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.
2015 Official Spring Training thread
|
Post by jmei on Mar 31, 2015 7:58:52 GMT -5
And my argument is that the situation is different because of player quality. This is basically the same argument that people who were fine with not playing Nava in favor of Sizemore were making. It turned out not to be true. We'll see. I'm on record. The argument that one player might be as good or better than the other? Yeah, that argument gets made a lot.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 31, 2015 8:06:24 GMT -5
This is basically the same argument that people who were fine with not playing Nava in favor of Sizemore were making. It turned out not to be true. We'll see. I'm on record. The argument that one player might be as good or better than the other? Yeah, that argument gets made a lot. This is really that hard to follow? The difference between this argument and every other argument you're talking about, is in this one, the better player is stuffed in AAA waiting for the inferior player to get hurt or suck for 50 games because there are too many players. I'm not sure why you're just piling on to try to make me look stupid. The comparison is easily valid if they do what many people seem to be fine with - putting Castillo in AAA while we wait for Victorino to "re-establish trade value" that is never going to happen, and likely losing WAR (I believe significant, but most agree Castillo is likely to be better than Victorino) while we wait in limbo.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 31, 2015 8:12:39 GMT -5
Or the same argument for keeping Mike Lowell and trading Andy Marte.
Or for getting Jake Peavy in the rotation over Allen Webster.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 31, 2015 8:39:09 GMT -5
The argument that one player might be as good or better than the other? Yeah, that argument gets made a lot. This is really that hard to follow? The difference between this argument and every other argument you're talking about, is in this one, the better player is stuffed in AAA waiting for the inferior player to get hurt or suck for 50 games because there are too many players. I'm not sure why you're just piling on to try to make me look stupid. The comparison is easily valid if they do what many people seem to be fine with - putting Castillo in AAA while we wait for Victorino to "re-establish trade value" that is never going to happen, and likely losing WAR (I believe significant, but most agree Castillo is likely to be better than Victorino) while we wait in limbo. You're misstating the argument for starting Victorino. It is not that you should start the veteran that you think is the worse player just so you can rebuild his trade value. The argument is that you think the veteran is as good or better than the young player, and so you should just start the better player. This has been pointed out over and over again. Now, it's reasonable to disagree and think that Castillo is the significantly better player and the Red Sox should be playing him ahead of Victorino. But that's a difference in player evaluation, not an indictment of any particular strategy. By the way, they didn't keep Sizemore in the majors last year to "re-establish trade value"-- they kept him because they thought he was the better player. Sizemore looked great in Spring Training and had a solid start of the season, while Nava started the year sub-Mendoza-level. That turned out to be wrong, but again, it's a mistake of player evaluation, not one of strategy.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 31, 2015 9:08:17 GMT -5
I see two related valid arguments for starting Victorino in Boston and starting Castillo in AAA:
1) You really don't know which one is better right now. Victorino's health and the lack of information on Castillo make it impossible to know for sure, so the best course forward is to play them both in the only way you can (as long as Victorino shows that he's healthy enough to play in the first place) until you can gather more information. 2) The difference in performance isn't likely to be great enough to matter, so the long-term health of the franchise is better served if you play Victorino until you can clear up the log jam. Yes, this includes showcasing him for a trade (which I think is a totally valid factor to consider but not the sole reason to do anything).
The argument against is basically that Castillo is going to be the rightfielder long-term, we all know this, he's better than Victorino right now, so any delaying the inevitable is just sacrificing the present for some nebulous future benefit. Just take what you can get now and move onto a glorious Castillo-led future.
The difference in all of those is just how much better you think Castillo is than Victorino right now. Personally, I don't know how you can know for sure, but I tend to lean towards "enough."
Of course none of that is related to Sizemore ... the lesson from Sizemore was already put into action when the Red Sox signed Castillo, Ramirez, converted Mookie to center, etc, etc. That lesson was fairly simple: have enough good outfielders.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Mar 31, 2015 9:25:04 GMT -5
I am all for maximizing player assets, planning for the entire season, and enduring rough patches in order to see good play emerge from good players, but, in this case, it seems foolish. The argument for keeping Shane as the starter assumes that he is healthy enough to be be effective, and that is certainly suspect. He has had serious physical problems for a number of years. His big spring accomplishment was to play three games in a row and there have been numerous reports that he has not scouted well. Even Farrell, ever loyal to his veterans, has been hedging his bets. This team needs to do well out of the gate. They need to quite the naysayers, they need to give the rotation time to settle in. They need to give veteran X and young player Y (take your pick) time to work through early season struggles while the team is winning, not losing. I suspect that any of the other outfielders will contribute more to early season winning than Shane.
