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 ctfisher on Aug 5, 2015 10:57:51 GMT -5
Well, Heyward does have a 27 home run season of his own and multiple 5+ WAR seasons, and he'll be considerably younger than any of those players were (he's on pace for four 5+ rWAR seasons, which is pretty impressive for a player yet to turn 26). You're right that those players were probably more highly regarded when they reached free agency than Heyward is, but between his age (including the fact that GMs are more conscious of aging curves these days) and inflation, I think he'll get least $130m+ guaranteed (assuming he opts for a true long-term deal and not a Porcello-esque short but high AAV deal). ADD: or what he said. I get the argument, I just think that there's a reason that you rarely see WAR cited when contracts are announced. People still emphasize offensive performance, especially at the corner spots, and even if he's 26, he's been pretty wildly inconsistent offensively and injury prone. I wouldn't argue that he might well produce that value, and it's true that he's a somewhat unique case given his age, but unless he signs and 8 or 9 year deal, I'd be extremely surprised to see him get that kind of money. We'll see how it turns out in a couple months, and I doubt it ends up being relevant unless he ends up having a much less friendly market than we're all assuming and the Sox manage to steal him below market somehow
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 5, 2015 12:32:16 GMT -5
The best comp for Heyward might actually be Porcello. He seems to be overpaid even if he were as good as the last few years, but the overpay was because the contract ends before a decline is expected to begin.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 5, 2015 12:45:21 GMT -5
I would of been (or will be) all over an aggressive push for Heyward if we traded Castillo. With Castillo still on the books and Hanley, Betts, Bradley, and Holt I don't think it makes sense with the pitching holes we have. Yep. Castillo or JBJ makes Heyward redundant at this point. Both probably have to go for there to be room for Heyward. I think that the advanced sabermetric technique known as "counting the number of outfielders on the roster" reveals this to be untrue. Hanley is likelier than not in the infield next year, which leaves you with an OF of Castillo, Bradley, and Betts. And there's a decent chance that Bradley / Castillo are a platoon pair rather than a pair of starters. The only thing that makes Heyward redundant is either Hanley being even worse at 1B than in LF (or ditto for Hanley at 3B and Sandoval at 1B), or both Bradley and Castillo being first-division starter quality. Bradley seems to be a significantly better player than Castillo at this point, so (assuming they do move Hanley to 1B or 3B), if you can sign Heyward, you are in a position of deciding whether Castillo has more value to you as a 4th OF and platoon partner for Bradley and/or Ortiz, or as a trade chip. If you can't sign Heyward or trade for an equivalent player, you are probably committing to Castillo as a regular, probably supplemented by a LH bench bat for tough RHP. The 8 roster spots for OF / 1B/ DH / 3B Hanley Ortiz Sandoval Betts Bradley (I'm very confident he'll show enough at the plate the next 2 months to earn the starting CF job next year) Castillo or, if he is relegated to the bench and has too much value to use there, another RHH OF RH 1B / OF or 1B/ 3B to platoon with Ortiz and maybe Sandoval (IOW, what Craig was supposed to be) X: could be Heyward or other LHH staring OF, new starting 1B, or LH OF bench bat like De Aza
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 5, 2015 12:56:02 GMT -5
Eric, I also count Holt as an OF.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 5, 2015 13:14:52 GMT -5
The season is over and they still haven't moved Hanley, or even tried him, at another position. Until they do it's a mistake to just assume that they will or that they won't consider him as an OF when building the team in the ofseason.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 5, 2015 13:28:47 GMT -5
Well, Heyward does have a 27 home run season of his own and multiple 5+ WAR seasons, and he'll be considerably younger than any of those players were (he's on pace for four 5+ rWAR seasons, which is pretty impressive for a player yet to turn 26). You're right that those players were probably more highly regarded when they reached free agency than Heyward is, but between his age (including the fact that GMs are more conscious of aging curves these days) and inflation, I think he'll get least $130m+ guaranteed (assuming he opts for a true long-term deal and not a Porcello-esque short but high AAV deal). ADD: or what he said. I get the argument, I just think that there's a reason that you rarely see WAR cited when contracts are announced. People still emphasize offensive performance, especially at the corner spots, and even if he's 26, he's been pretty wildly inconsistent offensively and injury prone. I wouldn't argue that he might well produce that value, and it's true that he's a somewhat unique case given his age, but unless he signs and 8 or 9 year deal, I'd be extremely surprised to see him get that kind of money. Get ready to be extremely surprised then. Carl Crawford got 7/142 entering his age 29 season, and that was four years ago. And he was three years older than Heyward. Yeah offense still gets paid more, but if anything, teams are buying more into defense as time goes on, so I see no reason to believe he'll get less than what Crawford got, and I think he'll get significantly more. You don't think a team like Houston views Heyward as a star caliber player? They seem like an obvious fit to me, assuming that they're ready to start spending significantly on the big league roster. His wRC+ the last four years: 121 120 110 116 I wouldn't call that "wildly inconsistent" and while health is a concern he's probably going to play 140 games for the third time in those last four seasons.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Aug 5, 2015 14:20:37 GMT -5
