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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 29, 2015 19:37:33 GMT -5
3) Given #1, you do everything you need to do to retain him. GM is a life-eating job. Letting him work fewer hours, with less responsibility, for the same pay, while not significantly reducing his authority (they still have to agree on every MLB move) -- that is something he should be OK with. I doubt his ego will be shattered by the front office telling him that he's not brilliant assessing MLB talent (as he is with amateurs) and they want to bring in a complementary guy to do the bulk of that work. I agree and posted something similar to putting him back in a role where his strengths are previously, but in the end I don't think you do that stealthily.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 30, 2015 0:47:09 GMT -5
I'll echo what was said earlier. Isn't it Allard Baird's role to be the go-to-guy for major league scouting evaluations? If so, his track record is horrendous and he shouldn't have a job anymore. I remember watching Duquette and thinking that early on in his tenure Mike Gimble had his ear and he was probably taking a lot of advice from him, but later on after Gimble basically called himself the power behind the throne, I think Duquette leaned heavily on Eddie Haas's advice, and his acquisitions felt a lot different. I think Ben C. is relying on Allard Baird a lot, and I think that it's not working well at all. Maybe this is just my impression and I could be completely wrong. The only thing I know for sure is that their major league talent evaluation is totally awful, and they've done a good job getting young talent into the minor leagues. Whoever is doing that is doing a great job as is Ed Romero Jr, as I think internationally the Sox have been doing very well. Their MLB talent evaluation, as jmei points out, has been mediocre, maybe a little subpar, but far from awful. Cherington signed 7 guys for 2013 and hit on 6. What is more disturbing to me is they've made moves that were not analytically defensible, which folks like me criticized at the time, and which turned out badly. (When Peter Keating did his ESPN article on me, Voros McCrakcen, and Mike Gimbel, he chose that screed of mine for his closing argument, while agreeing with it strongly). I regard that as evidence that they are actually middle-of-the-pack in analytic effort. They have Bill James, who is the industry's most brilliant outside-the-box thinker, but he is not an analyst, not someone who (I believe) would have ideas about how to extract cool insights from pitch/fx and hit/fx data. Bill's genius is his knowledge of the game of baseball; he's not a data guy at all, let alone a big-data guy. I know that they laid off all their consultants except Tom Tippett (whose job is managing their information systems, with analysis secondary) after 2008, and that they have won a playoff game in only one of the seven subsequent seasons. Have we heard that they've hired an analytic hotshot to head that department up? They couldn't keep their hiring of Voros, Tom, or me under the radar, so I sincerely doubt that they've snagged someone with a top track record. I don't see any evidence of a desire to rule the world analytically. Analysis is not just for player evaluation; it can be used, for instance, to gain insights into pitch-sequencing and optimum location. We all get that when an entire team underperforms expectation, it may well be the manager's fault for not dealing well with team psychology, but the bigger concern with me is that they're being outsmarted. I see a team that looks like it's not keeping up with analytic insights on how to work specific hitters, and are suffering on both sides of the ball as a result; a team that is pitching too predictably, and can be pitched to all too predictably. Ben hit on some free agents in 2013, but in totality, not really. In other words, the Victorino contract overall really wasn't good. The Sox paid $39 million for 1 good season and two injury plagued worthless seasons. Despite this, I'll say it was an awesome short term move and I cannot complain about it. Carp was a good 1 year move. I wouldn't call Dempster a good move, but he retired saving Ben from having Dempster be lousy in year 2. Napoli was a good move, particularly in 2013, less so in 2014 and not so good in 2015. Drew was a good move in 2013 that turned into a disaster in 2014. Like Napoli, you can view these moves as separate as we're talking two contracts for both players. Gomes was signed for two years and was good in year 1 and not so good in year 2. Again another move that works just for one year. And I know they made a deal you hated with getting Peavy for Iglesias and Montas. In a vacuum, overall, they were not great moves, however for the short-term of 2013 these deals for the most part worked out extremely well even if the magic wore off shortly thereafter. Koji, of course, was a home run signing. Eric, I wanted to ask you three questions: 1) Is my impression of what was going on during the Duquette regime correct? Was Gimble "the power behind the throne" for say 1995 and 1996, and did Duquette shuffle him aside and use Eddie Haas as his most trusted advisor afterwards? 2) Why did a big money organization like the Sox get cheap and get rid of the analysts? Wouldn't Theo have put up a stink about that? 3) I'm not implying that Baird is a decision maker, but isn't possible Ben C leans heavily on him for his input the way Duquette leaned on Eddie Haas, who wasn't a decision maker either? If you're right and I fear you are - it's pretty clear the Sox aren't the best and brightest anymore and other organizations have surpassed them, and it's showing in the standings. I think the one saving grace the Sox have is that they've done extremely well in the international minor league market and they have drafted very well and Ben to date has held onto the talent, which is key.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 30, 2015 8:58:27 GMT -5
We have two choices.
