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.
Lackey/Littrell/cash to STL for Kelly/Craig
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 22, 2014 11:50:57 GMT -5
The Sizemore analogy is certainly flawed, but the point is that Craig is a high-risk player whose 2015 performance is very uncertain. Is he really that high-risk? The contract numbers mgoetze threw out there aren't really relevant ... his AAV for cap purposes is ~6.5 million, iirc, easy for the Red Sox to carry. Even if he's just the short side of a platoon with Nava, it's basically Johnny Gomes money. That's not going to hurt the Sox. I mean, sure, there's some sort of non-trivial chance that he's terrible going forward. So the performance risk is there. But I just don't see all that much of a downside to it in the overall context of the team, and if he comes even part of the way back, he'll be completely worth the contract as a right-handed power guy with some positional versatility. To me, the range of possibilities for Craig go from "terrible, and the Sox have to jettison him somehow" to "last year was an aberration, and he's a big part of the team going forward and one of the best AAV values in baseball." He'll likely be somewhere in between, of course, but I just don't see the first as a huge problem, and the second has enough probability of happening to be worth the acquisition cost for him. The problem is that it's possible that he'll be blocking better players. How many plate appearances are you willing to waste on him if he's not good? It's not the money at all. It's the games of sub-replacement level performance that is the concern. If he continues as he did last year... I'm not benching Cespedes, Castillio or Betts for him. I'm also not benching Victorino or Napoli for him. And that's not even considering Holt or JBJ or Nava. There has to be a lot of injuries/trades for Craig to get enough meaningful time to regain his value.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 22, 2014 11:54:01 GMT -5
A bench including Holt, Craig, and by mid year Swihart could really help a stretch run. And Nava and Victorino? Who does Nava platoon with or does he never play? Or are we sticking Betts and JBJ in the minors and leaving them there until there are long term injuries?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 22, 2014 13:16:03 GMT -5
The Sizemore analogy is certainly flawed, but the point is that Craig is a high-risk player whose 2015 performance is very uncertain. Is he really that high-risk? The contract numbers mgoetze threw out there aren't really relevant ... his AAV for cap purposes is ~6.5 million, iirc, easy for the Red Sox to carry. Even if he's just the short side of a platoon with Nava, it's basically Johnny Gomes money. That's not going to hurt the Sox. I mean, sure, there's some sort of non-trivial chance that he's terrible going forward. So the performance risk is there. But I just don't see all that much of a downside to it in the overall context of the team, and if he comes even part of the way back, he'll be completely worth the contract as a right-handed power guy with some positional versatility. To me, the range of possibilities for Craig go from "terrible, and the Sox have to jettison him somehow" to "last year was an aberration, and he's a big part of the team going forward and one of the best AAV values in baseball." He'll likely be somewhere in between, of course, but I just don't see the first as a huge problem, and the second has enough probability of happening to be worth the acquisition cost for him. The text you quoted is in the context of Craig's performance only. As you note, there are a wide range of possibilities for Craig, and literally by definition, that means he's a highly risky player. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a bad acquisition. Some risks are good risks. For instance, some high-risk players may come at a reasonable enough cost that the downside is tolerable, which makes them risks you're happy to take because they come with considerable upside. Think Andrew Miller when the Red Sox acquired him. But again, even citing only his AAV numbers, would you be happy if the Red Sox had signed Craig for 3/$20m, had he been a free agent this offseason? A contract like that comes with a decent bit of downside, because there's far more than a non-trivial chance that he's a replacement-level sort going forward. It's not a debilitating downside, and maybe it's a risk you take if you think the upside is there. But it is a risk, and there's no getting around that.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 22, 2014 13:22:15 GMT -5
Is he really that high-risk? The contract numbers mgoetze threw out there aren't really relevant ... his AAV for cap purposes is ~6.5 million, iirc, easy for the Red Sox to carry. Even if he's just the short side of a platoon with Nava, it's basically Johnny Gomes money. That's not going to hurt the Sox. I mean, sure, there's some sort of non-trivial chance that he's terrible going forward. So the performance risk is there. But I just don't see all that much of a downside to it in the overall context of the team, and if he comes even part of the way back, he'll be completely worth the contract as a right-handed power guy with some positional versatility. To me, the range of possibilities for Craig go from "terrible, and the Sox have to jettison him somehow" to "last year was an aberration, and he's a big part of the team going forward and one of the best AAV values in baseball." He'll likely be somewhere in between, of course, but I just don't see the first as a huge problem, and the second has enough probability of happening to be worth the acquisition cost for him. The text you quoted is in the context of Craig's performance only. As you note, there are a wide range of possibilities for Craig, and literally by definition, that means he's a highly risky player. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a bad acquisition. Some risks are good risks. For instance, some high-risk players may come at a reasonable enough cost that the downside is tolerable, which makes them risks you're happy to take because they come with considerable upside. Think Andrew Miller when the Red Sox acquired him. But again, even citing only his AAV numbers, would you be happy if the Red Sox had signed Craig for 3/$20m, had he been a free agent this offseason? A contract like that comes with a decent bit of downside, because there's far more than a non-trivial chance that he's a replacement-level sort going forward. It's not a debilitating downside, and maybe it's a risk you take if you think the upside is there. But it is a risk, and there's no getting around that. I'd be very happy with that contract. It's a great buy low opportunity. People seem to like the concept of buying low, but when it's used in practice, they call the player done. Remember the hate on the Victorino contract?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 22, 2014 13:27:30 GMT -5
The big difference is that Victorino added a ton of value through defense and baserunning. If Craig doesn't hit, he's a sub-replacement level player. I do think he's a good buy-low candidate, but guys like him get one-year deals in free agency. Three years and decent money (especially the actual money he gets paid as opposed to the AAV) makes me a little nervous.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 22, 2014 13:34:02 GMT -5
The big difference is that Victorino added a ton of value through defense and baserunning. If Craig doesn't hit, he's a sub-replacement level player. I do think he's a good buy-low candidate, but guys like him get one-year deals in free agency. Three years and decent money (especially the actual money he gets paid as opposed to the AAV) makes me a little nervous. You say that now, but at the time, the majority of Red Sox fans were calling Victorino done and ignoring his great year the year before. Sure, Craig has to hit more, but he's been a much better hitter than Victorino has throughout his career, and we're not expecting him to be as good as Victorino was last year overall, that's why he's paid less. Also the AAV matters more than our actual budget, since the luxury tax seems to be our budget. Another thing is the RS clearly believe in Craig
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 22, 2014 14:24:46 GMT -5
The big difference is that Victorino added a ton of value through defense and baserunning. If Craig doesn't hit, he's a sub-replacement level player. I do think he's a good buy-low candidate, but guys like him get one-year deals in free agency. Three years and decent money (especially the actual money he gets paid as opposed to the AAV) makes me a little nervous. You say that now, but at the time, the majority of Red Sox fans were calling Victorino done and ignoring his great year the year before. Sure, Craig has to hit more, but he's been a much better hitter than Victorino has throughout his career, and we're not expecting him to be as good as Victorino was last year overall, that's why he's paid less. Also the AAV matters more than our actual budget, since the luxury tax seems to be our budget. Another thing is the RS clearly believe in Craig I thought Victorino was a great signing. I wasn't here to say it. But again, he is an amazing outfielder even if he doesn't hit at all. Craig has to hit to be worth anything and he didn't even look like a guy who belonged in the major leagues last year. I sought opinions from Cardinals fans who were just about in complete agreement that he wasn't just slumping.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 22, 2014 15:35:43 GMT -5
You say that now, but at the time, the majority of Red Sox fans were calling Victorino done and ignoring his great year the year before. Sure, Craig has to hit more, but he's been a much better hitter than Victorino has throughout his career, and we're not expecting him to be as good as Victorino was last year overall, that's why he's paid less. Also the AAV matters more than our actual budget, since the luxury tax seems to be our budget. Another thing is the RS clearly believe in Craig Victorino was coming off a bad year....at 2.9 fWAR - while being only 1 year removed from having 5.6 fWAR. Allen Craig is coming off a -1.4 fWAR year while posting 2.5fWAR the year before. Victorino's bad year was still better than the best year of Craig's career (2.7 fWAR). I agree with you that the AAV matters more than the contract (not like the Red Sox are hurting for cash) and that this is a buy-low deal. But to me Alan Craig is more on-par with a Daniel Nava than a Shane Victorino, as most of their career value comes from their bat and they were relatively late bloomers. As we all know Nava was sent down after 1 month last year due mostly to bad luck. Craig has shown more power than Nava in the past, and therefore more upside, but his two year trend in ISO (-.073; -.042) has me concerned that this is no longer a strength of his. If his floor was Jonny Gomes, then I would be content, but I'm afraid it's a 3 year and 6.5 mil drop in available funds that will also block Victorino, Bradley and Brentz from playing. Hope I'm wrong and you're right - because I don't see him going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 22, 2014 15:46:51 GMT -5
