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.
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 11, 2014 22:20:19 GMT -5
I really doubt cherrington moves mookie, Castillo or cespedes to third next season Internal candidates include bogaerts, checchini and holt. I think the sox view bogaerts as a short stop and holt as a super utility guy. Checchini needs more at bats at Pawtucket. The sox gave been rumored to like the guy in Seattle and Seattle has been rumored to want cespedes. Another rumor is Oakland would be willing to move Donaldson. Would they want cespedes back? There's no way that the Mariners deal Seager to Boston for one year of Cespedes. I doubt they'd deal him for three years of Cespedes. Why in the world would Oakland deal a guy who's one of the best 3b in the league for a guy who is a free agent next year and not anywhere near as valuable a player? The only way Cespedes is dealt back to the A's is if he is coming with Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 11, 2014 22:25:54 GMT -5
I really doubt cherrington moves mookie, Castillo or cespedes to third next season Internal candidates include bogaerts, checchini and holt. I think the sox view bogaerts as a short stop and holt as a super utility guy. Checchini needs more at bats at Pawtucket. The sox gave been rumored to like the guy in Seattle and Seattle has been rumored to want cespedes. Another rumor is Oakland would be willing to move Donaldson. Would they want cespedes back? There's no way that the Mariners deal Seager to Boston for one year of Cespedes. I doubt they'd deal him for three years of Cespedes. Why in the world would Oakland deal a guy who's one of the best 3b in the league for a guy who is a free agent next year and not anywhere near as valuable a player? The only way Cespedes is dealt back to the A's is if he is coming with Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart. Even if the sox have to throw in some additional pieces, either one of those guys would solve our problem at third for next season.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 11, 2014 22:35:58 GMT -5
There's no way that the Mariners deal Seager to Boston for one year of Cespedes. I doubt they'd deal him for three years of Cespedes. Why in the world would Oakland deal a guy who's one of the best 3b in the league for a guy who is a free agent next year and not anywhere near as valuable a player? The only way Cespedes is dealt back to the A's is if he is coming with Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart. Even if the sox have to throw in some additional pieces, either one of those guys would solve our problem at third for next season. It's not if, it's how much. Donaldson is secured for the next several years. The A's would need to replace him at 3b and whoever the Sox would send wouldn't be as good as Donaldson so the Sox would have to send guys like Betts, Swihart, Bogaerts, etc. I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. And the M's would require similar talent. Sandoval or Headley would cost nothing in talent except probably a draft pick, and to me it's not a given that Cecchini won't have a shot at being the 3b by mid year. He was a pretty decent prospect who finally struggled in AAA, but finished up pretty strongly. I can understand the Sox not wanting to put all their eggs in that basket. Holt and WMB could hold the fort until Cecchini is ready or most likely they simply go after Headley or Sandoval. Either way Cespedes is most likely dealt, if he is dealt, for a LH hitting OF, a LH hitting 3b or a starting pitcher, guys with one year on their contracts. The Sox aren't getting young established players for Cespedes.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Oct 12, 2014 2:15:12 GMT -5
Even if the sox have to throw in some additional pieces, either one of those guys would solve our problem at third for next season. It's not if, it's how much. Donaldson is secured for the next several years. The A's would need to replace him at 3b and whoever the Sox would send wouldn't be as good as Donaldson so the Sox would have to send guys like Betts, Swihart, Bogaerts, etc. I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. And the M's would require similar talent. Sandoval or Headley would cost nothing in talent except probably a draft pick, and to me it's not a given that Cecchini won't have a shot at being the 3b by mid year. He was a pretty decent prospect who finally struggled in AAA, but finished up pretty strongly. I can understand the Sox not wanting to put all their eggs in that basket. Holt and WMB could hold the fort until Cecchini is ready or most likely they simply go after Headley or Sandoval. Either way Cespedes is most likely dealt, if he is dealt, for a LH hitting OF, a LH hitting 3b or a starting pitcher, guys with one year on their contracts. The Sox aren't getting young established players for Cespedes. 7?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 12, 2014 5:54:49 GMT -5