1. Ride it out. Our guys have to play better right? Gambling with tv revenue if we do that. Will take 2-3 years to get the younger prospects up and going.
2. Do something bold. Sign Cueto or Price. Would be a gamble. Good-bye to Clay. Make a baseball trade. Really good prospects for a really good young pitcher. This board will hate trading prospects. But, it might work for the right pitcher.
I'd bet the Sox split the difference and try to trade for a veteran pither who makes some cash they get a good deal on. Sell it. Someone likes James Shields. We will suck again next year.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 30, 2015 9:53:44 GMT -5
We have two choices. 1. Ride it out. Our guys have to play better right? Gambling with tv revenue if we do that. Will take 2-3 years to get the younger prospects up and going. 2. Do something bold. Sign Cueto or Price. Would be a gamble. Good-bye to Clay. Make a baseball trade. Really good prospects for a really good young pitcher. This board will hate trading prospects. But, it might work for the right pitcher. I'd bet the Sox split the difference and try to trade for a veteran pither who makes some cash they get a good deal on. Sell it. Someone likes James Shields. We will suck again next year. Why do you get rid of Clay? That doesn't make sense at all if you're going for it. Also, I think in a deal for the right pitcher, people would be on board with dealing prospects, but "really good young pitchers" don't show up on the trade market very often, and you tend to have to overpay. Personally, I'd part with a Swihart or Margot along with some other decent to good prospects if it got us Sonny Gray or one of the Mets good young arms, but I wouldn't be willing to package those two or deal Bogaerts or Betts
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,827
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jul 30, 2015 10:10:25 GMT -5
We have two choices. 1. Ride it out. Our guys have to play better right? Gambling with tv revenue if we do that. Will take 2-3 years to get the younger prospects up and going. 2. Do something bold. Sign Cueto or Price. Would be a gamble. Good-bye to Clay. Make a baseball trade. Really good prospects for a really good young pitcher. This board will hate trading prospects. But, it might work for the right pitcher. I'd bet the Sox split the difference and try to trade for a veteran pither who makes some cash they get a good deal on. Sell it. Someone likes James Shields. We will suck again next year. Why do you get rid of Clay? That doesn't make sense at all if you're going for it. Also, I think in a deal for the right pitcher, people would be on board with dealing prospects, but "really good young pitchers" don't show up on the trade market very often, and you tend to have to overpay. Personally, I'd part with a Swihart or Margot along with some other decent to good prospects if it got us Sonny Gray or one of the Mets good young arms, but I wouldn't be willing to package those two or deal Bogaerts or Betts I've been totally against moving Blake Swihart. He is easily one of my favorite prospects over the last 15 years, but if we could get a pitcher like Gray or Sale in a package.....I'd do it now. Christian Vazquez should be healthy and solid and we need to consider every possibility of getting better. We need really good young pitching badly. I like several of the Mets pitchers also, but they have a couple of young catchers that may be above average.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 30, 2015 10:26:16 GMT -5
The Sox need to solve the problem at 1B. Sam Travis is beginning to look like a real possibility for the future, probably 2017, but something needs to be done for next year.
