reasonable contract. Somewhere around 7 years for 170. I'd rather not mess up this franchise for the next decade. It was a God send we got rid of Crawford and Becketts contracts.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 21, 2014 21:22:15 GMT -5
I'll take max for 7/180 no questions asked.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 21, 2014 21:40:27 GMT -5
I would love to see the Sox trade for Hamels in a deal involving E-Rod or Owens and a mix of guys like Barnes, Coyle, and Marrero but I don't know if Amaro is insisting on Betts, Bogaerts, or Swihart or if Cherington doesn't want to include Owens. If Hamels goes to San Diego or another team instead then the best option would be to pony up for Scherzer in my opinion. He has been one of the top pitchers over the last few years and he will only cost money, allowing the Sox to hold onto their top prospects. With teams dropping out for his services left and right we may be able to get him at a reasonable contract. Somewhere around 7 years for 170. I'd rather not mess up this franchise for the next decade. It was a God send we got rid of Crawford and Becketts contracts. I'd like us to work a deal based on Kelly & Craig for Iwakuma (or similar) then extend Porcello.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 21, 2014 23:35:18 GMT -5
I'm probably one of the posters who is the most down on Ranaudo, but I think trading him now is likely selling low on him, and he's almost certainly better than he showed in his brief MLB time last year. I also think he has some potential as a reliever-- he can eliminate his fringy changeup and focus on his curveball, and he might get that extra tic or two on his fastball needed to consistently get swings-and-misses. But can he learn to work down in the strike zone? He served up quite a few taters when he left pitches up.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Dec 21, 2014 23:38:12 GMT -5
I'm probably one of the posters who is the most down on Ranaudo, but I think trading him now is likely selling low on him, and he's almost certainly better than he showed in his brief MLB time last year. I also think he has some potential as a reliever-- he can eliminate his fringy changeup and focus on his curveball, and he might get that extra tic or two on his fastball needed to consistently get swings-and-misses. But can he learn to work down in the strike zone? He served up quite a few taters when he left pitches up. That's the point. If he can he should be a very good bullpen arm with great angle.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy on Dec 22, 2014 0:21:53 GMT -5
I haven't seen that. When did they make that projection? It doesn't make sense, given the additions to the lineup, and the likely recovery from injuries of Pedroia and Napoli, and the likely improvement of Bogaerts. click on the ~100. These projections assume that the Sox are going to give 420 PAs to a centerfielder OPS'ing .595, while having Mookie as the 4th OF even though he'd be projected to put up 3+ WAR over a full season in center. What am I missing here? I know not to read too much into preseason projections, but this is illogical.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 22, 2014 10:08:53 GMT -5
Wow, didn't realize Steamer was projecting Rusney to be so horrible. I wonder why that is.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 22, 2014 10:15:45 GMT -5
Thats interesting... I went to the last homestand of the year against the Yankees and Castillo looked awesome.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 22, 2014 10:16:19 GMT -5
Wow, didn't realize Steamer was projecting Rusney to be so horrible. I wonder why that is. Steamer doesn't actually project him at all. Go to his page, no projection. There isn't much precedent for Steamer to look at here. The -.2 WAR shown on the team page is more likely a general data base adjustment than anything Castillo specific.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Dec 22, 2014 10:32:05 GMT -5
It's hard to project a guy who has not played for so long with little MLB experience. The one thing I'm worried about his plate discipline a little. Seems to be a big free swinger.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 22, 2014 10:49:30 GMT -5
Wow, didn't realize Steamer was projecting Rusney to be so horrible. I wonder why that is. Steamer doesn't actually project him at all. Go to his page, no projection. There isn't much precedent for Steamer to look at here. The -.2 WAR shown on the team page is more likely a general data base adjustment than anything Castillo specific. Fangraphs doesn't say it is a Steamer projection, but there definitely is the projection for Castillo in the Fangraphs' projection of team results: www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=ALL&teamid=3
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2014 11:02:04 GMT -5
I like how they project Mookie to have 2.5 fWAR in 389 PA along with a 120 wRC+. As if he'd only get 389 PA if he were hitting like that, especially if Castillo wasn't even a replacement level player. 2.5 WAR in 389 PAs has about a 0% chance of happening. It's either less WAR in similar PAs or more WAR in a lot more PAs.
