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 Jul 10, 2014 12:48:29 GMT -5
There is no real reason to think that the Red Sox will be competitive next year especially if they lose their best pitcher. I disagree with this assessment for reasons explained here and here. This is not a roster that lacks young talent like the Yankees or Phillies or one that lacks veterans and relies on replacement-level scrubs like the Cubs or Astros. Look at the projected roster next year-- there is either an above-average veteran or a young player with upside (read: a guy who has or should have cracked a Top 50 prospect list at one point or another) at every position. There's an opening at the top of the rotation and holes in the bullpen, as well as potential playing time available for additions at catcher, the corner outfield, and third base, but there should also be upwards of $80m in salary space opening up. This is absolutely a team that should be able to work its way into contention with the right moves.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 10, 2014 13:07:20 GMT -5
I like that, though I think they need to extend Miller.
I also think as roster construction goes there are two guys, Workman and Doubront, who are replaceable with internal candidates - or if Doubront is to be a pen arm, a cheap alternative - who could be packaged for high end prospects, given the need for starters, or controllable above average MLB talent in positions of need. In terms of Workman, everyone needs an innings eating #3/4. Doubront may be seen as a guy who can be an effective 4/5, esp in the NL. And he's left-handed. Carp is another guy to deal, though his value is much diluted from the winter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 10, 2014 13:09:02 GMT -5
Can I visit your world in which you can package Workman and Doubront for "high end prospects" or "controllable above average MLB talent in positions of need?"
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 10, 2014 13:11:54 GMT -5
Can I visit your world in which you can package Workman and Doubront for "high end prospects?" I believe you can stick either, esp Workman, in a package that will return 1 or more high end (Top 50) prospects. Workman remains the more valuable of the two, obviously, as long as he's perceived as a potential #3, innings eater type.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 10, 2014 13:20:00 GMT -5
Can I visit your world in which you can package Workman and Doubront for "high end prospects?" I believe you can stick either, esp Workman, in a package that will return 1 or more high end (Top 50) prospects. Workman remains the more valuable of the two, obviously, as long as he's perceived as a potential #3, innings eater type. When's the last time a top 50 prospect was traded for multiple, worse prospects? This just doesn't happen and falls into the general category of "three nickels for a quarter"-type moves that even most fantasy baseball GMs are smart enough to immediately dismiss.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 10, 2014 13:47:00 GMT -5
I believe you can stick either, esp Workman, in a package that will return 1 or more high end (Top 50) prospects. Workman remains the more valuable of the two, obviously, as long as he's perceived as a potential #3, innings eater type. When's the last time a top 50 prospect was traded for multiple, worse prospects? This just doesn't happen and falls into the general category of "three nickels for a quarter"-type moves that even most fantasy baseball GMs are smart enough to immediately dismiss. Billy Beane has made a nice living doing exactly this over the last 15 years. Drayton Moore, Brian Cashman and Ruben Amaro have maintained their living despite being on the wrong end of some of these types of deals. Jim Bowden and Omar Minaya, among others, lost jobs because of (in part) these. There's always opportunity, especially when there is desperation for pitching and organizations that may undervalue certain guys within their organization.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 10, 2014 13:58:18 GMT -5
There is no real reason to think that the Red Sox will be competitive next year especially if they lose their best pitcher. I disagree with this assessment for reasons explained here and here. This is not a roster that lacks young talent like the Yankees or Phillies or one that lacks veterans and relies on replacement-level scrubs like the Cubs or Astros. Look at the projected roster next year-- there is either an above-average veteran or a young player with upside (read: a guy who has or should have cracked a Top 50 prospect list at one point or another) at every position. There's an opening at the top of the rotation and holes in the bullpen, as well as potential playing time available for additions at catcher, the corner outfield, and