I didn't know until today that Sandoval had played 1B in the past, something like 50+ games. So he is a possibility. Hanley is a possibility. I don't think there is anyone else on the current team who would be a candidate unless they considered shifting Castillo. And they only would do that if JBJ shows he can hold one of the OF positions.
I think we can be less concerned about Hanley's fielding going forward. He is doing much better now. I think the urgency of moving him out of LF has passed. Of course, if he doesn't resume hitting, then that's a problem.
It will be interesting to see what the Sox look like after tomorrow. I suspect not much different, although I still am hoping for a big trade or two. San Diego seems like a very good match for a big deal. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 30, 2015 13:07:25 GMT -5
Alex Speier makes a good point in his newsletter today in talking about Sandoval:
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 30, 2015 13:10:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jul 30, 2015 14:57:54 GMT -5
Sad to see Nava DFA'd, but he hasn't made any contributions to the team this year, though injuries, no doubt, played a part. He was a good story, from the Chico Outlaws to the big leagues, and played a vital role on the team in his early years. Hopefully he can latch on somewhere and get to play more regularly thus, having a good career.
It's clear the Sox are focusing on its young outfielders to see what they have for the balance of the season and going forward.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,930
|
Post by nomar on Jul 30, 2015 16:43:07 GMT -5
Sad to see Nava DFA'd, but he hasn't made any contributions to the team this year, though injuries, no doubt, played a part. He was a good story, from the Chico Outlaws to the big leagues, and played a vital role on the team in his early years. Hopefully he can latch on somewhere and get to play more regularly thus, having a good career. It's clear the Sox are focusing on its young outfielders to see what they have for the balance of the season and going forward. I don't think injuries had to do with it. He's been horrible since 2013, when he was great. I appreciate what he gave us then, but we let him bleed out for way too long before cutting bait.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 30, 2015 16:56:43 GMT -5
Sad to see Nava DFA'd, but he hasn't made any contributions to the team this year, though injuries, no doubt, played a part. He was a good story, from the Chico Outlaws to the big leagues, and played a vital role on the team in his early years. Hopefully he can latch on somewhere and get to play more regularly thus, having a good career. It's clear the Sox are focusing on its young outfielders to see what they have for the balance of the season and going forward. I don't think injuries had to do with it. He's been horrible since 2013, when he was great. I appreciate what he gave us then, but we let him bleed out for way too long before cutting bait. He hit .270/.346/.361 (100 wRC+) last year (including .297/.369/.382 (114 wRC+) in 333 PAs after his minor league sabbatical), which, while certainly a significant step down than 2013, is far from "horrible." That's especially since, by all accounts, his defense looked significantly better in 2014, which resulted in him posting 3.4 rWAR and 2.7 fWAR in only 408 PAs. He's been really bad this year, but he's gotten all of 78 plate appearances, which is nowhere near enough to justify giving up on a player who had performed at a prorated 2.2 fWAR/3.3 rWAR per 600 PA level to that point in his career.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 30, 2015 17:09:54 GMT -5
The Red Sox need to assess their major league talent evaluation and make some changes as to how they do that, they need to reevaluate their coaching staff and development team, because for the past two seasons they very clearly have not gotten the most out of their roster, and this season in particular Hanley, Pablo and Porcello inexplicably being among the worst players in baseball is absurd, and maybe it's just crazy bad luck, but there is likely a reason or something that could be done to fix/stop highly regarded players from combusting into flames here.