One of the reasons I'm interested in Valbuena is that I think he's a better hitter than his Steamer-projected 100 wRC+. If my earlier analysis is accurate and he's likely to put up a league-average BABIP, that would make him something like a 108-110 wRC+ and a three win player. I agree that if you think he's closer to a two win player, he's probably not worth trading for (by all accounts, the Cubs want real prospect value for him). After looking at Valbuena, I'm pretty much onboard with him as a very viable option, and probably the best one. I think his offensive breakthrough was pretty much for real, but not for the reasons you've proposed. His BABIP was so consistently low, and for all types of batted balls, that it absolutely suggested a guy who simply wasn't swinging hard. Now, look at 2014, where his Z-Contact drops to a career low and his O-Contact is also well below his career mark. That's a sign of swinging harder. The easiest way to make a lot of contact, if you're not a freak like Pedey or Mookie, is to not swing very hard. When you see a BABIP spike accompanied by a drop in Contact %, it's a guy who is swinging much more aggressively and making harder contact as a result. (Remember that SA and K% are positively correlated.) He's also really learned how to hit the changeup in the last two years, and pitchers have noticed, and are throwing it less. It's possible that eliminating that weakness led to the change in swing. Oh, and he has great numbers in Fenway in the expected tiny sample (40 PA, .289 / .300 / .500 versus .143 / .182 / .286 in 22 PA versus the Sox at home). May not mean much, but always better to see than the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 12, 2014 6:42:40 GMT -5
It's not if, it's how much. Donaldson is secured for the next several years. The A's would need to replace him at 3b and whoever the Sox would send wouldn't be as good as Donaldson so the Sox would have to send guys like Betts, Swihart, Bogaerts, etc. I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. And the M's would require similar talent. Sandoval or Headley would cost nothing in talent except probably a draft pick, and to me it's not a given that Cecchini won't have a shot at being the 3b by mid year. He was a pretty decent prospect who finally struggled in AAA, but finished up pretty strongly. I can understand the Sox not wanting to put all their eggs in that basket. Holt and WMB could hold the fort until Cecchini is ready or most likely they simply go after Headley or Sandoval. Either way Cespedes is most likely dealt, if he is dealt, for a LH hitting OF, a LH hitting 3b or a starting pitcher, guys with one year on their contracts. The Sox aren't getting young established players for Cespedes. 7? I know I'm certainly capable of misspeaking, but what did I say that's a problem here? "Several" means more than 2 or 3. It doesn't mean that it's necessarily 7. In Donaldson's case, to be exact, we're talking 4 years until he becomes a free agent. If that's meant to be a nit pick, then I guess I really don't understand the nitpick.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 12, 2014 8:08:13 GMT -5
I see some advanced metrics which indicate that Valbuena is probably a changed hitter but Cechinni was a lock to be a real solid hitter in mlb not long ago, from his 2013 numbers. And he is trending up now, after a couple bad months basically in his entire career. Valbueno has had 4 years of bad months in his career. Statistics can be "damm lies" sometimes right? We are to give up significant prospect value for a soon to be 29 year old guy who is a career .229 hitting 3rd baseman with roughly average defensive value. Who we would only control for 2 years. Last year was his best but even then he hit .249. And look at his previous years in mlb:
2010 = .194 ( 310 ) 2011 = .209 ( 44 PA ) 2012 = .219 ( 303 PA ) 2013 = .218 ( 391 PA ) 2014 - .249 ( 547 PA )
In his best year he hit a total of 16 HR in 547 plate appearances. He wasn't even close to an average level hitter until the last 2 years when he hasn't been that much above average. And he is clearly a left handed pull hitter with basically all his HR power to RF.