third base, but there should also be upwards of $80m in salary space opening up. This is absolutely a team that should be able to work its way into contention with the right moves. Isn't that almost the same strategy used this year? And that 2015 projected roster includes Vazquez, WMB, Bogearts, JBJ, Betts in the starting lineup. And yeah there are options, but there will be a lot of moving pieces and it will be extremely difficult to bring in an established star anywhere but maybe LF without blocking someone. I think next year has the possibility of being worse than this year with this strategy, even though I think it's the right thing to do. We need to go through the pains of getting these young guys to turn into stars, since it's just too damn difficult to acquire stars. I don't think it's a 1 or 2 year process. It could be, but I don't think it's likely.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 10, 2014 13:59:51 GMT -5
Not disagreeing. I am not saying to go get a guy for just next year. I am saying to get your next middle of the order bat. Your next Manny. Those guys do not hit free agency, and if they do you are going to have to pay them 25 million at least anyway, so I still don't understand the problem with the contract. Do you guys want a team of 25 guys each making 8 million? You have to pay for premium talent. If we trade for a slugger and give him a big contract, then IF some other slugger becomes a free agent then we wont be able to sign them...I don't see the problem. Again, never mentioned those 4 specific prospects, just saying that we have a very good top 10 and I would package some of them this off season to get an impact bat. Would I package all 10? No of course not. This team is in desperate need of an impact bat and as much as we all love our prospects, the chances of 1 of them becoming as good as a Stanton or a Car-Go are very slim so I would definitely package a few of them (again, not ALL of them, but a few of them) to get the proven bat. Well what I'm saying is that if you're paying $25-30mil for the, there are two things to keep in mind. 1) If you're paying that cash, you don't want to give up all that payroll flexibility AND 4 of our top 10 prospects and 2) If there's a possibility that a guy is going to cash in to that degree, he's hitting free agency, period. To use Stanton as an example again, because in this case CarGo doesn't work (signed his extension a couple years ago) he has to know that he's going to get a better deal than the Marlins can give him from somewhere like Boston, New York or one of the LA teams. There's little doubt in my mind he will be a free agent. Free agency is obviously not as certain as trading for a guy, but it doesn't come with the cost in prospects. I know you didn't bring up those specific 4 guys, but you seemed to co-sign the idea that we should trade 4 prospects of a similar quality for a big bat- and that's what I disagree with. I understand you have to give up significant prospects to get big time talent, but there's a point at which it's not a good idea to go too far. That's why it's pretty difficult to find a deal in which a team has given up more than 2 of it's top 10 guys (or 2 top 50 overall guys, which is the more important point here) to get a star. Use the A's as a pattern- they traded CarGo for Holliday, but there were no other top prospects in that deal. They traded a top-5 overall guy and a top-100 guy for Hammel and Samardizja. But everyone values value and team control now, and prospects in that category have a high enough hit rate that you have to be very careful how much you give away.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 10, 2014 14:16:46 GMT -5
I am sorry but expecting a team that is on pace to lose 90 games to come back and win 95 when they maybe losing their best pitcher is a bit outlandish. Yes the Red Sox were able to do it in 2013, but they only did it with unexepected performances from a lot of players like Victorinio, Gomes, Buccholz, Nava, and Saltalamachia. That just doesn't happen in a normal year.
No there isn't. Vazquez, Nava, and Middlebrooks don't fit that description at all. You could argue Betts but as an infielder not as a corner outfielder.
Which is only valuable if there are players to spend it on. By my count they need a top starter, a corner OF bat, and a 3B and to somehow redo almost the entire bullpen. The current crop of free agents isn't full of guys that can help you do that and the Sox have shown a lack of willingness to go after free agents who have received qualifying offers. Yes they could go for a guy like Jed Lowrie and hope that he rebounds, or else hope that the Dodgers let Hanley Ramirez go. But that won't solve your problem. Under the new agreement, and revenue sharing rules it's harder than ever to solve your problems from outside the system.
