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 jimed14 on May 22, 2015 15:05:17 GMT -5
There were reports however, that teams called Cherington to inquire about them and that he values(d) those players a lot more than other teams so no trades were made and a lot of time was wasted with below replacement level play. [...] And then there are other factors like cutting into Nava's playing time which also hurts him, and of course Castillo wasting away one of his prime years in AAA. Teams weren't inquiring on Craig or Victorino to offer to take on their entire contract plus give up a prospect or two. Teams were inquiring if the Red Sox would eat some of their contract to give them away, and the Red Sox weren't willing to do that. Speaking of which, I see Craig, rather than Victorino, is now your target. I guess the fact that Shane has been something like the third-best player on the team by prorated fWAR means it's harder to call for him to be DFAed because he "has nothing left." Finally, it's not like Nava and Castillo have been wasting away on the bench/in AAA. Nava has played in 25 of 41 games (which sounds about right) and Rusney has played all of 18 games in Pawtucket. I've wanted Victorino in the super Gomes role, filling in vs. LHP anywhere in the OF. He has value when he's not hitting. I never once said to DFA Victorino.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 22, 2015 15:10:03 GMT -5
Not getting cute. We're saying that the Red Sox aren't going to play Nava over Bradley, if they think Bradley is better, just to showcase Nava for a trade. If they're playing Nava over Bradley, they do not think Bradley is better than Nava. Just like they did not think Nava was better than Gomes, etc. The point jimed made above that teams called on those other players and the Red Sox still didn't trade them squares with the above. If the goal was ONLY to get them traded, then they would've traded them. Now, "thinks is better" is a simplification of many factors. For example, they may think that the player they aren't playing is better in the short term, but that playing the other guy is better for the club in the long term. So you're folding in a number of things to that statement. The point is that they're not going to make a decision on the major league roster just to showcase a guy for a trade like that when they're trying to compete. Now, if they're out of contention, then sure, that might happen. That's not the case here though and not, I'd say, what happened in the cases of Craig this year or of Carp previously. Maybe you could say it with Craig last year when they were out of contention though. I mean this is just wrong. And the out of contention qualifier doesn't hold water, either. Let's take the Nava/Bradley situation. Both were not too good last year...but Bradley has options and Nava doesn't. Given they had an idea what their valuations of either player was before the season to the team this year, and assuming (in this case) they think Bradley is the better player, is it that hard to believe they would want to give Nava the at-bats in the beginning of the year to increase his value in a trade knowing Bradley has options? Or how about Craig? He was terrible last year. Castillo may have been a better player leaving camp. Is it that hard to believe that the Sox wanted to keep Craig on the 25 man to see if he could raise his value for a possible future trade while Castillo hones his craft? None of these decisions happen in a vacuum, so there may be other factors, but there are finite number of at-bats available, and if an organization is unwilling to risk present value v future value valuations to raise a guys stock..then they will be selling low on all their assets. I don't know to what extent this is a consideration, but I am certain it happens The reason teams will occasionally do this is not in order to raise the guy's trade value. It's to maximize depth at the start of the season so if, say, Hanley gets hurt, you still have both those guys in the organization who can fill in.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 22, 2015 15:17:29 GMT -5
Not getting cute. We're saying that the Red Sox aren't going to play Nava over Bradley, if they think Bradley is better, just to showcase Nava for a trade. If they're playing Nava over Bradley, they do not think Bradley is better than Nava. I have to ask. Who on earth thinks Nava gives the team a better chance to win than JBJ vs. a LHP like Joe Klein?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 22, 2015 15:21:34 GMT -5
Teams weren't inquiring on Craig or Victorino to offer to take on their entire contract plus give up a prospect or two. Teams were inquiring if the Red Sox would eat some of their contract to give them away, and the Red Sox weren't willing to do that. Speaking of which, I see Craig, rather than Victorino, is now your target. I guess the fact that Shane has been something like the third-best player on the team by prorated fWAR means it's harder to call for him to be DFAed because he "has nothing left." Finally, it's not like Nava and Castillo have been wasting away on the bench/in AAA. Nava has played in 25 of 41 games (which sounds about right) and Rusney has played all of 18 games in Pawtucket. I've wanted Victorino in the super Gomes role, filling in vs. LHP anywhere in the OF. He has value when he's not hitting. I never once said to DFA Victorino. forum.soxprospects.com/post/136084/threadI'd find other examples but I'm on mobile. We've deinitely had arguments this offseason about how all Victorino is doing is blocking Castillo, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 22, 2015 15:25:42 GMT -5