I get the argument, I just think that there's a reason that you rarely see WAR cited when contracts are announced. People still emphasize offensive performance, especially at the corner spots, and even if he's 26, he's been pretty wildly inconsistent offensively and injury prone. I wouldn't argue that he might well produce that value, and it's true that he's a somewhat unique case given his age, but unless he signs and 8 or 9 year deal, I'd be extremely surprised to see him get that kind of money. Get ready to be extremely surprised then. Carl Crawford got 7/142 entering his age 29 season, and that was four years ago. And he was three years older than Heyward. Yeah offense still gets paid more, but if anything, teams are buying more into defense as time goes on, so I see no reason to believe he'll get less than what Crawford got, and I think he'll get significantly more. You don't think a team like Houston views Heyward as a star caliber player? They seem like an obvious fit to me, assuming that they're ready to start spending significantly on the big league roster. His wRC+ the last four years: 121 120 110 116 I wouldn't call that "wildly inconsistent" and while health is a concern he's probably going to play 140 games for the third time in those last four seasons. It will be between 7/150 and 10/200
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 5, 2015 15:05:44 GMT -5
Yep. Castillo or JBJ makes Heyward redundant at this point. Both probably have to go for there to be room for Heyward. I think that the advanced sabermetric technique known as "counting the number of outfielders on the roster" reveals this to be untrue. Hanley is likelier than not in the infield next year, which leaves you with an OF of Castillo, Bradley, and Betts. And there's a decent chance that Bradley / Castillo are a platoon pair rather than a pair of starters. The only thing that makes Heyward redundant is either Hanley being even worse at 1B than in LF (or ditto for Hanley at 3B and Sandoval at 1B), or both Bradley and Castillo being first-division starter quality. Bradley seems to be a significantly better player than Castillo at this point, so (assuming they do move Hanley to 1B or 3B), if you can sign Heyward, you are in a position of deciding whether Castillo has more value to you as a 4th OF and platoon partner for Bradley and/or Ortiz, or as a trade chip. If you can't sign Heyward or trade for an equivalent player, you are probably committing to Castillo as a regular, probably supplemented by a LH bench bat for tough RHP. The 8 roster spots for OF / 1B/ DH / 3B Hanley Ortiz Sandoval Betts Bradley (I'm very confident he'll show enough at the plate the next 2 months to earn the starting CF job next year) Castillo or, if he is relegated to the bench and has too much value to use there, another RHH OF RH 1B / OF or 1B/ 3B to platoon with Ortiz and maybe Sandoval (IOW, what Craig was supposed to be) X: could be Heyward or other LHH staring OF, new starting 1B, or LH OF bench bat like De Aza Yea I could see this, and I'm all for trying Hanley at first base, but it seems he and the team is against it (I'd try him there this season after moving Napoli). But my point was it doesn't make sense to further commit to the outfield when pitching, both starting and relief, is our major problem. We have Napoli, Masterson, Victorino, Dodgers payment and Breslow coming off the books, but we also have Porcello, Craig, Miley, Hanley and Arbitration guys getting raises. (this is actual $ not luxury tax $). We don't have a ton of financial flexibility, and the pitching staff outside of 5-6 players, 2 of them being prospects, is in shambles.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 5, 2015 16:59:20 GMT -5
I questioned - and will continue to question - this whole "philosophy" of not giving free agent starters over 30 long term deals. I am not sure a team can consistently win being that rigid unless they have demonstrated superior ability to develop pitching internally (Oak, StL, TB). This team has a huge deficit in pitcher development. Until they fix it they it almost seems they may have to pay for 6/7 years of salary for 3/4 years of of high level performance if they want to win. What is the cost of that versus losing ticket sales, TV revenue, concession revenue etc. which all decline when this team loses? Also, as shown with the Scherzer deal, there are creative ways to spend that money. As I understand it, deferred payments have his salary against the luxury tax calculation down significantly over seven years to something like $15M a year. So what if they are paying him 5 years after he's no longer on their roster, gone, especially given inflation and the revenue generated when he was there? There are other ways to get creative, too, as has been discussed here.