They will be if they trade enough prospects to acquire big names. It takes some time to turn young talent into established major league talents and they could use some more higher end prospects. The Cubs and Astros depleted their farm systems to the point that they were forced into several year long rebuild programs. The Yankees and Phillies if they don't watch it, could end up there as well. The Red Sox are fortunate that they have a good core of young talent and I do think that Bradley, Bogarts, Swihart, and Owens could all eventually be important pieces on a very good Red Sox team. But if they start trading away those pieces for the pipe dream of contending a year or two earlier they will be sorry.
I think it's wiser for them to compliment the 2016 and 17 teams with a power bat or a really good young starter. But you know they won't, because the front office isn't in touch with reality.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 10, 2014 14:17:17 GMT -5
When's the last time a top 50 prospect was traded for multiple, worse prospects? This just doesn't happen and falls into the general category of "three nickels for a quarter"-type moves that even most fantasy baseball GMs are smart enough to immediately dismiss. Billy Beane has made a nice living doing exactly this over the last 15 years. Drayton Moore, Brian Cashman and Ruben Amaro have maintained their living despite being on the wrong end of some of these types of deals. Jim Bowden and Omar Minaya, among others, lost jobs because of (in part) these. There's always opportunity, especially when there is desperation for pitching and organizations that may undervalue certain guys within their organization. You still haven't provided any examples where a top 50 prospect was traded for multiple worse prospects. I took a look at the last few years' worth of Athletics transactions and couldn't find any examples of this type of transaction. GMs don't trade top 50 prospects (who, by definition, are rarely "undervalued") for worse prospects like Workman or fringy veterans like Doubront.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 10, 2014 14:31:26 GMT -5
Billy Beane has made a nice living doing exactly this over the last 15 years. Drayton Moore, Brian Cashman and Ruben Amaro have maintained their living despite being on the wrong end of some of these types of deals. Jim Bowden and Omar Minaya, among others, lost jobs because of (in part) these. There's always opportunity, especially when there is desperation for pitching and organizations that may undervalue certain guys within their organization. You still haven't provided any examples where a top 50 prospect was traded for multiple worse prospects. I took a look at the last few years' worth of Athletics transactions and couldn't find any examples of this type of transaction. GMs don't trade top 50 prospects (who, by definition, are rarely "undervalued") for worse prospects like Workman or fringy veterans like Doubront. Who said worse prospects? I said "in a package for" which usually means multiple players are being traded for multiple players. My only point is Workman, and to a lesser extent, Doubront could be the 2nd or 3rd (or in Doubront's case, 3rd or 4th) guy in a big deal. And for a stand-alone, Workman has often been compared to Blanton - a 3rd/4th starter who is an innings eater. Blanton was traded straight up for a package that included Josh Outman, who proved to be superior to Blanton until Outman blew up his arm (which can happen to any pitcher at any time).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 10, 2014 15:03:10 GMT -5
I am sorry but expecting a team that is on pace to lose 90 games to come back and win 95 when they maybe losing their best pitcher is a bit outlandish. Yes the Red Sox were able to do it in 2013, but they only did it with unexepected performances from a lot of players like Victorinio, Gomes, Buccholz, Nava, and Saltalamachia. That just doesn't happen in a normal year. This is not a true-talent 90 loss team. As I mentioned earlier, this offense has sucked because it gave a ton of plate appearances to players who were truly awful and won't be on the team next year (Sizemore, Pierzynski, Drew) and because some players played significantly worse than their true-talent levels (Nava, Bogaerts, Victorino, Middlebrooks). Meanwhile, the only players who have played better than expected are Holt, Lester, and maybe a bullpen arm or two. Just like you have to take into account (i.e., regress) those years where a lot of things go right and the team punches above its weight (2013), you have to take into account years like this one where everything goes wrong and the team flukily underperforms. No there isn't. Vazquez, Nava, and Middlebrooks don't fit that description at all. You could argue Betts but as an infielder not as a corner outfielder. Those three positions were the ones I mentioned the possibility of upgrading on. But even if they stand pat, I'm