I'll link back to these posts when Castillo winds up killing it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 22, 2015 15:31:23 GMT -5
What was the role for Craig on this team if he wasn't terrible? To be able to fill in vs. LHP when both Victorino and Castillo were hurt at the same time? 3rd string 1B vs LHP? I mean it's pretty darn clear that there was no need for him, whether he's good or bad. So what were they doing when playing him in the majors over Nava and over Castillo in the minors? I keep hearing we need a 1B for next year, but is that the goal of the 2015 season? If he was actually hitting somewhat in the majors, does Castillo never get called up? Was that the plan? I never understood trading for him and I don't understand playing him in the majors when he can't catch up to inside fastballs. They were just playing him to see if they could get him hitting again (which also comes at the expense of getting Nava hitting again BTW), but they really weren't going to gain much over the other options competing with him even if he did. Just a complete waste of time at the major league level. There didn't seem to be much of a goal there - he was either going to hit or he wasn't and no matter what the result, the team wasn't going to be better with him playing over Castillo unless you're talking about 90%/10% outcomes. Injury depth at three positions, starts at 1B and LF when Napoli and Hanley get days off. Again, it's never a problem to have too many good players. The reason the Dodgers are on pace for the best offense ever is because they didn't freak out about "roles" and trade guys like Ethier and Guerrero and Van Slyke even though those guys didn't have the most obvious route to playing time. If Craig was hitting as well as Ethier is now (not an impossible scenario by any stretch), they absolute would have found playing time for him at 1B or RF. It's a failure of player evaluation, yes (something I've been arguing ever since the Lackey trade), but not a failure in strategy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 22, 2015 15:39:34 GMT -5
I'm certainly not advocating for knee-jerk management. But I do believe that initial "see what we have" period is no longer 3 months, I think it's more like the first two months of the season, if that. I also realize players are not machines and this isn't fantasy baseball. But for the life of me, I don't understand how that can justify continuing to hit Sandoval up in the upper part of the line-up as a righty against lefties when he has had abysmal results time and time again. Or going with your weakest defensive alignment for a game or two when JBJ is in the line-up. Or the terrible management of JBJ. To me, that's not giving yourself the best chance to win night in and night out in the name of patience and the game not being fantasy baseball. Maybe it works out in the long run, but we're talking about a team that has been out of the playoffs by end July three out of the last four years, so I'm going to submit that something in the approach must be off. I saw the manager of the Rangers bring out his closer in the seventh the other night to snuff out a situation, so some other teams certainly seem to have a sense of urgency. I can't begin to imagine Farrell doing that in May to win a game. This is the attitude that would have suggested that, two weeks ago, they needed to DFA four-fifths of their rotation because it wasn't "giving you the best chance to win." Two weeks later, the freak out over the rotation certainly seems like an overreaction.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 22, 2015 15:49:53 GMT -5
I'm certainly not advocating for knee-jerk management. But I do believe that initial "see what we have" period is no longer 3 months, I think it's more like the first two months of the season, if that. I also realize players are not machines and this isn't fantasy baseball. But for the life of me, I don't understand how that can justify continuing to hit Sandoval up in the upper part of the line-up as a righty against lefties when he has had abysmal results time and time again. Or going with your weakest defensive alignment for a game or two when JBJ is in the line-up. Or the terrible management of JBJ. To me, that's not giving yourself the best chance to win night in and night out in the name of patience and the game not being fantasy baseball. Maybe it works out in the long run, but we're talking about a team that has been out of the playoffs by end July three out of the last four years, so I'm going to submit that something in the approach must be off. I saw the manager of the Rangers bring out his closer in the seventh the other night to snuff out a situation, so some other teams certainly seem to have a sense of urgency. I can't begin to imagine Farrell doing that in May to win a game. This is the attitude that would have suggested that, two weeks ago, they needed to DFA four-fifths of their rotation because it wasn't "giving you the best chance to win." Two weeks later, the freak out over the rotation certainly seems like an overreaction. It looks like I did a terrible job of conveying my point, because you don't appear to have grasped the crux of it..But you'll admit, I'm sure, that there's a difference between showing some urgency with a few tactical decisions and "DFA-ing four-fifths of the rotation". In fairness, I probably would have gone two-fifths; they put Masterson on the DL, so they kind of met me half-way..