Sure these contracts are a gamble and always lose money at the back end, but that may be the cost of doing business in this era for a team that consistently fail to draft and develop or trade for above average starters - at least, if they want to win. I'm not sure this organization as currently constructed CAN win being this inflexible. And as much as a couple guys in A Ball look like they might - might - be better than a #3 down the road, the road to the bigs is littered with such guys, and you can get away with a whole lot on the lower levels with just velocity. That doesn't mean it translates to the command and control you need to succeed in MLB. You can all sit there and say "complete rebuild" and "patience" but as Cherington said himself, that is not an option in Boston. The ownership's business model is not built that way, and I don't think their ownership would willing sit (or stand) for that.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Aug 5, 2015 18:39:05 GMT -5
I questioned - and will continue to question - this whole "philosophy" of not giving free agent starters over 30 long term deals. I am not sure a team can consistently win being that rigid unless they have demonstrated superior ability to develop pitching internally (Oak, StL, TB). This team has a huge deficit in pitcher development. Until they fix it they it almost seems they may have to pay for 6/7 years of salary for 3/4 years of of high level performance if they want to win. What is the cost of that versus losing ticket sales, TV revenue, concession revenue etc. which all decline when this team loses? Also, as shown with the Scherzer deal, there are creative ways to spend that money. As I understand it, deferred payments have his salary against the luxury tax calculation down significantly over seven years to something like $15M a year. So what if they are paying him 5 years after he's no longer on their roster, gone, especially given inflation and the revenue generated when he was there? There are other ways to get creative, too, as has been discussed here. Sure these contracts are a gamble and always lose money at the back end, but that may be the cost of doing business in this era for a team that consistently fail to draft and develop or trade for above average starters - at least, if they want to win. I'm not sure this organization as currently constructed CAN win being this inflexible. And as much as a couple guys in A Ball look like they might - might - be better than a #3 down the road, the road to the bigs is littered with such guys, and you can get away with a whole lot on the lower levels with just velocity. That doesn't mean it translates to the command and control you need to succeed in MLB. You can all sit there and say "complete rebuild" and "patience" but as Cherington said himself, that is not an option in Boston. The ownership's business model is not built that way, and I don't think their ownership would willing sit (or stand) for that. More and more I'm feeling the same way. I believe deeply in player development, or I wouldn't be so fascinated with this site....but THIS year has finally turned me to the " dark side. Being inflexible with the idea of signing 30+ year old (really good!) starting pitchers is a losing proposition, and I'm tired of this model. I totally agree with developing most of your roster with home grown talent, but you have to have some studs in place to get to the top. Our studs need to be put out to pasture and replaced. I hope we definitely go after a Price or Cueto type. I hope we don't stop there either. It surely looks like the 3rd year out of 4 with us in last place. Being inflexible this winter will not get us back to competing. We should have signed Lester. We need to sign someone who will handle the top of our rotation (and trade some of our young talent for a young #2).
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 5, 2015 18:47:12 GMT -5
for those that wanted Chase Headley “@brianmacp: Chase Headley, the most obvious alternative to Pablo Sandoval last winter, is a minus-7 Defensive Runs Saved this season.”
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 5, 2015 20:47:00 GMT -5
for those that wanted Chase Headley “@brianmacp: Chase Headley, the most obvious alternative to Pablo Sandoval last winter, is a minus-7 Defensive Runs Saved this season.” He's also +2.1 UZR/150 and 2.0 fWAR, and has a significantly better defensive track record than Sandoval. Even by rWAR, which uses DRS, he's been two wins better than Sandoval this year, and all three major projection systems project him to be better than Sandoval going forward (despite being paid significantly less).