This is not about comparing healthy, 2013, Victorino with rookie, rusty, unknown Castillo. It is about comparing broken down, physically limited, media tone-deaf, grumpy, and seemingly entitled Victorino with rookie, rusty, unknown Castillo. Even that comparison is probably too limiting, after all, Nava and Craig are also in the picture and showing at least health. I simply don't see Victorino being worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 31, 2015 9:35:36 GMT -5
We'll see. I'm on record. I'd put Craig in AAA, Rusney in RF fulltime and Victorino as the 4th OF, absent of trades. I agree with this, FWIW, and yes, I suppose it is because I'm evaluating Castillo highly. I do think Victorino can be a valuable contributor, I just think the way to maximize his value is to use him part-time and mainly against lefties. An admittedly small detail that will grate on my nerves if they send Castillo to AAA is the pinch-running situation. Victorino makes a much better pinch runner than Nava or Craig. I suppose you could use Brock Holt, but I half expect him to be starting more often than not. Presumably I am still traumatized by memories of Johnny Gomes pinch running.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Mar 31, 2015 9:47:25 GMT -5
You (=JimEd) mean 5th OF, since Nava would do most of the spelling in RF and LF (and CF via a Castillo move).
The bullpen decision that interests me the most is between Barnes and Workman. The decision is really, do you need Barnes in the 'pen, or do you need him as your 6th starter. Workman has been much better recently though, so it's not as big a drop-off as you'd have expected. I'd like to see Barnes there (and in a meaningful role) until Kelly comes off the DL, then go down and get stretched out again. He will learn the most in AAA if he's in a starting role.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Mar 31, 2015 9:58:20 GMT -5
And my argument is that the situation is different because of player quality. This is basically the same argument that people who were fine with not playing Nava in favor of Sizemore were making. It turned out not to be true. We'll see. I'm on record. I'd put Craig in AAA, Rusney in RF fulltime and Victorino as the 4th OF, absent of trades. All but assured Castillo will start in AAA. Also probable that he will be the everyday CF/RF (but that a different argument) sometime as the season goes along. Everyone of Farrell's lineups that were the A type had Vic in RF and batting 7. That is the way it will be. AAA for a couple/few weeks won't hurt Castillo one bit, may even help. By the the Vic/Craig/Nava(no way I see Nava going anywhere as he is the one in the cheap) thing will have worked itself out. Who knows JBJ may have worked himself into the conversation by then.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 31, 2015 10:22:46 GMT -5
I'm torn on Barnes. I'd like to see him given a chance as a starter this year. I'm not sure having him start in a bullpen role to fill Uehara's DL spot restricts him from doing that, but I am weary of messing with a young pitcher to start the season. His 16 K, 3 BB, and 0 HR in 12 IP is encouraging (insert typical small sample spring training disclaimer here). I'd be worried about him trying to change his pitching approach working out of the bullpen and having trouble adjusting back as a starter. I also think he has great upside as a back end reliever.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Mar 31, 2015 11:22:13 GMT -5
Giving Barnes a shot in the bullpen this year might be what is best for the team but not necessarily what's best for Barnes. I know some people don't like the ideal of converting a guy into a reliever in the majors with the possibility of converting them back to starting but I think we need to get the ideal out of our heads (well...some people) that not everyone is going to go all Daniel Bard.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 31, 2015 16:42:23 GMT -5
I see two related valid arguments for starting Victorino in Boston and starting Castillo in AAA: 1) You really don't know which one is better right now. Victorino's health and the lack of information on Castillo make it impossible to know for sure, so the best course forward is to play them both in the only way you can (as long as Victorino shows that he's healthy enough to play in the first place) until you can gather more information. 2) The difference in performance isn't likely to be great enough to matter, so the long-term health of the franchise is better served if you play Victorino until you can clear up the log jam. Yes, this includes showcasing him for a trade (which I think is a totally valid factor to consider but not the sole reason to do anything). The argument against is basically that Castillo is going to be the rightfielder long-term, we all know this, he's better than Victorino right now, so any delaying the inevitable is just sacrificing the present for some nebulous future benefit. Just take what you can get now and move onto a glorious Castillo-led future. The difference in all of those is just how much better you think Castillo is than Victorino right now. Personally, I don't know how you can know for sure, but I tend to lean towards "enough." Of course none of that is related to Sizemore ... the lesson from Sizemore was already put into action when the Red Sox signed Castillo, Ramirez, converted Mookie to center, etc, etc. That lesson was fairly simple: have enough good outfielders. Wait, if we all know that Castillo is better than Victorino right now, how can here be a valid argument that we don't really know which one is better right now? It is still related to Sizemore in that we're debating holding onto the old fragile player who used to be awesome and we want to see if they regain form and he might be a much worse option than other players on the team. Let me also point out that Victorino has not looked good in the field. I don't know if he doesn't care because it's ST or what, but if he has regressed at all from 2013, he is not very valuable at all vs. RHP. Castillo doesn't appear to have much in the way of splits, even with SSS and mostly using the eye test. And then we probably get Nava in RF vs RHP, which is not ideal in Fenway and certainly not as good as Castillo. Nava could be a better option vs. RHP than Castillo hitting, but the fielding and baserunning is still probably going to give Castillo the edge, at least in Fenway. The main thing that needs to be established is figuring out what kind of workload Castillo can handle.