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 adiospaydro2005 on Oct 30, 2014 18:55:19 GMT -5
Signing Sandoval would just be throwing money on a soon to be DH who has limited power . Some one like Headley would be a much better option at 3B in terms of much less money and years.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 30, 2014 19:37:05 GMT -5
I think Headly gets 4 years and more than $18M a year. I think y'all are underestimating the insanity and inflation that this market will produce. Remember last year how the initial buys surprised many of us? This will be more so.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 30, 2014 19:46:01 GMT -5
I've always kicked myself James for never attending a Dodgers game. Friend of mine when was stationed at San Diego even had a car at the time, even was *AT* LA one time the day of a home game and didn't go. It's one of those foolish mistakes made when was a kid.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 30, 2014 20:30:19 GMT -5
Also with Panda, if he didn't go for a creative option on a weight clause then I would offer him 6 years with an opt out after 3. He'd only be 31 and if he's doing well he'll exercise. Sox will have Devers or some other candidate ready by then. Either way, unless he completely face plants his decline shouldn't come until after ages 30/31, should be gradual and he could part-time DH in years 3-6 to minimize. ...or he doesn't do well (either due to injury or terrifying reliance on making contact on pitches outside the zone, which, as a reminder, declines precipitously around age 28) and the Red Sox are stuck for three years with a bad player on a $20m-a-year deal.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 30, 2014 22:18:34 GMT -5
Also I'm probably crazy but I think Lowrie would be a decent option. I would take Lowrie on 2 years but I think he'll get 3 or more. That seems to be the consensus and I wouldn't target him if that's the case. But he's coming off a pretty bad year and if the market for him doesn't develop as expected he could be an interesting candidate for some sort of pillow contract/opt out situation. Wouldn't hurt to have another guy who can play shortstop on the roster, either.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 30, 2014 22:52:35 GMT -5
In terms of baseball towns, it absolutely makes sense. Have you been to a game out there? I haven't been to San Fran, but I've been to a Dodgers game - it doesn't get full until around the third inning and people start leaving in the seventh. Even with a marquee team in a huge market like the Dodgers - think about, for example, if Clayton Kershaw played for the Yankees, how much bigger a deal he'd be. It's just a much different culture out there in terms of sports. It's not necessarily a matter of how large the city is. SF is a surprisingly great sports town, and they love their Gigantes. Not at all like L.A. I'm not sure anything compares to Boston, but it's in the upper tier of baseball cities, in my humble opinion. OK, will defer to you guys on the baseball city thing.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 31, 2014 3:14:37 GMT -5
Also with Panda, if he didn't go for a creative option on a weight clause then I would offer him 6 years with an opt out after 3. He'd only be 31 and if he's doing well he'll exercise. Sox will have Devers or some other candidate ready by then. Either way, unless he completely face plants his decline shouldn't come until after ages 30/31, should be gradual and he could part-time DH in years 3-6 to minimize. ...or he doesn't do well (either due to injury or terrifying reliance on making contact on pitches outside the zone, which, as a reminder, declines precipitously around age 28) and the Red Sox are stuck for three years with a bad player on a $20m-a-year deal. I'm with you 100%, but what would be convincing for a lot of folks would be to hunt down the people who comprise that aging curve, and even more so, to find a set of same-age comps who had been getting the same results in terms of wRC+ but without swinging at pitches thrown in other universes. IOW, a Bill James-style study: here's a set of Pablo-ish players and here's a set of non-Pablos, and here's what happened to each going forward. I'd do it myself if I weren't Way Behind on a bunch of things.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 31, 2014 6:14:39 GMT -5
I would take Lowrie on 2 years but I think he'll get 3 or more. That seems to be the consensus and I wouldn't target him if that's the case. But he's coming off a pretty bad year and if the market for him doesn't develop as expected he could be an interesting candidate for some sort of pillow contract/opt out situation. Wouldn't hurt to have another guy who can play shortstop on the roster, either. My issue has always been that, considering how weak the 2B market is (Mark Ellis and Kelly Johnson are the best candidates) and the SS market has become (with Hardy signing, Drew flopping, and Cabrera and Hanley being better suited at other positions), it seems likely that a SS- or 2B-needy team will be willing to pay more for Lowrie than the Red Sox will.