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Aug 5, 2015 20:49:42 GMT -5
for those that wanted Chase Headley “@brianmacp: Chase Headley, the most obvious alternative to Pablo Sandoval last winter, is a minus-7 Defensive Runs Saved this season.” True, but one could easily point out that Pablo is a minus-13 Defensive Runs Saved this season and the argument is still a valid one especially when considering the financials.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 5, 2015 21:20:06 GMT -5
for those that wanted Chase Headley “@brianmacp: Chase Headley, the most obvious alternative to Pablo Sandoval last winter, is a minus-7 Defensive Runs Saved this season.” I wanted him or Hanley at 3rd and wanted to us the surplus to go toward Scherzer. This was before the Porcello extension was anounced. OF would've been Mookie, JBJ and Castillo, and we still would've had cash for a starter and to build a pen. C'est la merde.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 5, 2015 21:27:43 GMT -5
for those that wanted Chase Headley “@brianmacp: Chase Headley, the most obvious alternative to Pablo Sandoval last winter, is a minus-7 Defensive Runs Saved this season.” I wanted him or Hanley at 3rd and wanted to us the surplus to go toward Scherzer. This was before the Porcello extension was anounced. OF would've been Mookie, JBJ and Castillo, and we still would've had cash for a starter and to build a pen. C'est la merde. I have just about given up on Bradley as a hitter. Anything inside licks him up and I do not think it is because we rushed him a few years ago. I think it goes back to college when he was hit and broke his wrist.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 5, 2015 22:47:42 GMT -5
I questioned - and will continue to question - this whole "philosophy" of not giving free agent starters over 30 long term deals. I am not sure a team can consistently win being that rigid unless they have demonstrated superior ability to develop pitching internally (Oak, StL, TB). This team has a huge deficit in pitcher development. Until they fix it they it almost seems they may have to pay for 6/7 years of salary for 3/4 years of of high level performance if they want to win. What is the cost of that versus losing ticket sales, TV revenue, concession revenue etc. which all decline when this team loses? Also, as shown with the Scherzer deal, there are creative ways to spend that money. As I understand it, deferred payments have his salary against the luxury tax calculation down significantly over seven years to something like $15M a year. So what if they are paying him 5 years after he's no longer on their roster, gone, especially given inflation and the revenue generated when he was there? There are other ways to get creative, too, as has been discussed here. Sure these contracts are a gamble and always lose money at the back end, but that may be the cost of doing business in this era for a team that consistently fail to draft and develop or trade for above average starters - at least, if they want to win. I'm not sure this organization as currently constructed CAN win being this inflexible. And as much as a couple guys in A Ball look like they might - might - be better than a #3 down the road, the road to the bigs is littered with such guys, and you can get away with a whole lot on the lower levels with just velocity. That doesn't mean it translates to the command and control you need to succeed in MLB. You can all sit there and say "complete rebuild" and "patience" but as Cherington said himself, that is not an option in Boston. The ownership's business model is not built that way, and I don't think their ownership would willing sit (or stand) for that. I'm with you on this. I acknowledge that spending say $150 million on 6 years for a pitcher is a very risky thing, and more times than not, that deal could be one that you regret. However, it comes down to two things. 1) You look for a pitcher who has a good health history and 2) somebody who's most likely to satisfactorily fulfill the bulk of his contract. This is why I was pushing so hard for Lester last year. I think with his mechanics and body type, he stands a good chance of still being a sturdy pitcher by the time he's 35 and he still has a good shot at being at least a mid-rotation starter by then. With these long-term deals, of course you get hit hard on the back end of the deal. However, if the pitcher declines by the end of the deal, keep in mind that the average cost for pitching is also inflated by then, meaning that a $25 million annual salary you lock into today for an ace might be the equivalent of a mid rotation pitcher by the time 6 years have passed and aces are getting $35 million/year. And in the case of the Sox, they have three young pitchers that will be trying to get established in 2016 who will be under their control in 2020 or so, and should have another wave that would include Kopeck, Espinoza, and perhaps an advanced college arm they could pick up next year or the year after in the draft. This in combination with an inexpensive young core around the diamond, should make it palatable for the Sox to take the risk and spend the money on a 30 year old pitcher. At some point you have to pay for front line, top of the rotation pitching. You can't