The Sox should invest more in the less flashy stuff - coaching staffs, analytics teams, development people. It seems that they are being far outclassed in those areas by other organizations and for a team with the financial flexibility of the Sox that is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by skinsfan55 on Jul 30, 2015 17:11:36 GMT -5
I expected the Red Sox to find a suitor for Napoli and then put Nava at 1B for the rest of the season. Surprised to see him just thrown on the junk pile.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2015 17:29:58 GMT -5
I really don't have an answer other than 'fire everyone' that most other people seem to think. I'm at a loss at how players predicted to have 3 WAR end up with -1. So Steamer and ZiPS should re-evaluate their projection systems as well. No one really has given an answer that makes sense other than just really disastrous luck with like 0% outcomes for several players. But that doesn't even sound right either.
Until this is figured out, I'm hesitant to make any huge moves at all because I'm afraid none of them will work out. It might sound irrational but when you look at the last two years, almost nothing worked out as expected with maybe a few exceptions like Holt and Betts/Bogaerts.
It has to be some combination of bad managing and a complete analytics failure in how they hit and pitch.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 30, 2015 18:43:49 GMT -5
I'm just very skeptical of thinking that any good player we get will become bad because they are now on the Red Sox. Obviously moves haven't worked out, and that needs to be addressed, probably by replacing a lot of employees and changing some philosophies, but good players don't just become terrible by changing teams.
Three of them did this year, which is an absurdly high number, but I just don't think that could continue happening at that rate.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Jul 31, 2015 0:20:20 GMT -5
How much farther ahead would the sox be if we made no offseason moves last winter? ? And while we are at it cancel the lackey and Lester deals.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 31, 2015 5:42:33 GMT -5
How much farther ahead would the sox be if we made no offseason moves last winter? ? And while we are at it cancel the lackey and Lester deals. Jon Lester, John Lackey and Jacoby Ellsbury have combined for about 5.5 to 6 bWAR/fWAR. Other than re-signing these guys AND adding Scherzer, there probably was no path to contention for even a wild card open to the Sox. In the current environment -- with higher FA costs and steeper aging curves -- you have to have a core of young, relatively cost controlled impact players to have any chance at fielding a sustained contender. Despite Betts' and Bogaerts' fine seasons, they alone do not constitute that core. The question is in having taken on so many questionable contracts, how badly has Cherington compromised the Red Sox ability to field a winning team next year and beyond. The Red Sox appear to have the needed core of young players already in the system, but will they now have the financial capacity to surround those players with the additional pieces to round out a championship caliber team?
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jul 31, 2015 6:08:31 GMT -5
I expected the Red Sox to find a suitor for Napoli and then put Nava at 1B for the rest of the season. Surprised to see him just thrown on the junk pile. welcome to Soxprospects, Fan55! Yes, many of us are surprised by the Nava transaction.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 31, 2015 6:25:41 GMT -5
How much farther ahead would the sox be if we made no offseason moves last winter? ? And while we are at it cancel the lackey and Lester deals. The question is in having taken on so many questionable contracts, how badly has Cherington compromised the Red Sox ability to field a winning team next year and beyond. The Red Sox appear to have the needed core of young players already in the system, but will they now have the financial capacity to surround those players with the additional pieces to round out a championship caliber team? To me, this is by far and away the core question. Reading that Speier piece mentioned above is awfully depressing. I thought they'd have more money than $15-$20m...They'll not have a lot of money to spend, and it looks like the big money makers are getting older and more terrible - and if this trade deadline is any indication, nobody wants them unless the Sox cover all the salary. What can be done to fix the Sox? I have no idea; I don't think there's a quick fix here, unless the FO gets awfully creative. Otherwise it's going to be ride the next year or two as unproductive veterans get off the books and more youngsters get to the majors. Part of me is starting to get scared that they'll start trading prospects not for talent, but to get some of the bad contracts off the books. That'd be something. I see two major steps: -Do something with Major League evaluation - it's been awful. Not sure if it's Allard Baird or whomever, but they have to make changes there. -I think Farrell has to go, frankly. His track record just isn't good, but more importantly, this team is going to transition to younger players. He doesn't seem to like, trust them much or able to put them in an environment that facilitates adjustment to the majors. He's just not the right manager for this team any more. Outside of that, if the owners like Cherington so much, he gets another year to get creative and see what he can do within the limits that he created for himself. If I'm Henry, I tell him - "you made the mess, get us out of it. And stay under the luxury tax. Oh, and for God's sake, let Allard Baird go".