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Mar 31, 2015 21:41:59 GMT -5
Victorino will be on the DL before long anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 31, 2015 22:19:04 GMT -5
Wait, if we all know that Castillo is better than Victorino right now, He was characterizing your position, not saying something he believes himself. Wait, did I miss something? Is there any reason to believe he can't handle a full starting workload?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 1, 2015 5:30:56 GMT -5
Wait, if we all know that Castillo is better than Victorino right now, He was characterizing your position, not saying something he believes himself. Wait, did I miss something? Is there any reason to believe he can't handle a full starting workload? He hasn't played much in a couple years and has never played anywhere close to a major league schedule.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Apr 1, 2015 8:24:18 GMT -5
I see two related valid arguments for starting Victorino in Boston and starting Castillo in AAA: 1) You really don't know which one is better right now. Victorino's health and the lack of information on Castillo make it impossible to know for sure, so the best course forward is to play them both in the only way you can (as long as Victorino shows that he's healthy enough to play in the first place) until you can gather more information. 2) The difference in performance isn't likely to be great enough to matter, so the long-term health of the franchise is better served if you play Victorino until you can clear up the log jam. Yes, this includes showcasing him for a trade (which I think is a totally valid factor to consider but not the sole reason to do anything). The argument against is basically that Castillo is going to be the rightfielder long-term, we all know this, he's better than Victorino right now, so any delaying the inevitable is just sacrificing the present for some nebulous future benefit. Just take what you can get now and move onto a glorious Castillo-led future. The difference in all of those is just how much better you think Castillo is than Victorino right now. Personally, I don't know how you can know for sure, but I tend to lean towards "enough." Of course none of that is related to Sizemore ... the lesson from Sizemore was already put into action when the Red Sox signed Castillo, Ramirez, converted Mookie to center, etc, etc. That lesson was fairly simple: have enough good outfielders. Wait, if we all know that Castillo is better than Victorino right now, how can here be a valid argument that we don't really know which one is better right now?It is still related to Sizemore in that we're debating holding onto the old fragile player who used to be awesome and we want to see if they regain form and he might be a much worse option than other players on the team. Let me also point out that Victorino has not looked good in the field. I don't know if he doesn't care because it's ST or what, but if he has regressed at all from 2013, he is not very valuable at all vs. RHP. Castillo doesn't appear to have much in the way of splits, even with SSS and mostly using the eye test. And then we probably get Nava in RF vs RHP, which is not ideal in Fenway and certainly not as good as Castillo. Nava could be a better option vs. RHP than Castillo hitting, but the fielding and baserunning is still probably going to give Castillo the edge, at least in Fenway. The main thing that needs to be established is figuring out what kind of workload Castillo can handle. Nah, you misunderstood ... I'm saying that we all know Castillo is going to be the rightfielder long-term, not that he's better than Victorino right now. I think there's pretty much universal agreement that Castillo's the long-term future in the outfield, unless he completely flops, which is quite unlikely. What is at issue is if he's better than Victorino right now and by how much? And I don't think we can know that for sure ... although, as I said at the end, I tend to agree with your view more than the pro-Victorino view. But it's a close call; I think the other view is totally defensible. And, again, Sizemore's just a red herring that's confusing the issue. The real problem with Sizemore wasn't that he was starting instead of some other eminently worthy outfielder, it's that there just weren't enough major-league caliber outfielders on the Red Sox. So there was nowhere to go once JBJ and Sizemore both turned belly up, something that was always very possible. If anything, the example of last year is an argument in favor of keeping Victorino as long as possible to figure out exactly who's better than whom and guard against sub-replacement level production somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Apr 1, 2015 8:46:07 GMT -5
We should find out soon about Jason Garcia from the Orioles pitching staff? If we get him back or not.