As bad as it was last year , even our internal solutions would appear to be a better solution than that. Valbuena is a career 88 wRC+. Even Brock Holt is a career wRC+ of 91. Even Moddlebrooks might be better than the career numbers Valbuena has put up, over a significant sample size of quite a few years now in platoon based use to a degree. I think Cechinni is a better bet than that even next year. And Mookie is almost definitely a better bet than that, if he can roll the ball to 1st with his throws.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Oct 12, 2014 11:49:06 GMT -5
Am I misremembering, or wasn't Castillo a 3B before he moved to CF, and weren't there reportedly a couple of teams considering signing him for 3B?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 12, 2014 13:48:21 GMT -5
Am I misremembering, or wasn't Castillo a 3B before he moved to CF, and weren't there reportedly a couple of teams considering signing him for 3B? As I posted in the outfield thread, Castillo played some infield years ago in Cuba before becoming a gold-glove outfielder. He worked out there for teams and scouts reportedly weren't impressed, and it was clear he was a much better outfielder.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 12, 2014 16:01:57 GMT -5
We are to give up significant prospect value for a soon to be 29 year old guy ... who we would only control for 2 years. The two years of control are good, because what you're really doing is buying Cecchini (whom I like as much as you) another four months to a year to work on his defense and solidify his new approach, while upgrading the position over the version where he's learning that at MLB (and of course you are also protecting yourself against the possibility that Cecchini regresses and WMB continues to stagnate. As someone pointed out, we're just a year from having had multiple CF options, all of whom flamed out). You're trading for 5 to 6 WAR of value, which means -- Theo and Jed's blustering about significant prospect value notwithstanding -- you should be able to get him essentially even up for someone like Brentz, Ramos, Stankiewicz, Mercedes, Travis, etc. What are these bizarre numbers? What does H divided by AB have to do with hitting talent? Let me fix it for you by including walks and power: 2012 = .219 . 237 ( 303 PA ) 2013 = .218 . 260 ( 391 PA ) 2014 - .249 . 294 ( 547 PA ) I see some advanced metrics which indicate that Valbuena is probably a changed hitter ... who is a career .229 ... is a career 88 wRC+. ... the career numbers Valbuena has put up, over a significant sample size of quite a few years now in platoon based use to a degree. If you acknowledge that he is probably a changed hitter, why did you then go on to cite his career numbers again and again during the rest of your evaluation? The thing is, the Sox have hit/fx data which will essentially prove the hypothesis that he's a changed hitter. So they won't be guessing like we are. And if he is changed hitter, then what he did previously is meaningless, like it is for J.D. Martinez or it was for Jose Bautista. BTW, getting Valbuena would not preclude taking a look at Mookie at 3B over the winter / during ST. He might be able to play there some versus LHP, allowing them to get Victorino or Craig's bat into the lineup.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 12, 2014 16:21:20 GMT -5
Would the Cubs just wait until July on Valbuena and give Bryant a half year in the minors. It's not like someone won't need a 3B at the deadline. I think the best stop gap is Murphy.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 12, 2014 16:54:12 GMT -5
Jesus, even if you add Valbuena's walks to his BA he still is hitting .294? I recognize that BA is a vastly simplified stat but no matter how you look at Valbuena's career stats they are just flat out ugly. I think it may be that Valbuena is a changed hitter but it isn't Jose Bautista level changed. And I'm pretty sure he costs more than any of the guys you mentioned ( Brentz, Ramos, Stankiewicz, Mercedes, Travis, ). Jmei indicated Doubront wasn't nearly enough the other day. And the upside is just not there.
I have lived by one axiom. If you are going to start a business, make it a business you can get rich from. Who wants a janitorial business or a landscaping business or something else which will take all your time for little pay. Extended to this situation, if you are going to trade for a 3rd baseman, at least trade for someone who might actually have a chance to be a stud. I'd rather roll the dice a little on a guy who has a big upside, than go the secure, mediocre route.
I defer to jmei and eric's incredible baseball acumen for sure, and their ability and willingness to crunch statistical data much better than I but Valbuena just doesn't fit the profile of what we should be looking for. We should be looking for above average players at every slot.
