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 jrffam05 on Jun 2, 2015 16:07:58 GMT -5
If It wasn't obvious it is my opinion, than my fault. I have no problem moving on, I tried to but the return replys kept coming. I gave examples, no one seemed to get it. How do you explain chemistry? It's like trying to explain love? I practically live and die by this team... and am very heartbroken. I''m just trying to answer the question as posted by the original post. Strictly my opinion. Please, let's move on.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jun 2, 2015 19:39:22 GMT -5
Gerry - Perhaps you are not familiar with the Boston Red Sox, the Boston media market or former manager Robert John Valentine, or perhaps you have blissfully had those memories wiped from your brain stem. In any event, you made a statement, have been called on it several times and have been unable to give a concrete example. Stop digging. Sincerely, Time will tell. Life is more than what meets the eye. No more posts by me. Btw, I grew up within walking distance of Fenway Park and have been a die-hard Red sox fan for about 60 years, and have a very sound memory. You're a new poster here. And sometimes it's tough to get piled on and beaten down. I hope you continue to state your opinions on this site because your lifetime experience following the Sox is important.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 2, 2015 20:42:05 GMT -5
Really good right now, maybe. In two years? Probably not. $44M for two years of 2014 CC Sabathia is not inviting to me at all, especially when it blocks Owens, Johnson, and probably Kopech at that point. Yuck, no thanks. Dude...What you know about the future is purely conjecture. And the chances of either 3 of the guys you just mentioned being in his class in 3 yeras is purely conjecture. Not trying to single you out here......an I apologize if it comes across this way....but there are a lot of people that write with such certainty about future events that it seems your coming back in time to enlighten us. Cole Hamels makes us a better team today. I can say that with a high degree of certainty. That is where my mindset is....let's make the moves to help us win today. I have been on the record...that doesn't make me a leper. Of course it's conjecture. But: 1) the odds are that he won't be pitching nearly up to his contract. By your reasoning, the Sox should have dropped 30 million a year to sign Scherzer or re-signed Ellsbury at 25M a year because "they make the team better now." That's not the way to run a business IMO. All investments carry risk, and analysis of historical data shows that most pitchers, even elite ones (a category Hamels almost, but probably doesn't quite fit in), tend to decline slowly from 28-32 and much more rapidly thereafter. Buying into the remainder of this year plus 4/88 (presuming they'll have to pick up his option) is a huge investment and will have implications for future signings, including contract extensions for the young players they have now, who are likely to be reaching their primes just as Hamels would be likely to become dead weight. 2) investing a ton of money and prospects in a player who, given the current state of their play and the fact that they'd need to leapfrog four teams, is unlikely to even give them a solid chance at a playoff spot has very little current value. He could put up a sub-2 ERA for the rest of the year, and unless the Sox hit, he still won't make them a winning team, let alone a legitimate threat in the playoffs, if they even get there. Tossing money and prospects away to finish third at 81-81...no thanks. I don't care if you single me out or not, I still think trading for Hamels is a terrible idea, unless they don't give up that much to get him. Even then, I think his contract is a huge risk, and there are mounds of starting pitcher attrition data to support that. This is just one such example: freakonomics.com/2008/02/11/analyzing-roger-clemens-a-step-by-step-guide/
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 2, 2015 20:52:08 GMT -5
The question is, would he take or turn down the QO? Because if he takes it, that could create an issue next year, especially if he plays poorly. Eh, the idea is, generally speaking, to give him the QO if you think he is going to play well, and not give him the QO is you think he is going to play poorly. What to do if a player you think is going to play well plays poorly instead is a much more general issue... as can be seen in both this and the previous season for the Red Sox. I'm of the mind that firing John Farrell would be a good start to solving this problem. I do agree with your point that trading Napoli for anything less than the equivalent of a sandwich-round talent is a serious mistake. He's probably worth the risk of a one-year flier with the hope that he plays well enough to justify most of the cost or, potentially, return a similar minor-league talent in trade next July. I certainly think exploring the market for him (he's on pace for 25 HR or so, and hasn't really had one if his patented long hot streaks yet) is worthwhile though. Again, the next 2-4 weeks will probably provide better insight on the team's direction, and whether buy/sell mode is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 2, 2015 21:02:58 GMT -5