pretty confident that a Middlebrooks/Holt platoon at 3B, a Nava/[acquisition] platoon at LF, and Vazquez/Ross at C would at least get you fairly close to league-average production. The same is true of Bradley in CF or Betts in one of the outfield corners. But any of those guys could also break out and give you star-level production-- they all have the pedigrees and talent to do so. (But to answer the specific query: I think Nava, when platooned properly, is an above-average regular. I think Middlebrooks and Vazquez would have made a top 50 list if they had stayed in the minors instead of being promoted mid-season, but you could reasonably disagree with that one.) Which is only valuable if there are players to spend it on. By my count they need a top starter, a corner OF bat, and a 3B and to somehow redo almost the entire bullpen. This crop of free agents has top starters (Scherzer, Lester, Shields), with a good number of mid-tier guys available as well (Burnett, De La Rosa, Hammel, Masterson, McCarthy, Santana). There are solid outfield bats (Cabrera, Cruz, Willingham, Cuddyer, Denorfia, maybe Markakis); no studs, but plenty of guys you could platoon with Nava in LF but also give you injury protection in RF. Third base is one of the deepest positions in free agency (though I'm not convinced they need to sign someone there), and there's always tons of bullpen arms available. They might just be bad enough to have a protected first-round pick next year, so I'm not too worried about the QO being a major deterrent. They could also take on salary in a trade (Lee, Hamels, Gonzalez, Wieters, Ethier). $80m is a crapton of money, and should be able to buy you at least ten wins. If you think the barebones projected roster is anywhere near a .500 team, it behooves them to think like a contender. The Red Sox are fortunate that they have a good core of young talent and I do think that Bradley, Bogarts, Swihart, and Owens could all eventually be important pieces on a very good Red Sox team. But if they start trading away those pieces for the pipe dream of contending a year or two earlier they will be sorry. I don't necessarily think they should just trade away a bunch of prospects (and I think each proposed trade should be considered on its own merits). My point is just that they are close enough to contention that they shouldn't go into full fire sale/rebuild mode and trade guys like Lackey and Napoli and Pedroia that would otherwise be extremely valuable in 2015. Something that should be reiterated-- the AL East again looks vulnerable again next year. There's no real juggernaut team in the division, and the Red Sox are in as good a position as anyone else. They're close enough to contention that keeping the prospect core together, adding the right free agents, and hoping for a breakout or two could reasonably be enough win them the division. My current train of thought is to keep the core, make a serious run at re-signing Lester (and trade him if 5/$110m-ish doesn't get it done by July 31st, replacing him in the offseason with another top-end guy), and make a few complementary signings.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 10, 2014 15:10:48 GMT -5
Who said worse prospects? I said "in a package for" which usually means multiple players are being traded for multiple players. My only point is Workman, and to a lesser extent, Doubront could be the 2nd or 3rd (or in Doubront's case, 3rd or 4th) guy in a big deal. You made it sound like those guys would be the headliners in a given package. Regardless, top 50 prospects are generally not traded for packages of lesser prospects/players-- if they're traded, it's almost inevitably for a top-tier MLB veteran. The only exception I can think of is Trevor Bauer, but there were non-baseball reasons for that trade. EDIT: If your point is just that Workman/Doubront could be throw-in pieces to balance out a Lester or Lackey deal, then yeah, I'd agree with you. But that's not the impression I got from your first post. And for a stand-alone, Workman has often been compared to Blanton - a 3rd/4th starter who is an innings eater. Blanton was traded straight up for a package that included Josh Outman, who proved to be superior to Blanton until Outman blew up his arm (which can happen to any pitcher at any time). Blanton was traded in the middle of his fourth full major league season, coming off a 5.5 fWAR season. Josh Outman did not rank in BA's 2008 preseason top 100. The analogy does not hold.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 10, 2014 16:25:46 GMT -5