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 31, 2015 6:27:20 GMT -5
I'm really surprised Koji is still on the team. I thought he might have been one of the best chances to get a decent return.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 31, 2015 6:28:34 GMT -5
I really don't have an answer other than 'fire everyone' that most other people seem to think. I'm at a loss at how players predicted to have 3 WAR end up with -1. So Steamer and ZiPS should re-evaluate their projection systems as well. No one really has given an answer that makes sense other than just really disastrous luck with like 0% outcomes for several players. But that doesn't even sound right either. Until this is figured out, I'm hesitant to make any huge moves at all because I'm afraid none of them will work out. It might sound irrational but when you look at the last two years, almost nothing worked out as expected with maybe a few exceptions like Holt and Betts/Bogaerts. It has to be some combination of bad managing and a complete analytics failure in how they hit and pitch. In my mind I keep going back and forth between blame Cherington and blame Farrell. It is what you said here that makes me lean towards the blame Farrell + the coaching staff. How is it possible that three good established major leaguers all perform at their 5th or less percentiles? It is inexplicable. It can't just be just bad luck. The probability of all three big signings under-performing their 5th percentile of outcomes is about 0%. I mean, even if Ben was such a bad manager, he would've had to had done some serious voodoo for something like that to happen. Then again, how is it that all new free agents overachieved under Farrell in 2013? And to add wound to the salt, how is it that Mark Teixeira is having his 2nd best season as a Yankee in his age 35 season and Alex Rodriguez is hitting as if he was in his prime in his age 40(!) season? Like someone said earlier, baseball makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 31, 2015 6:39:49 GMT -5
I had been thinking about this too. And I even wonder whether Xander's new approach is a good thing long term. He's not even trying to hit for power. It seems he's satisfied having a high batting average. It's almost like he's trying to quick-fix things to earn more PAs?
Another thing is: When they brought Farrell in I liked the move because I (and many others here) thought that he would be able to fix the pitching staff. And maybe he did in 2013 and we all gave him credit for it. But why are Rick Porcello and Joe Kelly having their worst seasons in their careers under Farrell?
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 31, 2015 6:54:41 GMT -5
I'm really surprised Koji is still on the team. I thought he might have been one of the best chances to get a decent return. It will be interesting to hear the rumors today. Koji's great but Chapman and Kimbrell are still out there.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 31, 2015 7:48:07 GMT -5
I'm really surprised Koji is still on the team. I thought he might have been one of the best chances to get a decent return. It will be interesting to hear the rumors today. Koji's great but Chapman and Kimbrell are still out there. But here's the thing - if you trade Uehara... don't you then have to go right out and replace him next year? To me, they'd need to get blown away to move him. It's not like he's a FA this offseason who you're already going to have to replace. Yes, the return is higher, but I wonder about the cost of acquiring a replacement closer. And as we know, those don't grow on trees or anything.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,813
|
Post by mobaz on Jul 31, 2015 7:56:23 GMT -5
The Sox have a lot of hard work to do (and probably need new people to do it) in the quest to getting back to annual contender. But I go to bed every night thanking God that I'm not a D-back fan.
From Jim Bowden piece on ESPN:
"The Diamondbacks, meanwhile, are the favorite for Chapman, as Arizona GM Dave Stewart has acknowledged that he has offered one of his team's best prospects for Chapman. The Reds control Chapman only through next year, and his trade value will never be higher."
I always thought the best way to build a baseball team was through grit, head hunting, and closers. They have some talent but I really don't understand Dave Stewart's plan.
|
|
|