keep trying to win with middle to back end of the rotation starters, and a bunch of present day question marks. The Sox, if they want to compete in 2016, need to have at least three starters step up, provide innings of quantity and quality. It's not hard to imagine Rodriguez improving enough to be one of those guys. We know that Buchholz can be one of those guys for short bursts of time, but it's hard to imagine him doing so coming off an injury, and with his inconsistent track record. On top of that Porcello, Kelly, and Miley are more likely to be flops or back-end starters, as is Wright. And for all the talk of not wanting to spend the money, the thought of giving up players from that young inexpensive core they're trying to build for the future, defeats the purpose of what they're trying to accomplish. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, and whoever this youngish controlled starter would be that they spend these prospects on, the starter might not even be an established ace, but rather an investment they hope pays off. I'd rather take the surer thing, even if it's not going to last the duration of the contract. Some contracts are like that. You spend big bucks and don't get results all throughout, but at the end it's worth it. Schilling, Foulke, Victorino, off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 6, 2015 6:23:56 GMT -5
I questioned - and will continue to question - this whole "philosophy" of not giving free agent starters over 30 long term deals. I am not sure a team can consistently win being that rigid unless they have demonstrated superior ability to develop pitching internally (Oak, StL, TB). This team has a huge deficit in pitcher development. Until they fix it they it almost seems they may have to pay for 6/7 years of salary for 3/4 years of of high level performance if they want to win. What is the cost of that versus losing ticket sales, TV revenue, concession revenue etc. which all decline when this team loses? Also, as shown with the Scherzer deal, there are creative ways to spend that money. As I understand it, deferred payments have his salary against the luxury tax calculation down significantly over seven years to something like $15M a year. So what if they are paying him 5 years after he's no longer on their roster, gone, especially given inflation and the revenue generated when he was there? There are other ways to get creative, too, as has been discussed here. Sure these contracts are a gamble and always lose money at the back end, but that may be the cost of doing business in this era for a team that consistently fail to draft and develop or trade for above average starters - at least, if they want to win. I'm not sure this organization as currently constructed CAN win being this inflexible. And as much as a couple guys in A Ball look like they might - might - be better than a #3 down the road, the road to the bigs is littered with such guys, and you can get away with a whole lot on the lower levels with just velocity. That doesn't mean it translates to the command and control you need to succeed in MLB. You can all sit there and say "complete rebuild" and "patience" but as Cherington said himself, that is not an option in Boston. The ownership's business model is not built that way, and I don't think their ownership would willing sit (or stand) for that. Pick out the next Verlander or Lincecum you want to sign. Sometimes you get 0 good years.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Aug 6, 2015 8:02:16 GMT -5
I keep seeing alot of talk about signing Heward. Why? i don't think he's all that great to be honest and why waste the money on another outfielder when we need to focus on other needs.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 6, 2015 8:23:33 GMT -5
Get ready to be extremely surprised then. Carl Crawford got 7/142 entering his age 29 season, and that was four years ago. And he was three years older than Heyward. Yeah offense still gets paid more, but if anything, teams are buying more into defense as time goes on, so I see no reason to believe he'll get less than what Crawford got, and I think he'll get significantly more. You don't think a team like Houston views Heyward as a star caliber player? They seem like an obvious fit to me, assuming that they're ready to start spending significantly on the big league roster. His wRC+ the last four years: 121 120 110 116 I wouldn't call that "wildly inconsistent" and while health is a concern he's probably going to play 140 games for the third time in those last four seasons. His power numbers have been wildly inconsistent, that's primarily what I was talking about. I really don't buy Crawford as a great comparison. He'd been to multiple all-star games and had a much higher profile than Heyward does at this stage. I'm not debating the guy's value, I just don't think that GMs weigh advanced stats into contract offers as much as all of you seem to think, especially when the traditional ones favor their argument. It's more a question of leverage, and GMs can point out a bunch of question marks to drive his price down. Injury, power/lack thereof at a corner OF, and he's never hit for a particularly high average. Doesn't matter if Houston thinks he's a star or not, if they don't think others will pay him like one, then they won't offer him that kind of money. Anyway, as I said, we'll see in the offseason, and I don't feel like making the same points again. It will be interesting to watch unfold because it'll give us some indication of how heavily advanced metrics are being weighted by clubs in negotiations, and how much they'll still turn to traditional numbers if it favors their argument.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 6, 2015 8:42:54 GMT -5
