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.
2014-15 offseason discussion
|
Post by jmei on Oct 25, 2014 22:10:16 GMT -5
With roughly $55m to spend before reaching the luxury tax limit, the above plan would require the front office to spend $10-20m over the limit, which I don't see them doing this year. Lester, Cueto, and Sandoval alone should get them close to the luxury tax limit. You could try to move Victorino, but you'd have to eat a decent amount of his salary to move him, so that doesn't open that much room.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 25, 2014 22:14:38 GMT -5
Here's my ideal offseason: 1) Trade for Cueto - I give them 3 or 4 of the following: Ranaudo, Webster, Johnson, Cecchini, Middlebrooks, Coyle, Marrero, and Escobar. Basically, I wouldn't trade Swihart, Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes, Margot, Chavis, or Devers at this point. 2) Resign Lester - He can pitch in a pressure environment. Don't lowball him and we can sign him. I know his family and he wants to resign. 3) Sign Sandoval - The 3rd base market is pretty sad. I happen to love Pablo. He is a clutch hitter and plays better defense than he is given credit for. 4) Resign Miller - He's been great the past couple of years as we all know. As an added bonus, he can get both righties and lefties out. I think the Royals are showing everyone the significance of a BP. If not Miller, we need to spend some cash to provide additional depth as there cannot be enough here. 5) Sign a #4 starter that can give you innings (ex: Ervin Santana) - With the team's surplus of back end pitching, I think it's a consensus that some will be back of the rotation starters and some will fall into certain relief roles. As this plays out, I feel as though we need an innings eater. There are a few options here.. 2015-16 Lineup: C: C Vazquez 1B: M Napoli 2B: D Pedroia SS: X Bogaerts 3B: P Sandoval LF: Y Cespedes CF: R Castillo RF: M Betts DH: D Ortiz SP1: J Lester SP2: J Cueto SP3: J Kelly SP4: E Santana SP5: R De La Rossa CL: K Uehara BP1: J Tajawa BP2: A Miller BP3: M Barnes BP4: B Workman BP5: B Badenhop BP6: Britton, Layne (lefty??) BE1: J Bradley, Jr BE2: B Holt BE3: A Craig BE4: Catcher (Ross perhaps) Basically, I really want to trade for Cueto (Amaro is not worth dealing with), resign Lester, sign Pablo, and then work hard at the rest. I wish those things would happen, but honestly I can't see the Reds accepting a bunch of back end starters/2nd tier players - I mean they don't even need a 3b. They have Frazier at 3b who's one of their best hitters and Votto should be back at 1b. The rest of the guys are bullpen arms/back of rotation guys. I can't see how the Reds wouldn't require Rodriguez or Owens to be part of the deal, and probably a lot more than that. I'm with you on Lester, but if the Sox weren't willing to shell out the money in spring training when his value wasn't as high, I doubt the Sox are willing to shell out the six year $150 million it would take for him to consider taking the Sox lower offer to the seven year $170 million deals that will be out there for him to sign. I think a lot of people underestimate how high these contracts will wind up. I don't think the Sox will give Miller the 3 or 4 years at $8 million or so. They'll be a lot of teams that will do that. I do think the Sox will be major players on Sandoval and I can see the Sox making a big-time run at Shields. If the Braves were to offer Santana a QO then I can't see the Sox going after him. Otherwise it's a possibility, but he wouldn't be their 4th starter, but more likely their #2 starter. I doubt that the Sox add three starters. Other than Sandoval I don't think the Sox would do what you're suggesting, but I certainly wish they would. Having Lester and Miller back while adding Cueto for prospects that are second tier and signing Sandoval and Santana would certainly make for a team that could be highly competitive, but they'd have a very bloated payroll ,and I think the Sox are more of a spread-it-around kind of team.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 26, 2014 0:25:56 GMT -5
Latos, Big Game James, Sandoval and a bullpen guy seems doable.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Oct 26, 2014 0:39:28 GMT -5
I thought Billy Beane robbed us on Lester given the historic return on ace pitchers at deadline, however the market had been deflated..I like the return on Lackey much more given his age, attitude and Kelley's stuff. You can't compare the deadline deals of one season with those from another. This season their were not many active buyers and three front end of the Rotation pitchers traded. Compounding the problem was that those teams who were buyers were not in desperate situations and viewed Lester and Price as luxuries. The Tigers already had an excellent rotation before they acquired Price, the Dodgers who were rumored to be interested seemed content with Kershaw, Grienke, Ryu, & Becket, the Cardinals wanted an upgrade but were not willing to part with Taveras, and