|
|
jimed14
Veteran
Posts: 25,816
Member is Online
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2014 6:48:21 GMT -5
In terms of baseball towns, it absolutely makes sense. Have you been to a game out there? I haven't been to San Fran, but I've been to a Dodgers game - it doesn't get full until around the third inning and people start leaving in the seventh. Even with a marquee team in a huge market like the Dodgers - think about, for example, if Clayton Kershaw played for the Yankees, how much bigger a deal he'd be. It's just a much different culture out there in terms of sports. It's not necessarily a matter of how large the city is. You should go tell a bunch of Giants fans that they're the same as Dodgers fans. I think they will react very graciously to that. Ditto for Dodgers fans. The ones not near the field anyway.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 31, 2014 8:57:56 GMT -5
I don't know, if we're looking at 3-4 years of Headly or 2-3 years of Lowrie than I would feel more comfortable just giving Middlebrooks one last look before giving Cecchini the opportunity to prove himself. I might even just give the job to Cecchini and have Middlebrooks play "catch-up" in AAA. Offense shouldn't be that big of a concern, but if you can get a bat like Sandoval, great. If not, Cecchini strikes me as a 3B retread with the upside of being better than the other two at a minimal cost.
Edit: Yes, I understand defense is also a real thing and yes I understand Headly is really great at it. I'm very skeptical about his declining offense and he didn't seem to do much at Yankee stadium.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 31, 2014 9:07:55 GMT -5
I am still a Middlebrooks fan and wouldn't mind that as a back-up plan if other options fail or look too cost-exclusive, with Cecchini being the mid-season replacement if Middlebrooks augers in. That said, if they could find some high OBP offense at another position of need, Lowrie at 3yrs $30M is not a bad deal as he can play at least 4 positions: www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/10/free-agent-profile-jed-lowrie.html
|
|
jimed14
Veteran
Posts: 25,816
Member is Online
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2014 9:14:31 GMT -5
I don't know, if we're looking at 3-4 years of Headly or 2-3 years of Lowrie than I would feel more comfortable just giving Middlebrooks one last look before giving Cecchini the opportunity to prove himself. I might even just give the job to Cecchini and have Middlebrooks play "catch-up" in AAA. Offense shouldn't be that big of a concern, but if you can get a bat like Sandoval, great. If not, Cecchini strikes me as a 3B retread with the upside of being better than the other two at a minimal cost. Edit: Yes, I understand defense is also a real thing and yes I understand Headly is really great at it. I'm very skeptical about his declining offense and he didn't seem to do much at Yankee stadium. Headley hit better as a Yankee than Sandoval did as a Giant. 121 vs 111 wRC+.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 31, 2014 9:32:20 GMT -5
I don't know, if we're looking at 3-4 years of Headly or 2-3 years of Lowrie than I would feel more comfortable just giving Middlebrooks one last look before giving Cecchini the opportunity to prove himself. I might even just give the job to Cecchini and have Middlebrooks play "catch-up" in AAA. Offense shouldn't be that big of a concern, but if you can get a bat like Sandoval, great. If not, Cecchini strikes me as a 3B retread with the upside of being better than the other two at a minimal cost. Edit: Yes, I understand defense is also a real thing and yes I understand Headly is really great at it. I'm very skeptical about his declining offense and he didn't seem to do much at Yankee stadium. Headley hit better as a Yankee than Sandoval did as a Giant. 121 vs 111 wRC+. Over a shorter-span. I'll admit ignorance to SF and whether or not it's a hitters/pitchers/neutral park, but Yankee stadium is the place to revive your career as a hitter. I'll also admit ignorance in that I'm not completely familiarized with wRC+ and if it's park adjusted.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 31, 2014 10:01:44 GMT -5
WRC+ is park adjusted.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 31, 2014 10:05:49 GMT -5
wRC+ is league- and park-adjusted. The park adjustments are uniform, though, so you could make an arguement that a particular player's profile (e.g., an opposite-field-prone lefty hitter at Fenway, a fly ball pitcher at Petco, etc.) is better suited to a particular home ballpark than the park adjustments are giving him credit for. Both Headley and Sandoval are switch-hitters, though, so that shouldn't really apply in this case.