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 22, 2015 16:00:20 GMT -5
The point is that a bad first month of the season should not have an oversized impact on how you project that player going forward. For instance, Napoli has one of the highest average exit velocities in the league, so the fact that his batted balls aren't finding grass is a poor reason to move him down the order.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,729
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on May 22, 2015 22:14:26 GMT -5
Sizzle sizzle
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on May 23, 2015 13:17:23 GMT -5
I don't think Farrell is a good in game manager, but I don't think a great manager would have made much of a difference so far. Look at the debate in this thread. It's who's the best of the bad that should be playing in right, or why the guy who hasn't been available isn't on the team(now called up). Then it's batter order, when nobody in the order is hitting.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,729
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on May 23, 2015 23:37:37 GMT -5
I don't think Farrell is a good in game manager, but I don't think a great manager would have made much of a difference so far. Look at the debate in this thread. It's who's the best of the bad that should be playing in right, or why the guy who hasn't been available isn't on the team(now called up). Then it's batter order, when nobody in the order is hitting. I think if you're not winning games, the least you can do is optimize your lineups logistically and see how it goes. Find any excuse you want on a given night, but Farrell's lineups always have at least one question mark. He's no devil, but I really don't think he's helped in any way this year.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on May 24, 2015 11:25:50 GMT -5
I don't think Farrell is a good in game manager, but I don't think a great manager would have made much of a difference so far. Look at the debate in this thread. It's who's the best of the bad that should be playing in right, or why the guy who hasn't been available isn't on the team(now called up). Then it's batter order, when nobody in the order is hitting. I think if you're not winning games, the least you can do is optimize your lineups logistically and see how it goes. Find any excuse you want on a given night, but Farrell's lineups always have at least one question mark. He's no devil, but I really don't think he's helped in any way this year. I think if you're not winning games, and it has been going on for more than a year, and the majority of the players on the team, even though the roster is constantly evolving, are performing below their career averages, it's (past due) time to look at management and coaching as the possible (probable) root of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 24, 2015 21:27:16 GMT -5
So you ignore the players that played over their heads the prior year?
|
|
|
Post by down225 on May 25, 2015 9:09:55 GMT -5
So you ignore the players that played over their heads the prior year? Not at all, did you not read that I said "majority"?
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on May 25, 2015 9:13:49 GMT -5
What was the role for Craig on this team if he wasn't terrible? To be able to fill in vs. LHP when both Victorino and Castillo were hurt at the same time? 3rd string 1B vs LHP? I mean it's pretty darn clear that there was no need for him, whether he's good or bad. So what were they doing when playing him in the majors over Nava and over Castillo in the minors? I keep hearing we need a 1B for next year, but is that the goal of the 2015 season? If he was actually hitting somewhat in the majors, does Castillo never get called up? Was that the plan? I never understood trading for him and I don't understand playing him in the majors when he can't catch up to inside fastballs. They were just playing him to see if they could get him hitting again (which also comes at the expense of getting Nava hitting again BTW), but they really weren't going to gain much over the other options competing with him even if he did. Just a complete waste of time at the major league level. There didn't seem to be much of a goal there - he was either going to hit or he wasn't and no matter what the result, the team wasn't going to be better with him playing over Castillo unless you're talking about 90%/10% outcomes. Injury depth at three positions, starts at 1B and LF when Napoli and Hanley get days off. Again, it's never a problem to have too many good players. The reason the Dodgers are on pace for the best offense ever is because they didn't freak out about "roles" and trade guys like Ethier and Guerrero and Van Slyke even though those guys didn't have the most obvious route to playing time. If Craig was hitting as well as Ethier is now (not an impossible scenario by any stretch), they absolute would have found playing time for him at 1B or RF. It's a failure of player evaluation, yes (something I've been arguing ever since the Lackey trade), but not a failure in strategy. We acquired Craig before we got; Castillo, Sandoval and Hanley. LF seemed like a logical landing spot if we thought he could regain his form. With a move to 1b, when Napoli's contract is up.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on May 25, 2015 9:14:27 GMT -5
So you ignore the players that played over their heads the prior year? Not at all, did you not read that I said "majority"? He's referring to 2013, where the great majority of players did play over their head.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on May 25, 2015 9:38:50 GMT -5
Not at all, did you not read that I said "majority"? He's referring to 2013, where the great majority of players did play over their head. Repeating my original comment, "I think if you're not winning games, and it has been going on for more than a year" I am looking at the more recent trend. If you're going to consider 2013, you might as well consider 2012, or even 2011.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on May 25, 2015 9:49:34 GMT -5
He's referring to 2013, where the great majority of players did play over their head. Repeating my original comment, "I think if you're not winning games, and it has been going on for more than a year" I am looking at the more recent trend. If you're going to consider 2013, you might as well consider 2012, or even 2011. That makes sense, you should definitely consider the two years prior to Farrell becoming manager in determining Farrell's usefulness as manager.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 25, 2015 9:55:48 GMT -5
Not at all, did you not read that I said "majority"? He's referring to 2013, where the great majority of players did play over their head. If he's not responsible for 2013, why does he get so much credit for it then?