Is he really that high-risk? The contract numbers mgoetze threw out there aren't really relevant ... his AAV for cap purposes is ~6.5 million, iirc, easy for the Red Sox to carry. Even if he's just the short side of a platoon with Nava, it's basically Johnny Gomes money. That's not going to hurt the Sox. I mean, sure, there's some sort of non-trivial chance that he's terrible going forward. So the performance risk is there. But I just don't see all that much of a downside to it in the overall context of the team, and if he comes even part of the way back, he'll be completely worth the contract as a right-handed power guy with some positional versatility. To me, the range of possibilities for Craig go from "terrible, and the Sox have to jettison him somehow" to "last year was an aberration, and he's a big part of the team going forward and one of the best AAV values in baseball." He'll likely be somewhere in between, of course, but I just don't see the first as a huge problem, and the second has enough probability of happening to be worth the acquisition cost for him. The text you quoted is in the context of Craig's performance only. As you note, there are a wide range of possibilities for Craig, and literally by definition, that means he's a highly risky player. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a bad acquisition. Some risks are good risks. For instance, some high-risk players may come at a reasonable enough cost that the downside is tolerable, which makes them risks you're happy to take because they come with considerable upside. Think Andrew Miller when the Red Sox acquired him. But again, even citing only his AAV numbers, would you be happy if the Red Sox had signed Craig for 3/$20m, had he been a free agent this offseason? A contract like that comes with a decent bit of downside, because there's far more than a non-trivial chance that he's a replacement-level sort going forward. It's not a debilitating downside, and maybe it's a risk you take if you think the upside is there. But it is a risk, and there's no getting around that. Happy? Maybe ... but definitely intrigued. He's depth at this point, and at a reasonable price point for the depth. jimed's point is a good one in that there may be a level of sub-replacement level play until it becomes clear that he's done ... but, not to be flip, life is risky! If he was guaranteed to be even 90% of Allen Craig 2012, he would've been a lot more expensive a commodity. He was available at that asset price point because there is considerable performance risk involved. But right now, he's not a starter. He's probably 5th or 6th on the depth chart in the OF and second (at least) at first base, and he's getting paid pretty fairly for that. Now, the definite downside is that the depth chart in the OF has a high level of risk in it in a lot of places right now, with Castillo, Betts, Victorino, and Craig all risky for various reasons. And Cespedes is available in a trade ... so there's that. But that's a reality that could only be solved with some kind of bold move, and Craig is basically irrelevant to that. He doesn't get paid enough to be a problem in any scenario involving upgrading the OF. Plus, let's not forget, there still is the non-trivial chance of a ceiling that he's an 850+ OPS righty who can play multiple positions ...
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 22, 2014 16:56:59 GMT -5
Not being snarky but in ST 2003 I spoke with several dozen Twins fans as well a two Twins scouts who told me that David Ortiz was: Injury prone A poor fielder Chased outside pitches Couldn't lay off down and in breaking balls Had great power but wasn't very good v LHP A great clubhouse person
Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 22, 2014 17:58:22 GMT -5
But again, even citing only his AAV numbers, would you be happy if the Red Sox had signed Craig for 3/$20m, had he been a free agent this offseason? A contract like that comes with a decent bit of downside, because there's far more than a non-trivial chance that he's a replacement-level sort going forward. It's not a debilitating downside, and maybe it's a risk you take if you think the upside is there. But it is a risk, and there's no getting around that. Yes. This is such a classic Red Sox move; acquiring a player who's value is down because they're having a terrible year despite a strong overall track record. Buy low, sell high. Doesn't work in each instance but in the aggregate it's a winning strategy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 22, 2014 20:40:24 GMT -5
But again, even citing only his AAV numbers, would you be happy if the Red Sox had signed Craig for 3/$20m, had he been a free agent this offseason? A contract like that comes with a decent bit of downside, because there's far more than a non-trivial chance that he's a replacement-level sort going forward. It's not a debilitating downside, and maybe it's a risk you take if you think the upside is there. But it is a risk, and there's no getting around that. Yes. This is such a classic Red Sox move; acquiring a player who's value is down because they're having a terrible year despite a strong overall track record. Buy low, sell high. Doesn't work in each instance but in the aggregate it's a winning strategy. As mentioned above, the problem is that the 2015 roster is setting up to be just as high-variance as the 2014 one. Only maybe three or four non-relievers have pretty stable projections (Ortiz, Napoli, Pedroia, maybe Nava and Kelly). That's not inherently a bad thing-- you could get a bunch of breakouts and be a 98 win team a la 2013. But considering the new Wild Card system, it is perhaps better to be a low variance 88 win team than a team that could win 98 or win 78, because 98 wins doesn't guarantee playoff success and it's more about getting in than winning as many regular season games as you can. In that light, I'd prefer a more stable backup outfielder than another boom or bust guy.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 22, 2014 21:28:07 GMT -5