the Orioles were steamrolling the East, while the A's who obviously acquired Lester already had a rather formidable rotation. Lester was the second best pitcher available, but he also had the least remaining time of club control. The best Pitcher who has a whole year of control remaining also failed to return any possible star level players (I like Smyly but he is at best a #3 and more likely a very solid #4). The only way we could have gotten a premium return was if we traded Lester early like the Cubs did with Shank. However, there was so much uncertainty at the time it was not really an option either. So lets take our 3 win player and draft pick and stop whining about it. Maybe we flip Cespedes in a package for Cueto or Iwakuma, maybe we resign Lester. We cant cherry pick what may have happened in 2003 and say that it applied to 2014. *Edit - I did forget to mention the Pirates. But we don't know whether or not their front office had an aversion to dealing for a player they had no chance of resigning.*
|
|
|
Post by caseytins on Oct 26, 2014 10:00:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure the Reds would accept that deal either, but it is a starting point. Regarding the "bloated" payroll, that is pure speculation. Lastly, I use Santana as an example of a #3/4 starter that can provide innings. There are others that could fill this role. Here's my ideal offseason: 1) Trade for Cueto - I give them 3 or 4 of the following: Ranaudo, Webster, Johnson, Cecchini, Middlebrooks, Coyle, Marrero, and Escobar. Basically, I wouldn't trade Swihart, Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes, Margot, Chavis, or Devers at this point. 2) Resign Lester - He can pitch in a pressure environment. Don't lowball him and we can sign him. I know his family and he wants to resign. 3) Sign Sandoval - The 3rd base market is pretty sad. I happen to love Pablo. He is a clutch hitter and plays better defense than he is given credit for. 4) Resign Miller - He's been great the past couple of years as we all know. As an added bonus, he can get both righties and lefties out. I think the Royals are showing everyone the significance of a BP. If not Miller, we need to spend some cash to provide additional depth as there cannot be enough here. 5) Sign a #4 starter that can give you innings (ex: Ervin Santana) - With the team's surplus of back end pitching, I think it's a consensus that some will be back of the rotation starters and some will fall into certain relief roles. As this plays out, I feel as though we need an innings eater. There are a few options here.. 2015-16 Lineup: C: C Vazquez 1B: M Napoli 2B: D Pedroia SS: X Bogaerts 3B: P Sandoval LF: Y Cespedes CF: R Castillo RF: M Betts DH: D Ortiz SP1: J Lester SP2: J Cueto SP3: J Kelly SP4: E Santana SP5: R De La Rossa CL: K Uehara BP1: J Tajawa BP2: A Miller BP3: M Barnes BP4: B Workman BP5: B Badenhop BP6: Britton, Layne (lefty??) BE1: J Bradley, Jr BE2: B Holt BE3: A Craig BE4: Catcher (Ross perhaps) Basically, I really want to trade for Cueto (Amaro is not worth dealing with), resign Lester, sign Pablo, and then work hard at the rest. I wish those things would happen, but honestly I can't see the Reds accepting a bunch of back end starters/2nd tier players - I mean they don't even need a 3b. They have Frazier at 3b who's one of their best hitters and Votto should be back at 1b. The rest of the guys are bullpen arms/back of rotation guys. I can't see how the Reds wouldn't require Rodriguez or Owens to be part of the deal, and probably a lot more than that. I'm with you on Lester, but if the Sox weren't willing to shell out the money in spring training when his value wasn't as high, I doubt the Sox are willing to shell out the six year $150 million it would take for him to consider taking the Sox lower offer to the seven year $170 million deals that will be out there for him to sign. I think a lot of people underestimate how high these contracts will wind up. I don't think the Sox will give Miller the 3 or 4 years at $8 million or so. They'll be a lot of teams that will do that. I do think the Sox will be major players on Sandoval and I can see the Sox making a big-time run at Shields. If the Braves were to offer Santana a QO then I can't see the Sox going after him. Otherwise it's a possibility, but he wouldn't be their 4th starter, but more likely their #2 starter. I doubt that the Sox add three starters. Other than Sandoval I don't think the Sox would do what you're suggesting, but I certainly wish they would. Having Lester and Miller back while adding Cueto for prospects that are second tier and signing Sandoval and Santana would certainly make for a team that could be highly competitive, but they'd have a very bloated payroll ,and I think the Sox are more of a spread-it-around kind of team.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 26, 2014 10:41:06 GMT -5