Who said worse prospects? I said "in a package for" which usually means multiple players are being traded for multiple players. My only point is Workman, and to a lesser extent, Doubront could be the 2nd or 3rd (or in Doubront's case, 3rd or 4th) guy in a big deal. You made it sound like those guys would be the headliners in a given package. Regardless, top 50 prospects are generally not traded for packages of lesser prospects/players-- if they're traded, it's almost inevitably for a top-tier MLB veteran. The only exception I can think of is Trevor Bauer, but there were non-baseball reasons for that trade. EDIT: If your point is just that Workman/Doubront could be throw-in pieces to balance out a Lester or Lackey deal, then yeah, I'd agree with you. But that's not the impression I got from your first post. And for a stand-alone, Workman has often been compared to Blanton - a 3rd/4th starter who is an innings eater. Blanton was traded straight up for a package that included Josh Outman, who proved to be superior to Blanton until Outman blew up his arm (which can happen to any pitcher at any time). Blanton was traded in the middle of his fourth full major league season, coming off a 5.5 fWAR season. Josh Outman did not rank in BA's 2008 preseason top 100. The analogy does not hold. I did mean package, though I still contend a young controllable #3 starter who projects to be a Blanton type and has 5 years of control has a lot of value in this market. Look at Jason Hammel - other than this year, an outlier, he has been exactly what Workman projects to be. I'm not saying you could get Piscotty or Pederson for Workman straight up, but Workman could easily be the 2nd guy in that kind of deal. Btw, this is decidedly not 2008. GMs back them were much more willing to trade prospects for veterans. Now the trend has clearly swung to prospects having more intrinsic value, so much so teams are passing on good free agents in positions of need simply because they will cost them a 1st round choice. Also, with fewer PEDs and more TJs, more teams are desperate for inning-eating starting pitching. Also the analogy does hold. Adrian Cardenas (a Top 100 prospect at the time of the deal and the year after) was the key to the trade. Outman ended up being the prize. And you who always eschew small samples know Blanton's 5.5 fWAR was a clear outlier and he'd already regressed back to career norms at the time the deal occurred in mid-2008. Also, I don't think Pat Gillick knew fWAR from fTroop in 2008. That was the first deal that came to mind and I remember everyone saying what as steal it was for Beane, and people loved Outman's stuff so he was the player that came to mind, but Cardenas was one of the top 2nd base prospects in baseball and ranked. So yeah, it holds.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 10, 2014 16:39:10 GMT -5
Workman projects as a back-of-the-rotation guy, not a number three. He's got all of 11 starts in the major leagues and is nowhere near as established as Hammel or Blanton are, and he's not coming off the excellent platform seasons that Hammel (2 fWAR already in 2014; was bad in 2013 but was a steady mid-rotation type before that) or Blanton (averaged 3.6 fWAR in the three seasons before being traded; put up 1.6 fWAR in the half-season before being traded) were coming off of. Cardenas was ranked 76th in 2008-- still not a top 50 guy.
The point that GMs value prospects more works against you-- remember, YOU'RE the one arguing that a package of Workman and some pieces is enough to bring back a top 50 prospect. You're deluding yourself if you think those two have that sort of trade value or that GMs make those sorts of three nickles for a quarter moves. Tell me, what do you think would be a fair trade that has Workman or Doubront as the second-best piece and brings back Piscotty or Pederson?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 10, 2014 16:52:25 GMT -5
For Piscotty or Pederson I would think it would be one of Owens/Webster/RDLR/Ranaudo/Cecchini/Vazquez + Workman. Doubront would be the 3rd or 4th guy thrown into a bigger deal for a bigger fish, or 3rd guy in a deal for a former top 100 guy who is either in need of a scenery change (a Middlebrooks-type) or an org is down on etc. Doubront would be the 3rd or 4th guy we'd get back in a deal and many of us would comment comment how we like him as a great buy low candidate because the org we got him from missed him or blah blah blah.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 10, 2014 17:38:39 GMT -5
OK, so he'd be a throw-in. Prospect-for-prospect deals like that are much more plausible, though still rare.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 10, 2014 18:54:39 GMT -5
Doubront yes. Workman uch more of a guy who'd be the 2 in a 2 for 1 or one of "take from list 1, 2 from list 2" in a 4-1 or 5-1 deal for a young MLB stud like Puig, Harper, He Who Shall Not. be Named, etc.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 10, 2014 21:39:11 GMT -5
Even if we lose Lester, if this team gets left handed hitting left fielder that is a stud, we will be a playoff team next season.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 11, 2014 15:05:34 GMT -5
Random thought: Pedroia has about 20 points of wRC+ difference in his career splits and has actually been below average against RHP this year at 93 wRC+.