|
|
|
Post by pedroiaesque on Apr 1, 2015 9:39:40 GMT -5
We should find out soon about Jason Garcia from the Orioles pitching staff? If we get him back or not. What is the policy on this again? I originally thought the player was just offered back for $25k, but it now seems like the player is put on waivers so every other team has a chance to add him before he simply goes back to his original team. Assuming the O's don't either keep him or negotiate a trade with the Sox, what are the chances all other 28 teams pass?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 1, 2015 9:49:11 GMT -5
We should find out soon about Jason Garcia from the Orioles pitching staff? If we get him back or not. What is the policy on this again? I originally thought the player was just offered back for $25k, but it now seems like the player is put on waivers so every other team has a chance to add him before he simply goes back to his original team. Assuming the O's don't either keep him or negotiate a trade with the Sox, what are the chances all other 28 teams pass? He has to stay on a 25 man roster the entire year. He can't be DFA'd or Optioned, he could be traded but the other team also has to treat him as a rule 5 player. If he is waived, any team has the option to claim him, also with the same restrictions, and if he passes waivers he is offered back to the original team at half price. If I'm not mistaken. Add: If he makes the full year on the 25 man roster he turns back into a normal player for the new team, so they can option him back to the minors, DFA, etc. So there's the possibility he breaks camp with the O's, gets traded to another team some time after, and still comes back to the Sox in the end. One more add: There is some restriction on how long he has to be on the active roster, I believe it is 90 days. So they can't just keep him on the DL the entire year either.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 2, 2015 9:03:24 GMT -5
He'd be offered back to the Red Sox first before he could be put on waivers.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 2, 2015 9:28:18 GMT -5
If baseball people weren't so pigheaded and such wusses this is what should happen.
Castillo is the starting right fielder and Victorino and Nava are the backups. Castillo looks better so he should have "won the job". Victorino and Nava both can't be sent down and they also offer the best backups. Only think Craig offers more of is power and he's not this unreal thumper. Vic gives great defense and base running with the ability to hit and Nava gives you the left handed bat.
Craig has an option and needs the regular at bathe can get in AAA to figure out his issues. He was a great hitter not tooling ago and he could be extremely valuable next year so letting him get his rhythm back is big. Won't happen part time in Boston and he brings no defensive upgrade or base running to the bench.
Barnes should start in the Boston bullpen and be used as a weapon who can pitch multiple innings back there, you know like top relievers used tone before Tony La Rusa ruined it. If h comes in in the seventh of a close game and shuts it down he should pitch the 8th and then the 9th if he does the same. He can develop as a reliever in the majors like starters used to by pitching multiple innings that aren't mop up duty. He will stay stretched out this way and get big league experience and most of all help the team win now. This who,e mentality of not moving guys from starting to relieving etc is way overblown but compounded by the fact that teams refuse to use relievers like mentioned above.
But this won't happen....
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 2, 2015 10:13:59 GMT -5
If baseball people weren't so pigheaded and such wusses this is what should happen. Castillo is the starting right fielder and Victorino and Nava are the backups. Castillo looks better so he should have "won the job". Victorino and Nava both can't be sent down and they also offer the best backups. Only think Craig offers more of is power and he's not this unreal thumper. Vic gives great defense and base running with the ability to hit and Nava gives you the left handed bat. Craig has an option and needs the regular at bathe can get in AAA to figure out his issues. He was a great hitter not tooling ago and he could be extremely valuable next year so letting him get his rhythm back is big. Won't happen part time in Boston and he brings no defensive upgrade or base running to the bench. I wonder what the situation would be if we signed Victorino as a free agent last year and was just a giant bust of a free agent. I also wonder how much he'd be making if he hit free agency after his 2013 season.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 2, 2015 13:14:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 2, 2015 14:14:39 GMT -5
He'd be offered back to the Red Sox first before he could be put on waivers. No, actually waivers come first. An example, Cesar Cabral was drafted from the Sox by the Rays in the 2010 draft, placed on waivers in March and claimed by the Jays, placed on waivers again after the Jays couldn't work out a trade for him and re-claimed by the Rays two days later. He was sent back to the Sox a couple weeks later. If he'd been offered back first, he'd just have been sent back before going to the Jays.
|
|
|
Post by pedroiaesque on Apr 2, 2015 14:27:30 GMT -5
He'd be offered back to the Red Sox first before he could be put on waivers. No, actually waivers come first. An example, Cesar Cabral was drafted from the Sox by the Rays in the 2010 draft, placed on waivers in March and claimed by the Jays, placed on waivers again after the Jays couldn't work out a trade for him and re-claimed by the Rays two days later. He was sent back to the Sox a couple weeks later. If he'd been offered back first, he'd just have been sent back before going to the Jays. This is the question I was actually asking. I get all the rules for keeping the player or offering him back, but I was trying to figure out if placing the player on waivers was required. I recall players just being offered back before, but it seems that everyone is passing through waivers (and being claimed) now. I imagine if the O's do put Garcia on waivers, several teams would be interested in claiming him, whether they then tried to sneak him through waivers later or not.
|
|
|