There's a Fangraphs article by David Laurila that I think will interest many here. First some insights from John Maddon on how the modern-day bullpen has changed the game and reduced scoring: Cherington's opinion that the Red Sox shouldn't get too caught up in the changing times and are best off staying the course: And how David Laurila would fix the Reds - which includes a trade of Joey Votto to the Red Sox: Part of me wants to jump all over that deal as 'quantity for quality' trades of major league players don't come around too often, but then looking at Votto's down year and drop in power crossed with his huge contract (213 mil over the next 9 years) makes we want to run from any Votto discussion. Difficult to rationalize either way. The full article can be found here: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/sunday-notes-maddon-cherington-fixing-the-reds-trusting-buck-more/
|
|
|
Post by theburn on Oct 26, 2014 11:37:50 GMT -5
Saw an article a while back that suggested the possibility of the Red Sox pursuing Daniel Murphy and a starting pitcher from the Mets in exchange for a package involving Cespedes. If the FO believes in Murphy's ability to transition back to third, it would be a compelling alternative if and when the Sandoval sweepstakes get out of control.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 26, 2014 12:12:41 GMT -5
There is a "rumor" story on ESPN today that the Sox are shopping Cespedes.
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on Oct 26, 2014 12:16:33 GMT -5
I've been really enjoying watching Pablo Sandoval play in the WS. Ever since he had that 3 HRs I've been a fan. The Red Sox should do everything they can to sign him. I just read he's seeking a contract in the range of the Hunter Pence deal(5 years 90 million) sounds reasonable if you ask me.
However I believe signing Sandoval would be contingent on trading either Cespedes or Napoli. Both are free agents after this seasons and this team would be better suited having a 3-4-5 match up that's LRL rather then what they have now. So signing Sandoval would have my line up like this.
CF- Betts 2B- Pedoria DH-Ortiz LF- Cespedes 3B-Sandoval SS-Bogarets RF-Castillo 1B- Nava or Craig C- Vazquez
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 26, 2014 12:41:32 GMT -5
I've been really enjoying watching Pablo Sandoval play in the WS. Ever since he had that 3 HRs I've been a fan. The Red Sox should do everything they can to sign him. I just read he's seeking a contract in the range of the Hunter Pence deal(5 years 90 million) sounds reasonable if you ask me. However I believe signing Sandoval would be contingent on trading either Cespedes or Napoli. Both are free agents after this seasons and this team would be better suited having a 3-4-5 match up that's LRL rather then what they have now. So signing Sandoval would have my line up like this. CF- Betts 2B- Pedoria DH-Ortiz LF- Cespedes 3B-Sandoval SS-Bogarets RF-Castillo 1B- Nava or Craig C- Vazquez I'm not comfortable with essentially swapping out Napoli for Sandoval. In the lineup you suggest, that leaves us with a 4-7 that could conceivably combine for a .315 OBP. For the last two seasons, Napoli has lead MLB in pitches per plate appearance (while also being the best defensive 1B in the AL). Stacking the post-Ortiz part of the lineup with a bunch of hackers would be getting a bit too far away from the pesky strategy of taking pitches, working counts, and getting on-base. Now, moving Cespedes (in a package for pitching) makes a lot more sense to me, and we have quite a few RHH options to complement Nava and get close to matching Cespedes' production. Pablo has actually been a better hitter than YC the last two seasons, and he's a more reliable defender at a more valuable position. I'm just extremely wary of offering a Sandoval five years, and would want to explore some sort of weight limit in his contract, even if he/his agent may completely balk at that. As soon as he becomes a 1B/DH, he's simply not a good enough hitter to be worth anywhere near the AAV he'll be getting, even if we figure it'll be in 3-4 seasons with market prices continuing to grow. RF Betts 2B Pedroia DH Ortiz 1B Napoli 3B Sandoval CF Castillo LF Nava/Craig SS Bogaerts C Vazquez
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 26, 2014 12:57:55 GMT -5
What about Chase Headley instead of Sandoval? We'd still have the money to go after two starters and a bullpen guy.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 26, 2014 13:06:49 GMT -5
What about Chase Headley instead of Sandoval? We'd still have the money to go after two starters and a bullpen guy. It's a very sound alternative. Despite being a couple years older than Pablo, he's a much safer bet to last at third base over the duration of his contract (likely four seasons), while doing so at a plus-level. He's hasn't been as effective a hitter lately, but glancing at their stats, it's not unfathomable at all to imagine Headley having some better offensive seasons than Sandoval over the next few years.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 26, 2014 16:05:31 GMT -5