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 25, 2015 10:20:33 GMT -5
a test for Farrell is whether he could manage an NL game without any mulligans.
He could at least try to do it on Nintendo "Ken Griffey, Jr. Presents Major League Baseball "
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jun 6, 2015 19:16:53 GMT -5
Just a couple items from my end on Farrell:
1) Let's face it, no manager is perfect...Maddon, seems great, but let's face facts, how many world series has he won...Scioscia, has been rumored to be on the chopping block several times, La Russa was essentially let go in St. Louis, Torre was essentially let go in NYY...bottom line is that other than Bochy and Bobby Cox all managers get criticism and eventually get let go...remember all the talk about "the first manager who wins the series w/ the Sox will have a job for life" talk...bottom line is there's no such job in professional sports, it's all "what have you done for me lately"...
2) That said, long term stability is the most important thing in sports...from ownership to baseball operations, to field operations...and we definitely have great ownership and for the last 10+ years that ownership has put in place a great baseball operations staff...and done the right thing on the field (hired Francona and he had a long run, fired Valentine quickly, and hired Farrell who has won a WS for us)...tough to fault that type of ownership w/out being extremely picky and searching for Utopia
3) A good 10 year run w/ 3 WS is more than any of us could hope for...yet of course none of us would be here if we didn't want to see success every year...which we all know is not possible...So although this year has been a tough one i'd argue that Farrell is a good manager working w/ a good baseball ops staff who trusts him and who works w/ a good ownership crew who trusts them...we're still in a good place
4) We're slowly blending in a lot of youth and hopefully talent into the MLB roster and some of the money spent this year has catapulted expectations...but think the only other thing that keeps us around besides winning is to see the youth movement/development...who doesn't love the prospect of a good youngster and we have plenty to follow...i'm sure they all won't turn into all stars, but such is prospect development...yet, we have more potential talented youth than most teams...especially than most teams who've competed year in and year out...sure, some teams have ebbs and flow (Marlins, Royals etc...) but how many competed every year...better yet, how many are expected to compete every year? tough to compete every year and actually try and develop young players...Sure you could argue the Cardinals, but honestly, it hasn't been that tough to own the NL Central...if they had been in the AL East the last 10-15 years they wouldn't have been in the playoffs to compete in WS as regularly as they have....
5) So, i'll be watching along w/ everyone else and praying for a turnaround this year...but honestly, i still think we're bridging the gap w/ this current/new core: (Hanley, Panda, Papi, Pedroia, Nap)...until the current young guys prosper into the new core along w/ Pedroia and the revamped pitching staff...but think that Farrell is the right guy to ride this out with as managers come and go, despite success, and we have an good ownership and baseball ops staff who trust him...and that's good w/ me.