Yes. This is such a classic Red Sox move; acquiring a player who's value is down because they're having a terrible year despite a strong overall track record. Buy low, sell high. Doesn't work in each instance but in the aggregate it's a winning strategy. As mentioned above, the problem is that the 2015 roster is setting up to be just as high-variance as the 2014 one. Only maybe three or four non-relievers have pretty stable projections (Ortiz, Napoli, Pedroia, maybe Nava and Kelly). That's not inherently a bad thing-- you could get a bunch of breakouts and be a 98 win team a la 2013. But considering the new Wild Card system, it is perhaps better to be a low variance 88 win team than a team that could win 98 or win 78, because 98 wins doesn't guarantee playoff success and it's more about getting in than winning as many regular season games as you can. In that light, I'd prefer a more stable backup outfielder than another boom or bust guy. Except winning the division is like 2x more likely to get you into the WS than winning the WC. Also, the sox clearly saw something in Craig
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 22, 2014 21:37:49 GMT -5
1/16 odds are not that much lower than 1/8 odds, from an absolute standpoint. The point is that getting in is more important than being the best. Even with home field advantage, the playoffs are mostly a crapshoot.
They might have seen something in Craig, but they're not infallible. It's very possible they were just wrong. But it's still early-- only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 22, 2014 21:42:24 GMT -5
1/16 odds are not that much lower than 1/8 odds, from an absolute standpoint. The point is that getting in is more important than being the best. Even with home field advantage, the playoffs are mostly a crapshoot. They might have seen something in Craig, but they're not infallible. It's very possible they were just wrong. But it's still early-- only time will tell. 50% chance at 1/8 odds and 50% chance of 0 odds is the same as 100% chance of 1/16 odds not to mention crazy stuff happens so it's not close to 100% The playoffs are mostly a crapshoot but you greatly increase your odds if you win the division over a WC
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 22, 2014 22:07:18 GMT -5
1/16 odds are not that much lower than 1/8 odds, from an absolute standpoint. The point is that getting in is more important than being the best. Even with home field advantage, the playoffs are mostly a crapshoot. They might have seen something in Craig, but they're not infallible. It's very possible they were just wrong. But it's still early-- only time will tell. 50% chance at 1/8 odds and 50% chance of 0 odds is the same as 100% chance of 1/16 odds not to mention crazy stuff happens so it's not close to 100% The playoffs are mostly a crapshoot but you greatly increase your odds if you win the division over a WC The math is actually quite a bit more complicated than this. It's more like the following image: My hypothesis is that the lower-risk team (the blue curve) is preferable since you'd prefer high WC odds over low division odds and moderate WC odds, even if division odds are twice as valuable as WC odds. I'm too tired to actually run the numbers, though, and this kind of thought experiment relies on a ton of assumptions that are easily quibbled with.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Oct 22, 2014 22:22:37 GMT -5
But again, even citing only his AAV numbers, would you be happy if the Red Sox had signed Craig for 3/$20m, had he been a free agent this offseason? A contract like that comes with a decent bit of downside, because there's far more than a non-trivial chance that he's a replacement-level sort going forward. It's not a debilitating downside, and maybe it's a risk you take if you think the upside is there. But it is a risk, and there's no getting around that. Yes. This is such a classic Red Sox move; acquiring a player who's value is down because they're having a terrible year despite a strong overall track record. Buy low, sell high. Doesn't work in each instance but in the aggregate it's a winning strategy. There are a number of reasons why I don't think this is a classic Red Sox buy low move. First, buy low deals are best as one year deals. It's not like the contract kills the Sox, as several have mentioned, but with a one year deal say for $10 million or less, the Sox can completely punt if the guy is below replacement level. Though the $20 million is spread out over three years, if he's terrible next year and they want to cut ties with him, they're punting $20 million, which is a noticeable difference. Secondly, and probably most importantly, it's the players he's blocking, as pointed out by others. Trying to figure out how to get Craig at bats if he doesn't come out on fire while finding at bats for Betts, Castillo, Cespedes, Nava...obviously something's got to give. Furthermore, there's the variance of the rest of the lineup. We have no idea what Castillo is going to be like. Given Betts' profile, it seems very unlikely that he'll be terrible, but you never know. Who knows what third base is. Pedroia was a league average hitter last year. The list goes on. This doesn't seem like the situation that you want to give a guy an extended opportunity to prove he's back. The main reason I'm still skeptical, and the reason that I was skeptical when the trade was made, is because of this piece by Jeff Sullivan. Pitchers started challenging Craig's bat speed last year, throwing him more fastballs and more inside pitches, and he was terrible at hitting them. As Sullivan says, "Maybe there’s some kind of injury, and Craig just needs a rest. Maybe Craig’s a mechanical tweak away from getting back to normal ...The pessimistic take would be that this is something...that might be some kind of permanent. We’re never really good at being able to tell when a hitter is declining, but there are questions that Allen Craig needs to answer."