Take projections for what they're worth. I put almost no stock in them for players without a major league track record.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 22, 2014 11:05:19 GMT -5
Steamer doesn't actually project him at all. Go to his page, no projection. There isn't much precedent for Steamer to look at here. The -.2 WAR shown on the team page is more likely a general data base adjustment than anything Castillo specific. Fangraphs doesn't say it is a Steamer projection, but there definitely is the projection for Castillo in the Fangraphs' projection of team results: www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=ALL&teamid=3I think those are replacement level baseline numbers. I might be wrong but he clearly doesn't have numbers on his individual page.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Dec 22, 2014 11:15:05 GMT -5
I'll take max for 7/180 no questions asked. I'd even go 8/200. Although It's not my money and this FO would most defiantly rather a 6y deal at tops. Another advantage is we will only lose a 4rth round pick here. Why wait til next year and sign price(or other). Giving up a first rounder and play this year without an ace? If the Sox were ever going to extend themselves on a top end SP, this is the time.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 22, 2014 11:30:31 GMT -5
I'll take max for 7/180 no questions asked. I'd even go 8/200. Although It's not my money and this FO would most defiantly rather a 6y deal at tops. Another advantage is we will only lose a 4rth round pick here. Why wait til next year and sign price(or other). Giving up a first rounder and play this year without an ace? If the Sox were ever going to extend themselves on a top end SP, this is the time. 3rd rounder. We lost our second and the comp pick from Oakland already.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2014 11:39:45 GMT -5
I'll take max for 7/180 no questions asked. I'd even go 8/200. Although It's not my money and this FO would most defiantly rather a 6y deal at tops. Another advantage is we will only lose a 4rth round pick here. Why wait til next year and sign price(or other). Giving up a first rounder and play this year without an ace? If the Sox were ever going to extend themselves on a top end SP, this is the time. I don't think they will or should. Too many fall off a cliff over 30 without PEDs available. Even the ones who look invincible like Roy Halladay who was dominant through age 34, and done at 35.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Dec 22, 2014 12:11:52 GMT -5
I'd even go 8/200. Although It's not my money and this FO would most defiantly rather a 6y deal at tops. Another advantage is we will only lose a 4rth round pick here. Why wait til next year and sign price(or other). Giving up a first rounder and play this year without an ace? If the Sox were ever going to extend themselves on a top end SP, this is the time. 3rd rounder. We lost our second and the comp pick from Oakland already. I don't think anyone goes to $200M for Scherzer, but I'd go all-in on him. For starters, an ace is the biggest concern for this team at the moment. Then, with Victorino and Mujica's money coming off the books next year, and existing replacements on pre-arbitration contracts, more than half of the annual salary he'd require is freed up next season. Beyond, that there's the draft pick compensation now vs. the future. Admittedly, the draft pick is a risk, because if someone like Price were to get traded mid-season, he'd require no draft pick compensation, but there's really no way to foresee that scenario. Having Scherzer would save you from trading any of the top prospects, while taking a lot of pressure off of Buchholz and Masterson. I don't see a scenario where the Red Sox would actually sign him, but I personally think it would make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Dec 22, 2014 12:19:20 GMT -5
Would offering an opt-out help our chances with Scherzer?
Seems like a classic case where we could probably get very good results for the first 3-4 years of the deal, then let him walk if he so chooses and leave someone else on the hook for the likely decline period.
|
|
|
Post by oleary25 on Dec 22, 2014 12:44:38 GMT -5
I love that idea for the opt out clause in big contracts. I feel it's great esp for a pitcher like Scherzer who has power stuff that will likely diminish. Meanwhile getting the prime 4 years out of him and using his greed against him is genius in theory. Don't get me wrong I think Scherzer is one hell of a pitcher and reminds me a bit of Curt Schilling. I just think though he's more of a thrower who gets by on his power stuff than pitcher. Which to me separates pitches being able to pitch into their late 30's, and 40's successfully vs early 30's and just drop off a cliff to the point where you have to pay a good part of their contracts to be rid of them (Josh Beckett).
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Dec 22, 2014 13:05:20 GMT -5
I don't think anyone goes to $200M for Scherzer, but I'd go all-in on him. For starters, an ace is the biggest concern for this team at the moment.If that's the biggest concern for a team, then that's a pretty damn good team. The Sox are currently in a great position to make the playoffs (especially with a weakened AL East). They have 4-5 months to see what they have in this pitching staff and can make a trade if necessary to acquire that "Ace" in July. Why go all out and pay ~$200 million to someone who will maybe win this team 2-3 more regular season games? Scherzer projects for a 3.9 fWar in 2015, and Joe Kelly (our most likely #5 starter) projects for 1.1 fWar. If the only thing the Sox need is Scherzer to make the playoffs, they are perfectly capable of of making it without him. Don't lock up long term money for an unnecessary contract.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Dec 22, 2014 13:09:19 GMT -5
I love that idea for the opt out clause in big contracts. I feel it's great esp for a pitcher like Scherzer who has power stuff that will likely diminish. Meanwhile getting the prime 4 years out of him and using his greed against him is genius in theory. Don't get me wrong I think Scherzer is one hell of a pitcher and reminds me a bit of Curt Schilling. I just think though he's more of a thrower who gets by on his power stuff than pitcher. Which to me separates pitches being able to pitch into their late 30's, and 40's successfully vs early 30's and just drop off a cliff to the point where you have to pay a good part of their contracts to be rid of them (Josh Beckett). If Scherzer diminishes to the point where he doesn't opt out, that's one ugly looking contract. Opt outs are for the player, including one doesn't make it a better contract for the team.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Dec 22, 2014 13:24:58 GMT -5
I love that idea for the opt out clause in big contracts. I feel it's great esp for a pitcher like Scherzer who has power stuff that will likely diminish. Meanwhile getting the prime 4 years out of him and using his greed against him is genius in theory. Don't get me wrong I think Scherzer is one hell of a pitcher and reminds me a bit of Curt Schilling. I just think though he's more of a thrower who gets by on his power stuff than pitcher. Which to me separates pitches being able to pitch into their late 30's, and 40's successfully vs early 30's and just drop off a cliff to the point where you have to pay a good part of their contracts to be rid of them (Josh Beckett). If Scherzer diminishes to the point where he doesn't opt out, that's one ugly looking contract. Opt outs are for the player, including one doesn't make it a better contract for the team.I'm not sure I see it that way. It's true that Scherzer could stink or get hurt early in the deal and decline to opt out, leaving you stuck with an ugly contract in its entirety, but that's an argument for not signing him to a huge contract to begin with; including the opt-out clause doesn't make that scenario any riskier than it is already. The opt-out itself is really only a negative for the team if, when the time comes, you don't have the discipline to let the player go (perhaps drawing the ire of short-sighted fans) rather than offering up even more money and years to convince them to stay. I suspect the Yankees now wish they had let A-Rod walk away after 2007, or Sabathia after 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 22, 2014 13:29:40 GMT -5
Again, just to make sure this isn't another linguistic issue: An "opt-out" generally refers to a player option to terminate the contact and become a free agent. I believe that the converse would typically be referred to as a "buy-out."
|
|