|
|
|
Post by johnmark on Jun 6, 2015 20:38:13 GMT -5
Just a couple items from my end on Farrell: 1) Let's face it, no manager is perfect...Maddon, seems great, but let's face facts, how many world series has he won...Scioscia, has been rumored to be on the chopping block several times, La Russa was essentially let go in St. Louis, Torre was essentially let go in NYY...bottom line is that other than Bochy and Bobby Cox all managers get criticism and eventually get let go...remember all the talk about "the first manager who wins the series w/ the Sox will have a job for life" talk...bottom line is there's no such job in professional sports, it's all "what have you done for me lately"... 2) That said, long term stability is the most important thing in sports...from ownership to baseball operations, to field operations...and we definitely have great ownership and for the last 10+ years that ownership has put in place a great baseball operations staff...and done the right thing on the field (hired Francona and he had a long run, fired Valentine quickly, and hired Farrell who has won a WS for us)...tough to fault that type of ownership w/out being extremely picky and searching for Utopia 3) A good 10 year run w/ 3 WS is more than any of us could hope for...yet of course none of us would be here if we didn't want to see success every year...which we all know is not possible...So although this year has been a tough one i'd argue that Farrell is a good manager working w/ a good baseball ops staff who trusts him and who works w/ a good ownership crew who trusts them...we're still in a good place 4) We're slowly blending in a lot of youth and hopefully talent into the MLB roster and some of the money spent this year has catapulted expectations...but think the only other thing that keeps us around besides winning is to see the youth movement/development...who doesn't love the prospect of a good youngster and we have plenty to follow...i'm sure they all won't turn into all stars, but such is prospect development...yet, we have more potential talented youth than most teams...especially than most teams who've competed year in and year out...sure, some teams have ebbs and flow (Marlins, Royals etc...) but how many competed every year...better yet, how many are expected to compete every year? tough to compete every year and actually try and develop young players...Sure you could argue the Cardinals, but honestly, it hasn't been that tough to own the NL Central...if they had been in the AL East the last 10-15 years they wouldn't have been in the playoffs to compete in WS as regularly as they have.... 5) So, i'll be watching along w/ everyone else and praying for a turnaround this year...but honestly, i still think we're bridging the gap w/ this current/new core: (Hanley, Panda, Papi, Pedroia, Nap)...until the current young guys prosper into the new core along w/ Pedroia and the revamped pitching staff...but think that Farrell is the right guy to ride this out with as managers come and go, despite success, and we have an good ownership and baseball ops staff who trust him...and that's good w/ me. John...is that you?
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jun 7, 2015 7:12:34 GMT -5
Just a couple items from my end on Farrell: 1) Let's face it, no manager is perfect...Maddon, seems great, but let's face facts, how many world series has he won...Scioscia, has been rumored to be on the chopping block several times, La Russa was essentially let go in St. Louis, Torre was essentially let go in NYY...bottom line is that other than Bochy and Bobby Cox all managers get criticism and eventually get let go...remember all the talk about "the first manager who wins the series w/ the Sox will have a job for life" talk...bottom line is there's no such job in professional sports, it's all "what have you done for me lately"... 2) That said, long term stability is the most important thing in sports...from ownership to baseball operations, to field operations...and we definitely have great ownership and for the last 10+ years that ownership has put in place a great baseball operations staff...and done the right thing on the field (hired Francona and he had a long run, fired Valentine quickly, and hired Farrell who has won a WS for us)...tough to fault that type of ownership w/out being extremely picky and searching for Utopia 3) A good 10 year run w/ 3 WS is more than any of us could hope for...yet of course none of us would be here if we didn't want to see success every year...which we all know is not possible...So although this year has been a tough one i'd argue that Farrell is a good manager working w/ a good baseball ops staff who trusts him and who works w/ a good ownership crew who trusts them...we're still in a good place 4) We're slowly blending in a lot of youth and hopefully talent into the MLB roster and some of the money spent this year has catapulted expectations...but think the only other thing that keeps us around besides winning is to see the youth movement/development...who doesn't love the prospect of a good youngster and we have plenty to follow...i'm sure they all won't turn into all stars, but such is prospect development...yet, we have more potential talented youth than most teams...especially than most teams who've competed year in and year out...sure, some teams have ebbs and flow (Marlins, Royals etc...) but how many competed every year...better yet, how many are expected to compete every year? tough to compete every year and actually try and develop young players...Sure you could argue the Cardinals, but honestly, it hasn't been that tough to own the NL Central...if they had been in the AL East the last 10-15 years they wouldn't have been in the playoffs to compete in WS as regularly as they have.... 5) So, i'll be watching along w/ everyone else and praying for a turnaround this year...but honestly, i still think we're bridging the gap w/ this current/new core: (Hanley, Panda, Papi, Pedroia, Nap)...until the current young guys prosper into the new core along w/ Pedroia and the revamped pitching staff...but think that Farrell is the right guy to ride this out with as managers come and go, despite success, and we have an good ownership and baseball ops staff who trust him...and that's good w/ me. John...is that you? Nah, just a concerned citizen showing that some of us are behind that officer all the way...albeit, not necessary...
|
|
|