Sandoval is probably the better hitter going forward, but it's not by much (Steamer-projected wRC+ has Sandoval at 120 and Headley at 113), but once you include defense and baserunning, Headley is projected to be the better overall player (Steamer-projected fWAR per 600 PAs has Headley at 3.9 and Sandoval at 3.5). Meanwhile, Sandoval is almost certainly going to require a significantly larger contract and cost a QO. Some of that is legitimately due to Sandoval being two years younger, but I still think Headley is going to be the much better pickup.
|
|
jimed14
Veteran
Posts: 25,816
Member is Online
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2014 12:23:27 GMT -5
wRC+ is league- and park-adjusted. The park adjustments are uniform, though, so you could make an arguement that a particular player's profile (e.g., an opposite-field-prone lefty hitter at Fenway, a fly ball pitcher at Petco, etc.) is better suited to a particular home ballpark than the park adjustments are giving him credit for. Both Headley and Sandoval are switch-hitters, though, so that shouldn't really apply in this case. Sandoval is probably the better hitter going forward, but it's not by much (Steamer-projected wRC+ has Sandoval at 120 and Headley at 113), but once you include defense and baserunning, Headley is projected to be the better overall player (Steamer-projected fWAR per 600 PAs has Headley at 3.9 and Sandoval at 3.5). Meanwhile, Sandoval is almost certainly going to require a significantly larger contract and cost a QO. Some of that is legitimately due to Sandoval being two years younger, but I still think Headley is going to be the much better pickup. I don't even think it's close. I think I'd rather suffer through a WMB/Holt platoon over Sandoval.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 31, 2014 12:30:54 GMT -5
wRC+ is league- and park-adjusted. The park adjustments are uniform, though, so you could make an arguement that a particular player's profile (e.g., an opposite-field-prone lefty hitter at Fenway, a fly ball pitcher at Petco, etc.) is better suited to a particular home ballpark than the park adjustments are giving him credit for. Both Headley and Sandoval are switch-hitters, though, so that shouldn't really apply in this case. Sandoval is probably the better hitter going forward, but it's not by much (Steamer-projected wRC+ has Sandoval at 120 and Headley at 113), but once you include defense and baserunning, Headley is projected to be the better overall player (Steamer-projected fWAR per 600 PAs has Headley at 3.9 and Sandoval at 3.5). Meanwhile, Sandoval is almost certainly going to require a significantly larger contract and cost a QO. Some of that is legitimately due to Sandoval being two years younger, but I still think Headley is going to be the much better pickup. The more I look at it, the more Sandoval seems like the worst possible use of resources this offseason.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 31, 2014 15:57:53 GMT -5
The more I look at it, the more Sandoval seems like the worst possible use of resources this offseason. Ordinarily, I put no stock in media opinions, but the fact that Dan Shaughnessy has been advocating for this signing with a schoolboy's enthusiasm should give even the biggest Panda fan pause. Some folks here may be too young to remember his similarly passionate "Tom Gordon as closer is a terrible idea" column. He also reportedly hated the Ortiz signing. (He was also adamant that we should start Pedro on 3 days rest and then Pete Schourek on 5 days, rather than both on regular rest, when we needed to beat the Indians twice in the '98 playoffs, because, of course, we needed to win game 4 in order to get to game 5. But that's an entirely different type of stupid.)