I'm not debating the guy's value, I just don't think that GMs weigh advanced stats into contract offers as much as all of you seem to think, especially when the traditional ones favor their argument. It's more a question of leverage, and GMs can point out a bunch of question marks to drive his price down. Injury, power/lack thereof at a corner OF, and he's never hit for a particularly high average. Doesn't matter if Houston thinks he's a star or not, if they don't think others will pay him like one, then they won't offer him that kind of money. All it really takes is two front offices who think he's a legitimate 4+ win player entering his prime to drive his price to those levels, and I think that's going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2015 9:00:07 GMT -5
I questioned - and will continue to question - this whole "philosophy" of not giving free agent starters over 30 long term deals. I am not sure a team can consistently win being that rigid unless they have demonstrated superior ability to develop pitching internally (Oak, StL, TB). This team has a huge deficit in pitcher development. Until they fix it they it almost seems they may have to pay for 6/7 years of salary for 3/4 years of of high level performance if they want to win. What is the cost of that versus losing ticket sales, TV revenue, concession revenue etc. which all decline when this team loses? Also, as shown with the Scherzer deal, there are creative ways to spend that money. As I understand it, deferred payments have his salary against the luxury tax calculation down significantly over seven years to something like $15M a year. So what if they are paying him 5 years after he's no longer on their roster, gone, especially given inflation and the revenue generated when he was there? There are other ways to get creative, too, as has been discussed here. Sure these contracts are a gamble and always lose money at the back end, but that may be the cost of doing business in this era for a team that consistently fail to draft and develop or trade for above average starters - at least, if they want to win. I'm not sure this organization as currently constructed CAN win being this inflexible. And as much as a couple guys in A Ball look like they might - might - be better than a #3 down the road, the road to the bigs is littered with such guys, and you can get away with a whole lot on the lower levels with just velocity. That doesn't mean it translates to the command and control you need to succeed in MLB. You can all sit there and say "complete rebuild" and "patience" but as Cherington said himself, that is not an option in Boston. The ownership's business model is not built that way, and I don't think their ownership would willing sit (or stand) for that. Pick out the next Verlander or Lincecum you want to sign. Sometimes you get 0 good years. I wanted Grienke when he was available before Dodgers signed him and was quite vocal about it here. I also advocated for Tanaka and Scherzer and Lester. Scherzer was the guy I wanted most last year because of his ability, number of pitches thrown, age, and his commitment to physical conditioning. He also has the repeater that I think may age well into number 2/3 status in years 5-7. I honestly believe an organization with these financial resources should sign one of these guys every 3-4 years. That should be part of the advantage they hold with their financial resources, and a nod to the fact that they are decidedly NOT the Cardinals (or TB or Oak when it comes to pitcher drafting, development and trades. Hell, they're not even Baltimore). There is also a quality to this where teams know who will likely be free agents 2-3 years down the road so when a good candidate for such a deal like a Grienke first time around or Scherzer comes along. Then again, I used to trust this organization with player evaluation. Last several years, not so much. ADDED: I would take a good look at Price's medicals in the off-seson and if they look good - he has had an elbow inflammation in the last couple years - I would go after him.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Aug 6, 2015 9:08:50 GMT -5
