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.
#1, #2, #3, #4, #5 pitchers for non-scouts
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 15, 2014 13:33:29 GMT -5
These definitions are useless and cause confusion. Can we stop using them? I disagree, I think they're very useful as shorthand and I actually like that they don't imply too much precision. In a sense it's much more honest to lump all number four starters together rather than having these arguments about this starter is better than that one because his Steamer projection is 1.8 WAR and the other guy is only 1.2.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 15, 2014 14:16:31 GMT -5
Too many people define ace as best pitcher on the team or best pitcher available. No freakin aces that you could possibly count on being an ace for more than a year or two are/were available. The whining and crying about needing aces is unbearable. At what cost?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 15, 2014 14:27:28 GMT -5
These definitions are useless and cause confusion. Can we stop using them? I disagree, I think they're very useful as shorthand and I actually like that they don't imply too much precision. In a sense it's much more honest to lump all number four starters together rather than having these arguments about this starter is better than that one because his Steamer projection is 1.8 WAR and the other guy is only 1.2. I prepared a simple chart, which I'll post at some point, that shows the variability (in some cases extreme - I'm looking at you Clay Buchholz) - for the year-to-year evaluation using quantities such as ERA+, FIP, or WAR. With few exceptions, such as Kershaw and Porcello it turns out, pitcher effectiveness and value can vary wildly from year to year. That variability has also been a problem for someone as well thought of as Jon Lester, something we're familiar with. It's easy to see why Eric feels so strongly that good pitch-framing can greatly affect the perceived versus the actual worth of a pitcher. Of course there's BABIP as a factor also. Regardless, buying into decent arms that may be greatly under-valued seems like a good strategy, a much better one that putting the bulk of your investment into one high-priced performer. There's been a bit of stuff thrown around about how it's not our money so who cares? There's a reason why the Shaughnessy's of the world, who spout that sort of thing, are kept away from the business unit by security guards. The Sox will most likely be over the cap this year. That will start costing them money that would be better spent on the farm system. They can reset that through judicious payroll management for the two years beyond that. It speaks clearly to the wisdom of a 7-year contract for the over-30 set, versus shorter money for a Hanley Ramirez or for a 28-year old Sandoval. There's little equivalence to the salary for those two player categories. You'll still be paying $25 million to a 37 year-old long after the bats have moved on. The team is giving itself a chance to get the next crop, guys such as Devers, into the lineup without hauling dead weight around in the form of bloated salaries for non-performers. Buy low sell high. As I've said before, the latter is the really tough one. Two months of Lester got turned into one year of Porcello, with a chance for an extension, and/or a QO/draft choice. I think the team should make that deal any time they can.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 15, 2014 14:36:21 GMT -5
I agree with everything Norm said, although we would of gotten a draft pick if we kept Lester and let him walk.