Is the Holt/Pedroia platoon on the horizon?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 11, 2014 15:15:22 GMT -5
Random thought: Pedroia has about 20 points of wRC+ difference in his career splits and has actually been below average against RHP this year at 93 wRC+. Is the Holt/Pedroia platoon on the horizon? You really think Farrell is capable and that there's enough duct tape in the dugout?
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jul 11, 2014 15:16:04 GMT -5
Random thought: Pedroia has about 20 points of wRC+ difference in his career splits and has actually been below average against RHP this year at 93 wRC+. Is the Holt/Pedroia platoon on the horizon? Brock Holt has reverse splits this year, as his wRC+ against RHP stands at a solid but unspectacular 101. That's not nearly enough to displace Pedroia from a starting role, especially when considering his defense and, while he may be a different hitter now, his career 112 wRC+ against RHP.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 11, 2014 15:33:00 GMT -5
Brock Holt has reverse splits this year, as his wRC+ against RHP stands at a solid but unspectacular 101. That's not nearly enough to displace Pedroia from a starting role, especially when considering his defense and, while he may be a different hitter now, his career 112 wRC+ against RHP. I'm aware of Holt's reverse split this year but there's absolutely no reason to expect that to continue going forward. He had a normal split in the majors in 2012-13, and in the minors since 2011 he has .667 OPS vs LHP and .813 OPS vs RHP. Pedroia's defense, I will gladly concede, is still excellent. Nevertheless, his baserunning this year makes me wonder how long it will remain so. Meanwhile, I've loved Holt's defense everywhere else and 2B is supposed to be his best position. Perhaps 2015 would be too early, and I'm not saying it needs to be a strict platoon, but I do think it is an option worth keeping in mind. A bit less playing through injuries and soreness might be a good thing for Pedroia as well.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jul 11, 2014 15:39:54 GMT -5
Brock Holt has reverse splits this year, as his wRC+ against RHP stands at a solid but unspectacular 101. That's not nearly enough to displace Pedroia from a starting role, especially when considering his defense and, while he may be a different hitter now, his career 112 wRC+ against RHP. I'm aware of Holt's reverse split this year but there's absolutely no reason to expect that to continue going forward. He had a normal split in the majors in 2012-13, and in the minors since 2011 he has .667 OPS vs LHP and .813 OPS vs RHP. Pedroia's defense, I will gladly concede, is still excellent. Nevertheless, his baserunning this year makes me wonder how long it will remain so. Meanwhile, I've loved Holt's defense everywhere else and 2B is supposed to be his best position. Perhaps 2015 would be too early, and I'm not saying it needs to be a strict platoon, but I do think it is an option worth keeping in mind. A bit less playing through injuries and soreness might be a good thing for Pedroia as well. That's completely true, but there's also not much of a reason to expect him to improve his ~100 wRC+ performance vs. RHP at the MLB level. So unless Pedroia fades down to somewhere in the mid or low-80s, I'm not really thinking about such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 11, 2014 15:43:44 GMT -5
Holt's performance for the rest of this season is pretty crucial for determining 2015's roster. Because he's probably our most valuable player over the course of 162 games if he keeps it up.
The only question is whether he turns into a pumpkin at midnight.
|
|
|