When Ellsbury had an off the charts year in 2011 was he a changed hitter also? Maybe. But the very next year he regressed toward the mean. And that phenomena happens over and over. Sometimes a guy can just have a good year. We can't count on Valbuena being a changed hitter. His career sample size is large and he has gradually improved but I really don't think he is much better than internal solutions. I'd rather roll the dice with Cechinni who looks like at least he can hit the ball and offer some plate discipline and he looks comfortable and confident in MLB. And has a much better upside IMO. He spent all year in AAA. And his entire life playing baseball with excellent coaching. I say throw him in the fire and see what he can do. Put Middlebrooks in AAA and have Holt and others standing by if we need them. Maybe even Coyle steps up at some point. Build value from the existing player pool in a year we probably are not going to contend in anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 12, 2014 17:23:59 GMT -5
Valbuena is not just some low-ceiling caretaker type. Not only do I think he has a better median projection than Cecchini, but I honestly think he also has more upside, at least for 2015. It's not like Valbuena came out of nowhere-- we're talking about a player who has a career .304/.385/.476 AAA line here (in 1021 PAs), and as I mentioned above, his peripherals have been excellent over the last few years. He was a three win player last year even though his defensive stats were negative at 3B for the first time in his career. If he hits just as well as he did this year while returning to his career +10 UZR/+5 DRS, he's a four win player and a borderline All-Star.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 12, 2014 20:51:04 GMT -5
I really doubt cherrington moves mookie, Castillo or cespedes to third next season Internal candidates include bogaerts, checchini and holt. I think the sox view bogaerts as a short stop and holt as a super utility guy. Checchini needs more at bats at Pawtucket. The sox gave been rumored to like the guy in Seattle and Seattle has been rumored to want cespedes. Another rumor is Oakland would be willing to move Donaldson. Would they want cespedes back? Who wouldn't like Kyle Seager? He's a 5 WAR, above average left-handed hitter with plus defense who won't reach free agency until 2018. You're going to need to give them substantially more than one year of a powerful left fielder. Similar to the Donaldson trade proposals, you'll be moving a couple highly valuable assets, as they aren't the type of packages that can be built around Cespedes. Agree that none of Betts, Castillo, and YC will be going to third base. I would have loved to have seen Mookie at least play some harmless games there in September (preferably at SS, actually), but at this point, it's basically out of the question. The team cannot possibly pencil in Holt as the starter, and I'd be truly shocked if the team decided to move Bogaerts to the hot corner again anytime before 2016. The struggle is figuring out how to balance the short term plug-in against the desire to immediate grab a solid option in Headley or Sandoval. If you sign those guys to $60 million or more deals, you clearly improve the 2015 but run the risk of running out a .700 OPS hitter (especially Headley) or declining defender (mostly Sandoval, although he's surprisingly solid right now) when there's a chance Cecchini could step forward as a servicable defender with a superior bat (to Headley at least), or Marrero could emerge as the starting SS in two years with Bogey's bat developing and shifting to third. There's just a very real chance that being tied up with Headley or Panda in 2017 and 2018 will be a detriment to the team. That said, if Headley can be snagged for only three seasons -- which would be rather difficult -- I'd go for that. Bogey's mediocre-to-bad defense makes me want to prioritize a plus glove on the left side. Valbuena is not just some low-ceiling caretaker type. Not only do I think he has a better median projection than Cecchini, but I honestly think he also has more upside, at least for 2015. It's not like Valbuena came out of nowhere-- we're talking about a player who has a career .304/.385/.476 AAA line here (in 1021 PAs), and as I mentioned above, his peripherals have been excellent over the last few years. He was a three win player last year even though his defensive stats were negative at 3B for the first time in his career. If he hits just as well as he did this year while returning to his career +10 UZR/+5 DRS, he's a four win player and a borderline All-Star. This is growing on me, under the assumption that he can be landed for a rather reasonable package and that we'd have a bench option to play over him against lefties. Cheap, being squeezed out of Chicago's future, some positional flexibility, and a very underrated hitter against right handers.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 12, 2014 21:42:38 GMT -5
Well if all this is true about Valbuena, then the Cubs with their analytical abilities and in person evaluation have to see it, too. As have, likely a few to several other GMs. Given that, why would Theo & Jed give him up for the likes of Stankiewicz, Mercedes or (insert sub-top 15 organizations prospect here)?