Trade of Lester, and a max bid of 135M all makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by kmann on Dec 15, 2014 14:46:30 GMT -5
Too many people define ace as best pitcher on the team or best pitcher available. No freakin aces that you could possibly count on being an ace for more than a year or two are/were available. The whining and crying about needing aces is unbearable. At what cost? I have actually liked the moves by the FO thus far, but put me in the camp as one who feels we need an ace (even though I have not cried about it because I am convinced we will get one). At what cost? If the Phillies eat some of Hamels salary (like the Dodgers did with Kemp), I will gladly part with a Swihart as the main piece along with several mid-tier prospects and/or a Kelly if they want him. If the Phillies do not want to eat salary (most likely scenario), I think a quantity rather than quality of prospects could get it done (i.e. just say five mid-tier guys including several who are currently blocked)... And while Shields arguably might not be considered an ace (he falls a bit short of that in my book), I would consider an overpay of 4/$90 for him (because forget about getting him for 3/$60)..... The Sox entered this offseason with a surplus of OF's and that has not changed (added Hanley, traded Cespedes) so we still have an opportunity to add an ace through a combination of prospect depth, financial flexibility and OF excess. I am shocked at the number of people who think the Sox are close to being done. I believe there is at least one more BIG move to come.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 15, 2014 15:03:44 GMT -5
Too many people define ace as best pitcher on the team or best pitcher available. No freakin aces that you could possibly count on being an ace for more than a year or two are/were available. The whining and crying about needing aces is unbearable. At what cost? I have actually liked the moves by the FO thus far, but put me in the camp as one who feels we need an ace (even though I have not cried about it because I am convinced we will get one). At what cost? If the Phillies eat some of Hamels salary (like the Dodgers did with Kemp), I will gladly part with a Swihart as the main piece along with several mid-tier prospects and/or a Kelly if they want him. If the Phillies do not want to eat salary (most likely scenario), I think a quantity rather than quality of prospects could get it done (i.e. just say five mid-tier guys including several who are currently blocked)... And while Shields arguably might not be considered an ace (he falls a bit short of that in my book), I would consider an overpay of 4/$90 for him (because forget about getting him for 3/$60)..... The Sox entered this offseason with a surplus of OF's and that has not changed (added Hanley, traded Cespedes) so we still have an opportunity to add an ace through a combination of prospect depth, financial flexibility and OF excess. I am shocked at the number of people who think the Sox are close to being done. I believe there is at least one more BIG move to come. How long are you confident that 31 year olds remain aces? Hamels is borderline anyway.
|
|
|
Post by kmann on Dec 15, 2014 15:37:48 GMT -5
I believe Hamels can be an ace for 2-3 years and be a legit #3 for the remainder of his contract. Every baseball decision assumes risk, whether you act or you don't. How confident are you that our prospects (excluding Betts and Bogey since I would not trade them) will turn into valuable major league assets? I followed our current crop of pitchers for several years and have read many posts that projected 2 or 3 of them to be in our rotation by now. Generally, they have been a disappointment. And how confident are you in Masterson? The fact the Sox were the highest bidder at $9.5M+ suggests to me he is a gamble. And Clay? In the end, I will assume the risk on trading for Hamels because the risk of relying on Clay/Masterson/Kelly/Miley is far greater.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 15, 2014 15:55:00 GMT -5
Public Service Announcement.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 15, 2014 16:55:08 GMT -5
Those Sickels definitions are what I've always looked to as well. Just making sure, but do you guys mean his comments? Because he's just commenting on the BA guidelines here. By the way folks, let's keep this thread to the general discussion of the terminology. There are already like three threads talking about the Sox rotation.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 15, 2014 19:56:07 GMT -5
I have actually liked the moves by the FO thus far, but put me in the camp as one who feels we need an ace (even though I have not cried about it because I am convinced we will get one). At what cost? If the Phillies eat some of Hamels salary (like the Dodgers did with Kemp), I will gladly part with a Swihart as the main piece along with several mid-tier prospects and/or a Kelly if they want him. If the Phillies do not want to eat salary (most likely scenario), I think a quantity rather than quality of prospects could get it done (i.e. just say five mid-tier guys including several who are currently blocked)... And while Shields arguably might not be considered an ace (he falls a bit short of that in my book), I would consider an overpay of 4/$90 for him (because forget about getting him for 3/$60)..... The Sox entered this offseason with a surplus of OF's and that has not changed (added Hanley, traded Cespedes) so we still have an opportunity to add an ace through a combination of prospect depth, financial flexibility and OF excess. I am shocked at the number of people who think the Sox are close to being done. I believe there is at least one more BIG move to come. How long are you confident that 31 year olds remain aces? Hamels is borderline anyway. This whole post talks about how to define an ace/#1 starter and by all measures Hamels is an Ace. Please explain how you define an ACE and what pitchers you think are ACES. I would love to know that. Hamels is a pitcher with plus stuff, great command and has results year in and year out. For me Shields is a bordline ACE, A guy I think is a very good number 2 . Hamels is better then Shields.
|
|
|