The Sox have around a -50 run differential. This isn't a team that's four games under .500 because they lost a couple extra-inning games and have a 2-9 record in one-run games. They've been absolutely, consistently, and roundly humiliated by nearly every team they've played. They show absolutely zero indication of being a playoff-caliber team, and even if they back in, they're most likely not going anywhere. If they go on a 12-2 run, I'll change my tune. Talk about a wing and a prayer. Why can't team actually make a trade that helps their team incrementally and also play better (or go on a run as you say) ? Are those mutually exclusive events? The 4 games (now 4.5) is just a marker at this point in the season showing that they are close to the division lead. It is eminently attainable when you still have over 100 games lef in a season. Because an incremental improvement to a team that still is getting outscored by over a run per game isn't worth a massive contract and giving up top prospects. Say they had Hamels all year instead of Masterson. They're still probably under .500. Maybe they're 25-26, or even 26-25. So what? Then they're in essentially a three-way tie for first...but they're still a .500 team. They still have to beat out four other similarly flawed teams to make the playoffs. And really, I don't care all that much if they make the playoffs and do a 2005 redux, which is the likely outcome. OK, maybe Hamels triples their odds of making the postseason, from 10% to 30%. That's probably a best-case scenario and it's not worth the long-term cost to me. Obviously you feel differently, but nothing you've said convinces me to suddenly agree with you. Our fundamental focuses are different, win now vs. win for an extended period, even if it means sacrificing this season.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jun 2, 2015 21:27:02 GMT -5
Dude, you are right.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 2, 2015 22:34:21 GMT -5
Talk about a wing and a prayer. Why can't team actually make a trade that helps their team incrementally and also play better (or go on a run as you say) ? Are those mutually exclusive events? The 4 games (now 4.5) is just a marker at this point in the season showing that they are close to the division lead. It is eminently attainable when you still have over 100 games lef in a season. Because an incremental improvement to a team that still is getting outscored by over a run per game isn't worth a massive contract and giving up top prospects. Say they had Hamels all year instead of Masterson. They're still probably under .500. Maybe they're 25-26, or even 26-25. So what? Then they're in essentially a three-way tie for first...but they're still a .500 team. They still have to beat out four other similarly flawed teams to make the playoffs. And really, I don't care all that much if they make the playoffs and do a 2005 redux, which is the likely outcome. OK, maybe Hamels triples their odds of making the postseason, from 10% to 30%. That's probably a best-case scenario and it's not worth the long-term cost to me. Obviously you feel differently, but nothing you've said convinces me to suddenly agree with you. Our fundamental focuses are different, win now vs. win for an extended period, even if it means sacrificing this season. 2005 is a dream compared to this.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Jun 2, 2015 22:43:37 GMT -5
The "fix" is the offense playing like they "should". There's too much offensive talent to be 20th in wOBA (.303), 23rd in wRC+ (89).
And there isn't a trade or what that will make this offense much better. They're last in BABIP, which partially says the offense will move back towards the mean but also that they've just flat out struggled.
They need Ortiz, Swihart, Xander, Nava, and the catcher position to hit better.
Hanley, Mookie, and Napoli as well, but they've at least been closer to league average.
The pitching staff is good enough that a top 5 (maybe 10) offense gets them into the playoffs. It's not good enough, nor was it ever supposed to be good enough, to propel a bottom 10 offense into the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 2, 2015 22:52:45 GMT -5
Hahaha! Thanks...that was much more succinct than me. FWIW, I think the -47 run diff after 52 games and the 23-29 record are much better markers of where they are than "4.5 games back." Now, if Clay continues this renaissance, the offense sparks, the defense improves, Rodriguez keeps things up, and they're at least a few games over .500 in early July, I'm completely ready to talk Johnny Cueto and Aroldis Chapman for a couple of 50-100 range guys an a pair of lottery tickets. Or even Hamels if the Phils give up thinking Swihart, Bogaerts, Betts, Rodriguez, Devers, Margot...heh heh, probably Owens, Kopech, and Johnson too. Just not convinced, though I could see Owens or Johnson and a couple chips if the Phils toss a substantial amount of cash in.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jun 2, 2015 23:22:01 GMT -5
yep. It was disturbing watching John Henry do an assessment today ... is his management team trying to win baseball or are they YES men trying to keep the boss happy? That's what happens when folks like John Henry get involved in baseball stuff. It seems surreal. The fans like to hear that nonsense?