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 12, 2014 23:38:23 GMT -5
Well if all this is true about Valbuena, then the Cubs with their analytical abilities and in person evaluation have to see it, too. As have, likely a few to several other GMs. Given that, why would Theo & Jed give him up for the likes of Stankiewicz, Mercedes or (insert sub-top 15 organizations prospect here)? People like Stanky, Mercedes, Marrero and even Coyle really have little to no trade value on their own as much as we want to think it's not true. Each of those players are of the throw in, or last guy in a 3-4 player prospect type deal. Boston goes out and attempts to get a Seagar, or Donaldson type with prospects? I headlines with either Betts, or Swihart and then can probably count on Johnson/Barnes, then throw in a couple of the lower tiered characters mentioned above that as much as we ourselves have fallen in love with around here.. Reality around the league as to how much talent they have is much lower.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 13, 2014 2:31:55 GMT -5
Jesus, even if you add Valbuena's walks to his BA he still is hitting .294? It's EqA / TAv. It's essentially overall offense a la wRC+ (but more accurate), scaled to be the same as BA. .260 would be average for a 3B. He was the 39th best offensive player out of 147 qualifying for the batting title. For point of comparison, Anthony Rendon and Josh Donaldson were .302. Valbuena was 7th out of 29 MLB 3B with 400 or more PA; the next three guys were Matt Carpenter, Pablo Sandoval, and Evan Longoria.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 13, 2014 9:52:32 GMT -5
Curious if anyone thinks Hanley could be in line for a one year pillow contract or he will sign a 4+ year deal. He's hit RHP pretty good the last few years and if only costs us a 2nd/Oakland pick and it gives us another year to evaluate Cechini/Xander and probably nets us a pick the next June I'd be for a pillow deal.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 13, 2014 10:00:16 GMT -5
Curious if anyone thinks Hanley could be in line for a one year pillow contract or he will sign a 4+ year deal. He's hit RHP pretty good the last few years and if only costs us a 2nd/Oakland pick and it gives us another year to evaluate Cechini/Xander and probably nets us a pick the next June I'd be for a pillow deal. No way he takes a short-term deal. The guy is turning 31 in two months, barely clinging to a premium position he already doesn't play well at all, and is extremely fragile. Despite the QO he'll surely decline (how big a pillow contract would he get anyway? No team is going to forfeit their pick and give Hanley 1 year at $20 million), this will his last chance to get a big time deal ($75+ mil) that some team will foolishly offer him.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 13, 2014 10:20:14 GMT -5
I can't see Seager being traded, Hanley taking a 1 year deal, or Red Sox going into 2015 with Valbuena as their starting 3B. Not trying to knock Valbuena, I think he would be a real value pickup, I just don't see him penciled in as the starter unless Red Sox really overspend on the rest of their openings. I'm thinking more of how they could sell it to the fans with the black hole that 3B has been recently.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 13, 2014 10:38:59 GMT -5
Jesus, even if you add Valbuena's walks to his BA he still is hitting .294? It's EqA / TAv. It's essentially overall offense a la wRC+ (but more accurate), scaled to be the same as BA. .260 would be average for a 3B. He was the 39th best offensive player out of 147 qualifying for the batting title. For point of comparison, Anthony Rendon and Josh Donaldson were .302. Valbuena was 7th out of 29 MLB 3B with 400 or more PA; the next three guys were Matt Carpenter, Pablo Sandoval, and Evan Longoria. So the question remains why would the Cubs decided to trade him for less than at least 2 top 5 org prospects - if not more?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,828
|
Post by nomar on Oct 13, 2014 10:41:46 GMT -5
If I signed hanley I would put him in LF or RF if he could handle it. He's got the bat for them and he'd get hurt too often at 3B not town tino his defense wasn't great there.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 13, 2014 10:47:27 GMT -5
If I signed hanley I would put him in LF or RF if he could handle it. He's got the bat for them and he'd get hurt too often at 3B not town tino his defense wasn't great there. You think he would actually go for that? Not a chance
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 13, 2014 10:54:10 GMT -5
If I signed hanley I would put him in LF or RF if he could handle it. He's got the bat for them and he'd get hurt too often at 3B not town tino his defense wasn't great there. You think he would actually go for that? Not a chance Not to mention why would the team do that, either? His offense could easily grade out close to average for a corner outfielder, and his defense could potentially [continue to] be horrendous. Castillo, Betts, and YC or Nava/RHH all could very well out-WAR Hanley playing the outfield.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,828
|
Post by nomar on Oct 13, 2014 10:59:10 GMT -5
You think he would actually go for that? Not a chance Not to mention why would the team do that, either? His offense could easily great out close to average for a corner outfielder, and his defense could potentially [continue to] be horrendous. Castillo, Betts, and YC or Nava/RHH all could very well out-WAR Hanley playing the outfield. Well it was hypothetical. I doubt he would want that and I wasn't saying if I signed him to the Red Sox, I meant to any hypothetical team with a hole on the OF. I meant in general he'd stay much healthier in LF and if his defense was around average his bat right now would make him about a 3.5 win player in LF over a full season. If you give that guy ~$85M and put him at 3B you'll regret it. His defense will be bad and he'll struggle to stay off the DL. His ceiling at 3B is higher but the risk outweighs it IMO. The fact that he plays SS now will overvalue him in free agency. I would hate if my team signed him.
|
|
|