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 23, 2014 6:42:19 GMT -5
Allen Craig because of his 2013 injury didn't workout during the offseason a year ago. That can lead to fatigue and decreased bat speed .
But I don't buy that Craig suddenly forgot how to hit or that his dectrased bat speed is permenant. Given his age and the cirvumstances surrounding his 2014 performance, I think Craig is a good bet to rebound.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 23, 2014 6:58:26 GMT -5
Allen Craig because of his 2013 injury didn't workout during the offseason a year ago. That can lead to fatigue and decreased bat speed . But I don't buy that Craig suddenly forgot how to hit or that his dectrased bat speed is permenant. Given his age and the cirvumstances surrounding his 2014 performance, I think Craig is a good bet to rebound. I agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 23, 2014 9:51:44 GMT -5
Yes. This is such a classic Red Sox move; acquiring a player who's value is down because they're having a terrible year despite a strong overall track record. Buy low, sell high. Doesn't work in each instance but in the aggregate it's a winning strategy. There are a number of reasons why I don't think this is a classic Red Sox buy low move. First, buy low deals are best as one year deals. It's not like the contract kills the Sox, as several have mentioned, but with a one year deal say for $10 million or less, the Sox can completely punt if the guy is below replacement level. Though the $20 million is spread out over three years, if he's terrible next year and they want to cut ties with him, they're punting $20 million, which is a noticeable difference. These are all good points, so I'll respond individually ... I think you're ignoring the potential upside in that scenario. If Craig is *not* terrible going forward, it's far better to have him for three years at 6.5m AAV than at one year at $10m. So, in both cases, it's "buy low," but the potential pay off is far more, while the potential downside isn't really that big a deal to a team like the Sox. So I think the risk/reward analysis is pretty good for Craig. I don't think he's really blocking anyone, with the notable exception of Cespedes. But that's not really 'blocking' ... it's more that it encourages the Sox to think of Cespedes as a potential asset to fill other holes in the team. But, and here's the key point, the real problem is that there are other holes on the team, not that Allen Craig is somehow 'blocking' Yoenis Cespedes. I think the likely starting OF is Nava, Castillo, Betts, with Vic and Craig as depth. I don't think that's great (would rather a good LF hitting RFer and Mookie at third, but the Sox seemingly don't trust Mookie's arm on the left side of the infield, so that ain't happening), but that's what we've got right now. Totally true. But, in the end, that's not really Allen Craig's fault and is basically irrelevant to a valuation of Craig. I mean, would it be better if the team had more assured production? Yes! And, with the volatility in the team's production elsewhere, would it be better if Allen Craig was more likely to be good? Yes! I mean, "likely to be good" is always better than "who knows what we'll get with this guy" ... but the Sox don't have a great foundation and haven't for a while. So this is what they're dealing with, trying to buy low on a guy like Craig and hoping guys like Castillo, Betts, and Bogaerts hurry up and get good. People don't like to think of it this way, but the wild success of 2013 covered up the fact that the team is still recovering from the Gonzalez/Crawford/Beckett team's implosion. That team was supposed to be starting to make way for the next generation of Sox in the next year or two ... but Craig doesn't stop them from making a move to shore up the team. Could be! But this is what folks say about a lot of guys who struggle ... it's possible Craig either completely fell off a cliff from age or was injured badly enough he won't come back. That's what makes him risky. But it's also possible that he was off all year, had a generally terrible year, and will bounce back. I actually think the latter is at least probable; I just have no idea what "bounce back" means in this context. Passable? Good? Better than that?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 23, 2014 10:38:22 GMT -5
Not being snarky but in ST 2003 I spoke with several dozen Twins fans as well a two Twins scouts who told me that David Ortiz was: Injury prone A poor fielder Chased outside pitches Couldn't lay off down and in breaking balls Had great power but wasn't very good v LHP A great clubhouse person Just sayin' And he was 27 who hadn't been given a chance at starting full time. Can't compare him to Craig.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 23, 2014 10:44:51 GMT -5