What is the John Henry plan for Carlos Peguero? How could he have one? Is Henry seeking an unbiased opinion on Ortiz? Does he have an opinion on bunting?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 2, 2015 23:59:49 GMT -5
Because an incremental improvement to a team that still is getting outscored by over a run per game isn't worth a massive contract and giving up top prospects. Say they had Hamels all year instead of Masterson. They're still probably under .500. Maybe they're 25-26, or even 26-25. So what? Then they're in essentially a three-way tie for first...but they're still a .500 team. They still have to beat out four other similarly flawed teams to make the playoffs. And really, I don't care all that much if they make the playoffs and do a 2005 redux, which is the likely outcome. OK, maybe Hamels triples their odds of making the postseason, from 10% to 30%. That's probably a best-case scenario and it's not worth the long-term cost to me. Obviously you feel differently, but nothing you've said convinces me to suddenly agree with you. Our fundamental focuses are different, win now vs. win for an extended period, even if it means sacrificing this season. 2005 is a dream compared to this. You got that right. If the Sox get hot enough to win this thing, they'd be very fortunate to win 88 - 90 games. The 2005 team won 95 games. They lacked a true ace with Schilling coming off the ankle injury, but what really sunk them was a crazy stretch of games toward the end of the season. They had a 4 inning rainout that I attended. The game being canceled voided out a loss that game as they were getting beaten pretty good, but it necessitated the Sox giving up a very key and needed offday to make up the game, which they lost anyways. That 2005 team was a very tired team and it showed against the White Sox.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 3, 2015 6:57:17 GMT -5
Now, if Clay continues this renaissance, I have no idea what you're talking about. Buchholz the last 2 games: 3.15 xFIP. Buchholz the entire season: 3.11 xFIP. He's been pitching consistently at the same level.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 3, 2015 7:26:19 GMT -5
Now, if Clay continues this renaissance, I have no idea what you're talking about. Buchholz the last 2 games: 3.15 xFIP. Buchholz the entire season: 3.11 xFIP. He's been pitching consistently at the same level. I'm one of the Clay bashers. But, he has pitched well this year. And, taken the ball every turn. Here's his line if you subtract that disastrous outing in NY. 3-5 2.77 era 65 ip 56 h 22 R 20 ER 16 BB 67 K I think we're 3-4 years from being a true contender. I'd deal him in the right plan. Looks like a good LH bat is the biggest thing we're missing. I wonder if Clay and one of our really good prospects could get Schwarber. www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=schwar001kyl
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jun 3, 2015 8:23:58 GMT -5
Sox just traded for De Aza, we can close thecthread down now, all is fixed
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jun 3, 2015 8:42:04 GMT -5
Sox just traded for De Aza, we can close thecthread down now, all is fixed You still looking for the italics tag?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2015 11:36:20 GMT -5
The "fix" is the offense playing like they "should". There's too much offensive talent to be 20th in wOBA (.303), 23rd in wRC+ (89). And there isn't a trade or what that will make this offense much better. They're last in BABIP, which partially says the offense will move back towards the mean but also that they've just flat out struggled. They need Ortiz, Swihart, Xander, Nava, and the catcher position to hit better. Hanley, Mookie, and Napoli as well, but they've at least been closer to league average. The pitching staff is good enough that a top 5 (maybe 10) offense gets them into the playoffs. It's not good enough, nor was it ever supposed to be good enough, to propel a bottom 10 offense into the playoffs. I hold out hope for a BAPIP rebound. I have to believe for sanity's sake that their **very** young up-the-middle core will see some improvement from experience. And I just don't believe Mookie is a .245 hitter, and his atrocious (relative to career) BABIP and eyeball test (finding a stupid number of gloves on hard-hit balls) give me legitimate hope. Swihart seems to be a fast learner and he's showing signs