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 31, 2014 16:46:32 GMT -5
I understand where your coming from, Eric.
In general, the opinion of the media should be taken with a little salt - and a lot of tequila if that's your preference. There's always a bit of this during the off season. The idea is to get the eyeballs peeled and the ears perked up. Doesn't even have to be consistent.
Here's just one example from Pete Abraham, lifted from his twitter-verse posts, over the last season and a half:
—March 25, 2013
—March 26, 2013
-March 29, 2013
—March 31, 2013 (after JBJ makes opening day roster)
--June 28, 2014
--August 20, 2014
--August 22
Notice that you don't have to take any responsibility for blowing hot air through the megaphone in this new realm. You just do a 180 and move right along. The "hype to the skies" was actually fed right from Abraham's very own keyboard, though you'd be hard pressed to figure that out from his 2014 posts.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Oct 31, 2014 17:30:22 GMT -5
I am still a Middlebrooks fan and wouldn't mind that as a back-up plan if other options fail or look too cost-exclusive, with Cecchini being the mid-season replacement if Middlebrooks augers in. That said, if they could find some high OBP offense at another position of need, Lowrie at 3yrs $30M is not a bad deal as he can play at least 4 positions: www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/10/free-agent-profile-jed-lowrie.htmlFor those of the opinion that Cecchini (3B), WMB (3B), or Marrero (SS, moving X to 3B) will be a first division starter in the near term, Lowrie seems like the answer. Bridges the gap and allows one of the 3 scenarios to play out in ST or shortly thereafter. When/if it does happen, you have a perfect utility player and can save the $$$ for the rotation. Of course, maybe Holt is that player that helps you hedge on the kids a bit longer..... Interesting winter....
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 31, 2014 20:22:32 GMT -5
CHB is very consistent, though. I remember him writing a column before the Pats played the Houston Texans in the first round two seasons ago (January 2013) and saying it was a waste of time to even play the game because the Pats were clearly going to win. Just let the Pats skip the first round and move onto the second, CHP said.
Then when the RS took a 2-0 lead over TB in the 2013 ALDS he wrote a column saying the RS shouldn't have to bother going to TB because the series was over. Why waste everybody's time?
Can't get more consistent than that! He wrote the same column twice. What a lazy dufus.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 31, 2014 20:52:32 GMT -5
wRC+ is league- and park-adjusted. The park adjustments are uniform, though, so you could make an arguement that a particular player's profile (e.g., an opposite-field-prone lefty hitter at Fenway, a fly ball pitcher at Petco, etc.) is better suited to a particular home ballpark than the park adjustments are giving him credit for. Both Headley and Sandoval are switch-hitters, though, so that shouldn't really apply in this case. Sandoval is probably the better hitter going forward, but it's not by much (Steamer-projected wRC+ has Sandoval at 120 and Headley at 113), but once you include defense and baserunning, Headley is projected to be the better overall player (Steamer-projected fWAR per 600 PAs has Headley at 3.9 and Sandoval at 3.5). Meanwhile, Sandoval is almost certainly going to require a significantly larger contract and cost a QO. Some of that is legitimately due to Sandoval being two years younger, but I still think Headley is going to be the much better pickup. The more I look at it, the more Sandoval seems like the worst possible use of resources this offseason. I agree. Can not see us signing either headley or sandavol.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 1, 2014 7:07:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2014 8:39:44 GMT -5
As the internet's lone defender of the Angels in the Freese-for-Bourjos deal, I'm on board.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 1, 2014 8:46:01 GMT -5
As the internet's lone defender of the Angels in the Freese-for-Bourjos deal, I'm on board. If price is only one of the Pawsox SP (Ranaudo, Webster, or Workman) plus another lower tiered prospect. Otherwise if the Sox are going to go outside the organization to get a 3b? I'd just as soon sign Lowrie if he's not given a QO.
|
|
|