David Laurilla needs his self-important head examined if he thinks the RS should or would trade a cost-controlled Nava, the short commitment of Napoli, and a cost-controlled, potentially useful P in Barnes for the contract of Joey Votto. Votto will play his age 31 season in 2015 and is then under contract for another eight years at an AAV of just over $20 million. Until last year, when he missed time due to injury, he was basically a 6-win player - a stud. But Nava and Napoli were 3.3 and 3.2 respectively in 2014. They provide the same production as Votto and neither carries an albatross contract. Pair Nava with a RHH platoon partner who can do damage against LHP (Craig? Victorino? Brentz?) and you have 5-6 WAR for low money. If Napoli has his typical year in 2015, he'll merit a QO, which means either another nice, short, low-risk commitment or a draft pick. Committing to nine-year contracts with big AAV for players on the other side of 30 is exactly what this FO is not going to do. Mr. Laurilla, please do not become GM of the Boston Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 26, 2014 16:53:13 GMT -5
With roughly $55m to spend before reaching the luxury tax limit, the above plan would require the front office to spend $10-20m over the limit, which I don't see them doing this year. Lester, Cueto, and Sandoval alone should get them close to the luxury tax limit. You could try to move Victorino, but you'd have to eat a decent amount of his salary to move him, so that doesn't open that much room. I'm not so sure that the luxury tax limit is as hard this year as in other years ... I'm not advocating the view that they'll go over, but they have quite a bit of money coming off the books after next year, and a one year bump over the luxury tax by a relatively small amount (say $10 million or less, basically enough money that shedding Victorino after the year will get them back on track) isn't going to kill them and seems like a solid use of resources. There's not a lot of evidence for my theory since the Sox haven't gone over at all in years, but if I were running the team, I'd be willing to go over this year ... I think it's important to have a good team this year for their long-term branding position, and it's economically viable if it's a one-year proposition.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 26, 2014 17:03:46 GMT -5
With roughly $55m to spend before reaching the luxury tax limit, the above plan would require the front office to spend $10-20m over the limit, which I don't see them doing this year. The above plan seems to include trading Buchholz for some insignificant prospect, not sure how much cap room that gets us though.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 26, 2014 17:22:05 GMT -5
David Laurilla needs his self-important head examined if he thinks the RS should or would trade a cost-controlled Nava, the short commitment of Napoli, and a cost-controlled, potentially useful P in Barnes for the contract of Joey Votto. Votto will play his age 31 season in 2015 and is then under contract for another eight years at an AAV of just over $20 million. Until last year, when he missed time due to injury, he was basically a 6-win player - a stud. But Nava and Napoli were 3.3 and 3.2 respectively in 2014. They provide the same production as Votto and neither carries an albatross contract. Pair Nava with a RHH platoon partner who can do damage against LHP (Craig? Victorino? Brentz?) and you have 5-6 WAR for low money. If Napoli has his typical year in 2015, he'll merit a QO, which means either another nice, short, low-risk commitment or a draft pick. Committing to nine-year contracts with big AAV for players on the other side of 30 is exactly what this FO is not going to do. Mr. Laurilla, please do not become GM of the Boston Red Sox. First off, I how is Laurilla "self important"? Seems needlessly insulting to me. Second, two three win players are not as good as one six win player. You only get to put nine guys in the lineup. Assuming you can more or less replace Nava's production internally (not a bad bet with Victorino/Craig/etc hanging around), the Sox are picking up three wins in the trade. Does that make it worth doing? Probably not, depending on how you think Votto is going to age, but he absolutely makes the Red Sox a better team in that scenario.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 26, 2014 17:55:34 GMT -5