of life with the bat. Bogey is hitting for a reasonable average, if little power. Napoli is just not a .210 hitter. Papi may be slipping, but Pedroia has been pretty solid, showing his old power, and Sandoval and Ramirez have been pretty solid with the bat (though Hanley is truly awful in left...though I do think he's going to get better). I don't know what Rusney will do, but at times he's looked like Ronnie Gant, which would be great if he were. I think JBJ needs a real shot. But yeah, short of acquiring an elite bat (Rizzo, Goldschmidt, Stanton, none of which is remotely likely), the best cure is simply improvement from the young guys and playing to career norms for the veterans. FWIW, I still think this team can turn it around. Buchholz was outstanding last night against a good team playing very well lately. Miley has been better. Porcello's never given up HR like this, so maybe (fingers crossed) it's a fluke and he sorts it out. Rodriguez looks like a very viable mid-rotation guy right now, with 1a/2 upside. The bullpen is OK, not great...trade Marrero and a piece (top-50-70 prospect) for Aroldis Chapman. He'll still be around next year and worth a QO or long-term deal. He also turns the 'pen into a weapon (imagine Koji in a high-leverage situation, followed by Chapman at 12-15 mph faster from the other side), with Tazawa going to the 7th-inning slot. Give Wright a long look and see what he's got...the post-knuckler effect is real. Basically, stay the course, because if things don't improve, no single player will turn this into a WS-caliber team.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2015 11:42:01 GMT -5
I have no idea what you're talking about. Buchholz the last 2 games: 3.15 xFIP. Buchholz the entire season: 3.11 xFIP. He's been pitching consistently at the same level. I'm one of the Clay bashers. But, he has pitched well this year. And, taken the ball every turn. Here's his line if you subtract that disastrous outing in NY. 3-5 2.77 era 65 ip 56 h 22 R 20 ER 16 BB 67 K I think we're 3-4 years from being a true contender. I'd deal him in the right plan. Looks like a good LH bat is the biggest thing we're missing. I wonder if Clay and one of our really good prospects could get Schwarber. www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=schwar001kylWait...you want to trade a guy who's pitching like a #3 (or 2, if you drop the NY start), who has team-friendly options and a currently team-friendly contract, **plus** a really good prospect, for another really good prospect? I like the idea of getting Schwarber, but how good of a prospect are you planning to give up? Trading Buchholz all but concedes this year.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 3, 2015 11:50:01 GMT -5
I'm one of the Clay bashers. But, he has pitched well this year. And, taken the ball every turn. Here's his line if you subtract that disastrous outing in NY. 3-5 2.77 era 65 ip 56 h 22 R 20 ER 16 BB 67 K I think we're 3-4 years from being a true contender. I'd deal him in the right plan. Looks like a good LH bat is the biggest thing we're missing. I wonder if Clay and one of our really good prospects could get Schwarber. www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=schwar001kylWait...you want to trade a guy who's pitching like a #3 (or 2, if you drop the NY start), who has team-friendly options and a currently team-friendly contract, **plus** a really good prospect, for another really good prospect? I like the idea of getting Schwarber, but how good of a prospect are you planning to give up? Trading Buchholz all but concedes this year. For Schwarber, I'd give them Buchholz and Margot. I'd want another decent prospect from them if they pick up Buck's options. I've given up on the next 2-3 years. Not just this year. It's going to take; Mookie, Xander, Swihart and Castillo time to become productive players.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2015 11:50:21 GMT -5
Now, if Clay continues this renaissance, I have no idea what you're talking about. Buchholz the last 2 games: 3.15 xFIP. Buchholz the entire season: 3.11 xFIP. He's been pitching consistently at the same level. Care to show me his xFIP from last year? Because if you'd like to, I'm game, but I'm pretty sure his performance and health this season qualify as a "renaissance." Or were you assuming I was talking just about his last two starts? There are several pithy sayings about assumptions...