Allen Craig because of his 2013 injury didn't workout during the offseason a year ago. That can lead to fatigue and decreased bat speed . But I don't buy that Craig suddenly forgot how to hit or that his dectrased bat speed is permenant. Given his age and the cirvumstances surrounding his 2014 performance, I think Craig is a good bet to rebound. Who is he displacing and how many plate appearances does he get to prove something?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 23, 2014 19:59:59 GMT -5
Allen Craig because of his 2013 injury didn't workout during the offseason a year ago. That can lead to fatigue and decreased bat speed . But I don't buy that Craig suddenly forgot how to hit or that his dectrased bat speed is permenant. Given his age and the cirvumstances surrounding his 2014 performance, I think Craig is a good bet to rebound. Who is he displacing and how many plate appearances does he get to prove something? I think they will trade Cespedes who has a valuable asset, his arm, that is substantially less valuble to the Red Sox if he can only play LF. Allen Craig doesn't need to prove anything given his track record. He's proven a lot more than either Boegarts, Betts, Vazquez, or Castilio all of whom are unquestioned future major league starters for the team. Given a full offseason to workout, there is no reason to think that he won't return to his previous level of play if healthy.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Oct 23, 2014 21:20:15 GMT -5
Allen Craig because of his 2013 injury didn't workout during the offseason a year ago. That can lead to fatigue and decreased bat speed . But I don't buy that Craig suddenly forgot how to hit or that his dectrased bat speed is permenant. Given his age and the cirvumstances surrounding his 2014 performance, I think Craig is a good bet to rebound. I agree with this. There's certainly a possibility that you're right. I certainly hope you are. But I'm not sure why you're so confident that his decreased bat speed, which lasted all year, isn't permanent. If I hadn't seen the data that Sullivan presented, I think I'd agree that he's a good bet to rebound. Having seen it, I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Oct 23, 2014 21:47:51 GMT -5
I don't think he's really blocking anyone, with the notable exception of Cespedes. But that's not really 'blocking' ... it's more that it encourages the Sox to think of Cespedes as a potential asset to fill other holes in the team. But, and here's the key point, the real problem is that there are other holes on the team, not that Allen Craig is somehow 'blocking' Yoenis Cespedes. I think the likely starting OF is Nava, Castillo, Betts, with Vic and Craig as depth. I don't think that's great (would rather a good LF hitting RFer and Mookie at third, but the Sox seemingly don't trust Mookie's arm on the left side of the infield, so that ain't happening), but that's what we've got right now. Blocking was the wrong word. I mean that I think it makes it harder to use all of the assets to their greatest value and it makes it harder to build the entire roster. There are just too many players to get them all consistent at bats. Obviously, it seems likely that there is a trade or trades involving outfielders, but until there is, there's just an enormous logjam. If we assume Cespedes gets moved, I don't think it's ideal roster construction to carry five outfielders, only one of whom has shown the ability to hit right-handed pitching (well, Mookie has shown he can in a small sample size, and Mookie can do anything...but really, it's likely that even he won't be as good as against righties). I think what I really wanted to point was the difficulty in finding at bats. If Victorino is healthy (granted a big if right now), there's a good chance he's our best outfielder. How in the world do we find at bats for Craig in that case? What's his purpose? No, of course it's not his fault, but i don't think it's irrelevant to our valuation of Craig to this specific team. It again goes back to how big of a trial you want to give him to get on track, and I think this roster makes it harder to give him a longer trial. But this isn't some random guy with his self-confirming observations. If you read the piece, you see that this is a smart guy looking at a lot of data to get this take. Of course, it could be something he bounces back from. But this isn't a case where the only information we have is that his strikeouts went up, his power went down, and his BABIP went down. We can see exactly why it went down, and decreased bat speed does not seem to me like the kind of thing that players bounce back from all that easily. I'm certainly an expert in the variation in bat speed over a player's career, so maybe I'm wrong. Certainly, there's a chance he bounces back. I just think knowing that information makes me much less optimistic than I'd usually be in such a situation.
|
|
|