David Laurilla needs his self-important head examined if he thinks the RS should or would trade a cost-controlled Nava, the short commitment of Napoli, and a cost-controlled, potentially useful P in Barnes for the contract of Joey Votto. Votto will play his age 31 season in 2015 and is then under contract for another eight years at an AAV of just over $20 million. Until last year, when he missed time due to injury, he was basically a 6-win player - a stud. But Nava and Napoli were 3.3 and 3.2 respectively in 2014. They provide the same production as Votto and neither carries an albatross contract. Pair Nava with a RHH platoon partner who can do damage against LHP (Craig? Victorino? Brentz?) and you have 5-6 WAR for low money. If Napoli has his typical year in 2015, he'll merit a QO, which means either another nice, short, low-risk commitment or a draft pick. Committing to nine-year contracts with big AAV for players on the other side of 30 is exactly what this FO is not going to do. Mr. Laurilla, please do not become GM of the Boston Red Sox. First off, I how is Laurilla "self important"? Seems needlessly insulting to me. Second, two three win players are not as good as one six win player. You only get to put nine guys in the lineup. Assuming you can more or less replace Nava's production internally (not a bad bet with Victorino/Craig/etc hanging around), the Sox are picking up three wins in the trade. Does that make it worth doing? Probably not, depending on how you think Votto is going to age, but he absolutely makes the Red Sox a better team in that scenario. You're taking the sentence you bolded out of context. If you make that trade, you're giving up the potential for up to 8-9 WAR, not 6, at two positions (5-6 with the Nava/platoon and 3 or so at 1B with Napoli) and that's not even counting Barnes. And you might be getting that 8-9 WAR for > money than Votto costs, depending on who your RHH platoon OF is. Throw in the draft pick you may get for Napoli, whatever Barnes can give you in his cost-controlled years and the outlandish Votto contract and you have a bad trade. The best use of Vic and/or Craig is as a platoon partner with Nava, not as a replacement. Craig may be toast and Vic very well may no longer be able to hold up physically as a full-time player. I think BC said he expects Vic to be ready to go by the middle of ST. It may be worthwhile to start the year with him on the DL and then on a AAA rebab assignment. They can use that time to see whether Craig has anything left. If he's pulling another 2014, then you plug Vic into his spot. If he's performing well and Vic is ready to contribute, then you have a nice problem. Barring a major OF acquisition, I'd like to see an OF of Mookie, Castillo and Nava/RHH to start the season. That allows you to trade Cespedes for another asset.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 26, 2014 19:22:43 GMT -5
First off, I how is Laurilla "self important"? Seems needlessly insulting to me. Second, two three win players are not as good as one six win player. You only get to put nine guys in the lineup. Assuming you can more or less replace Nava's production internally (not a bad bet with Victorino/Craig/etc hanging around), the Sox are picking up three wins in the trade. Does that make it worth doing? Probably not, depending on how you think Votto is going to age, but he absolutely makes the Red Sox a better team in that scenario. You're taking the sentence you bolded out of context. If you make that trade, you're giving up the potential for up to 8-9 WAR, not 6, at two positions (5-6 with the Nava/platoon and 3 or so at 1B with Napoli) and that's not even counting Barnes. And you might be getting that 8-9 WAR for > money than Votto costs, depending on who your RHH platoon OF is. Throw in the draft pick you may get for Napoli, whatever Barnes can give you in his cost-controlled years and the outlandish Votto contract and you have a bad trade. The best use of Vic and/or Craig is as a platoon partner with Nava, not as a replacement. Craig may be toast and Vic very well may no longer be able to hold up physically as a full-time player. I think BC said he expects Vic to be ready to go by the middle of ST. It may be worthwhile to start the year with him on the DL and then on a AAA rebab assignment. They can use that time to see whether Craig has anything left. If he's pulling another 2014, then you plug Vic into his spot. If he's performing well and Vic is ready to contribute, then you have a nice problem. Barring a major OF acquisition, I'd like to see an OF of Mookie, Castillo and Nava/RHH to start the season. That allows you to trade Cespedes for another asset. You're relying too much on one-year samples. I'm a big fan of Nava, but I'm skeptical that he is a true-talent three win player, and I think there's basically no chance that a Nava/RHH platoon will get you 5-6 wins next year (a mark that only two teams reached in 2014, by the way). His lofty 2014 WAR marks are based off unsustainable defensive ratings that are literally two wins higher than his career marks (+18.9 UZR/150, -2.1 career; +26 DRS/yr, +2 career); that's going to regress going forward, especially since he's a year older. Steamer projects him to be a 1.8 fWAR player per 600 PAs next year, which I think is much more realistic. Maybe that's a bit low, but I still wouldn't project a Nava/RHH platoon for more than three wins or so.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 26, 2014 19:24:16 GMT -5