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2015 11:54:10 GMT -5
Wait...you want to trade a guy who's pitching like a #3 (or 2, if you drop the NY start), who has team-friendly options and a currently team-friendly contract, **plus** a really good prospect, for another really good prospect? I like the idea of getting Schwarber, but how good of a prospect are you planning to give up? Trading Buchholz all but concedes this year. For Schwarber, I'd give them Buchholz and Margot. I'd want another decent prospect from them if they pick up Buck's options. I've given up on the next 2-3 years. Not just this year. It's going to take; Mookie, Xander, Swihart and Castillo time to become productive players. I would have to think about that proposal...that's probably a good trade for both teams. If the Sox are still struggling come July, I might do it.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 3, 2015 12:01:29 GMT -5
For Schwarber, I'd give them Buchholz and Margot. I'd want another decent prospect from them if they pick up Buck's options. I've given up on the next 2-3 years. Not just this year. It's going to take; Mookie, Xander, Swihart and Castillo time to become productive players. I would have to think about that proposal...that's probably a good trade for both teams. If the Sox are still struggling come July, I might do it. I'm sure Eric still has Theo's number. We'll have to get him on it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 3, 2015 12:06:36 GMT -5
Wait...you want to trade a guy who's pitching like a #3 (or 2, if you drop the NY start), who has team-friendly options and a currently team-friendly contract, **plus** a really good prospect, for another really good prospect? I like the idea of getting Schwarber, but how good of a prospect are you planning to give up? Trading Buchholz all but concedes this year. For Schwarber, I'd give them Buchholz and Margot. I'd want another decent prospect from them if they pick up Buck's options. I've given up on the next 2-3 years. Not just this year. It's going to take; Mookie, Xander, Swihart and Castillo time to become productive players. It is very difficult to envision a scenario where any team, including the Red Sox, would decline Buchholz's 2016 and 2017 options, other than major injury (think season-ending elbow/shoulder issues) or off-field stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 3, 2015 12:14:18 GMT -5
Wait...you want to trade a guy who's pitching like a #3 (or 2, if you drop the NY start), who has team-friendly options and a currently team-friendly contract, **plus** a really good prospect, for another really good prospect? I like the idea of getting Schwarber, but how good of a prospect are you planning to give up? Trading Buchholz all but concedes this year. For Schwarber, I'd give them Buchholz and Margot. I'd want another decent prospect from them if they pick up Buck's options. I've given up on the next 2-3 years. Not just this year. It's going to take; Mookie, Xander, Swihart and Castillo time to become productive players. You know it's possible that Schwarber is never as valuable as Buchholz is right now and that Margot is better? That is one insane trade idea.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 3, 2015 12:22:37 GMT -5
For Schwarber, I'd give them Buchholz and Margot. I'd want another decent prospect from them if they pick up Buck's options. I've given up on the next 2-3 years. Not just this year. It's going to take; Mookie, Xander, Swihart and Castillo time to become productive players. You know it's possible that Schwarber is never as valuable as Buchholz is right now and that Margot is better? That is one insane trade idea. LOL at Margot being better than Schwarber. Only a Red Sox homer would say such a thing. Margot wouldn't have an OPS over 1000 in any league. Many posters on this site really over-rate our prospects. I'll remind when Clay starts to struggle or gets injured again too.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 3, 2015 12:29:34 GMT -5
You know it's possible that Schwarber is never as valuable as Buchholz is right now and that Margot is better? That is one insane trade idea. LOL at Margot being better than Schwarber. Only a Red Sox homer would say such a thing. Margot wouldn't have an OPS over 1000 in any league. Many posters on this site really over-rate our prospects. I'll remind when Clay starts to struggle or gets injured again too. I said it's possible. I'm not being a homer. I'll remind you of Clay's last 4 starts. They could get more than Schwarber without including Margot if they put him up for trade.
|
|
|