Yep. Castillo or JBJ makes Heyward redundant at this point. Both probably have to go for there to be room for Heyward. I think that the advanced sabermetric technique known as "counting the number of outfielders on the roster" reveals this to be untrue. Hanley is likelier than not in the infield next year, which leaves you with an OF of Castillo, Bradley, and Betts. And there's a decent chance that Bradley / Castillo are a platoon pair rather than a pair of starters. The only thing that makes Heyward redundant is either Hanley being even worse at 1B than in LF (or ditto for Hanley at 3B and Sandoval at 1B), or both Bradley and Castillo being first-division starter quality. Bradley seems to be a significantly better player than Castillo at this point, so (assuming they do move Hanley to 1B or 3B), if you can sign Heyward, you are in a position of deciding whether Castillo has more value to you as a 4th OF and platoon partner for Bradley and/or Ortiz, or as a trade chip. If you can't sign Heyward or trade for an equivalent player, you are probably committing to Castillo as a regular, probably supplemented by a LH bench bat for tough RHP. The 8 roster spots for OF / 1B/ DH / 3B Hanley Ortiz Sandoval Betts Bradley (I'm very confident he'll show enough at the plate the next 2 months to earn the starting CF job next year) Castillo or, if he is relegated to the bench and has too much value to use there, another RHH OF RH 1B / OF or 1B/ 3B to platoon with Ortiz and maybe Sandoval (IOW, what Craig was supposed to be) X: could be Heyward or other LHH staring OF, new starting 1B, or LH OF bench bat like De Aza JBJ is significantly better than Cstillo? Really? Using what criteria? i will say this. Castillo looks really uncomfortable in RF. He was far better in CF last year IMO. He is obviously not as good defensively as JBJ in CF. He looks like a LF to me. His bat is clearly more of an impact bat than JBJ though.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2015 9:29:55 GMT -5
I'm not debating the guy's value, I just don't think that GMs weigh advanced stats into contract offers as much as all of you seem to think, especially when the traditional ones favor their argument. It's more a question of leverage, and GMs can point out a bunch of question marks to drive his price down. Injury, power/lack thereof at a corner OF, and he's never hit for a particularly high average. Doesn't matter if Houston thinks he's a star or not, if they don't think others will pay him like one, then they won't offer him that kind of money. All it really takes is two front offices who think he's a legitimate 4+ win player entering his prime to drive his price to those levels, and I think that's going to happen. Agree with this. The wage inflation in MLB has continued to escalate over the past few years with the game being flush with cash. And as jmei alluded, in an auction, all you need are two passionate potential buyers to drive-up the price and reset the market.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 6, 2015 10:25:44 GMT -5
I wanted Grienke when he was available before Dodgers signed him and was quite vocal about it here. I also advocated for Tanaka and Scherzer and Lester. Scherzer was the guy I wanted most last year because of his ability, number of pitches thrown, age, and his commitment to physical conditioning. He also has the repeater that I think may age well into number 2/3 status in years 5-7. I honestly believe an organization with these financial resources should sign one of these guys every 3-4 years. That should be part of the advantage they hold with their financial resources, and a nod to the fact that they are decidedly NOT the Cardinals (or TB or Oak when it comes to pitcher drafting, development and trades. Hell, they're not even Baltimore). There is also a quality to this where teams know who will likely be free agents 2-3 years down the road so when a good candidate for such a deal like a Grienke first time around or Scherzer comes along. That's awesome. You're a great judge of talent. [ballwash] Grienke was never coming to Boston. MFY was never being outbid for Tanaka. WAS was never being outbid for Scherzer. Boston was out of the Lester sweepstakes after their ill-advised ST offer. So, you're dreaming if you think the Red Sox FO did something wrong by not signing those guys (Lester excepted). Boston no longer holds a significant advantage w/r/t financial resources. There's a lot of TV/cable money floating around. Oh, and David Price is not coming to Boston.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 6, 2015 10:50:51 GMT -5
Boston no longer holds a significant advantage w/r/t financial resources. There's a lot of TV/cable money floating around. Oh, and David Price is not coming to Boston. Maybe there's not a huge edge for us anymore, but I think it's still pretty significant. The Sox have the 3rd highest payroll in the majors, and they spend $65m more than #10 (Toronto), which is basically the Marlin's payroll by itself. Even with all the TV money around, I'd say the Sox, Dodgers, and Yankees have a clear edge on the rest of the league, with maybe a couple of exceptions. Either way, the Sox have way more financial muscle than all but about 6 or 7 other teams. On Price, obviously it's a long shot, but unless you have some kind of source within his camp or something, you never know. The FO has to know something's gotta change with their approach, and the most glaring flaw is the lack of starting pitching. They don't seem to be patient enough to wait for it to develop through the farm, they don't seem to want to part with prospects to acquire it, and they don't want to spend the money on the guys that hit the free agent market. One of those things will change this offseason (I hope) and it might be the money. Doubt it will, but if it is, there's no reason they couldn't be a serious contender to sign him EDIT: Apart from the fact that he doesn't like Ortiz maybe
|
|
|