With roughly $55m to spend before reaching the luxury tax limit, the above plan would require the front office to spend $10-20m over the limit, which I don't see them doing this year. The above plan seems to include trading Buchholz for some insignificant prospect, not sure how much cap room that gets us though. I missed that-- thanks for pointing it out. But Buchholz only counts for $7.5m AAV, which means you'd have enough for Miller, but not much else. Ervin Santana or a comparable mid-rotation starting is going to cost a $10m+ AAV-- there just isn't really money in the budget for that kind of luxury.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 26, 2014 20:59:35 GMT -5
You're taking the sentence you bolded out of context. If you make that trade, you're giving up the potential for up to 8-9 WAR, not 6, at two positions (5-6 with the Nava/platoon and 3 or so at 1B with Napoli) and that's not even counting Barnes. And you might be getting that 8-9 WAR for > money than Votto costs, depending on who your RHH platoon OF is. Throw in the draft pick you may get for Napoli, whatever Barnes can give you in his cost-controlled years and the outlandish Votto contract and you have a bad trade. The best use of Vic and/or Craig is as a platoon partner with Nava, not as a replacement. Craig may be toast and Vic very well may no longer be able to hold up physically as a full-time player. I think BC said he expects Vic to be ready to go by the middle of ST. It may be worthwhile to start the year with him on the DL and then on a AAA rebab assignment. They can use that time to see whether Craig has anything left. If he's pulling another 2014, then you plug Vic into his spot. If he's performing well and Vic is ready to contribute, then you have a nice problem. Barring a major OF acquisition, I'd like to see an OF of Mookie, Castillo and Nava/RHH to start the season. That allows you to trade Cespedes for another asset. You're relying too much on one-year samples. I'm a big fan of Nava, but I'm skeptical that he is a true-talent three win player, and I think there's basically no chance that a Nava/RHH platoon will get you 5-6 wins next year (a mark that only two teams reached in 2014, by the way). His lofty 2014 WAR marks are based off unsustainable defensive ratings that are literally two wins higher than his career marks (+18.9 UZR/150, -2.1 career; +26 DRS/yr, +2 career); that's going to regress going forward, especially since he's a year older. Steamer projects him to be a 1.8 fWAR player per 600 PAs next year, which I think is much more realistic. Maybe that's a bit low, but I still wouldn't project a Nava/RHH platoon for more than three wins or so. Well, he was almost a 3-win player in 2013, too. He came in at 2.8 and that was with a -1.3 fWAR. That 2013 fWAR may have been an outlier in the other direction. (All my WAR numbers are bRef, not fRef.) While you may be right about his 2014 fWAR being unsustainably strong, I also think he's unlikely to have another slump as deep as the one he had early last year. He was an unbelievably bad .149/.240/.269 in April and then went 0 for 10 in late May after being recalled from AAA. Then, he got it together and had a nice June. The massive slump and resulting time spent in AAA had to have left a dent in his 2014 WAR. I don't want to sound like I'm making Danny Nava out to be better than he is. I think we all agree that he's a useful component part and nothing more. But a platoon of him and a decent RHH OF can work nicely and for a reasonable cost. I'm more comfortable with that + Napoli + Barnes than I would be with Votto and his $20 million AAV stretching well into the next decade.
|
|
|
Post by caseytins on Oct 27, 2014 11:28:51 GMT -5
I must admit, I forgot about Clay. I wouldn't trade him at this point. My original plan called for a 4th starter (such as Santana) to provide innings. I feel as though Clay + the young pitching pool could provide enough innings toward the back of the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 27, 2014 17:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 27, 2014 18:35:26 GMT -5
When I read this, i thought "Red Sox insider" was more vague than the Twitter-verse seemed. Couldn't that be a beat writer or something? It doesn't mean it had to have come from within the org.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 27, 2014 18:38:03 GMT -5
When I read this, i thought "Red Sox insider" was more vague than the Twitter-verse seemed. Couldn't that be a beat writer or something? It doesn't mean it had to have come from within the org. It mighta been you.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 27, 2014 21:22:49 GMT -5
Writers are coy in the way they describe their anonymous sources and this is a great example. It's a balancing act between wanting to make the source sound credible while not making it easy for someone to figure out the person's identity.
If Madden says it's a RS insider, then it's someone from in the organization, not a beat writer. If a RS beat writer had this information, he/she would report it him/herself, not give it to another writer.
Whoever the source is, I wish he'd shut up. This doesn't help us get a better return on Cespedes.
|
|
|