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 soxfan1615 on Aug 25, 2015 21:41:56 GMT -5
Also the "too good to tank but not good enough to compete" zone does not exist in baseball. This isn't basketball. Being mediocre is better than being bad, because being closer to competing is worth more than getting a higher draft slot, because the difference in draft pick value is so small. All you have to do is get into the playoffs, and you have a chance. The Indians could've made the playoffs this year had a couple things gone their way. I said absolutely nothing about draft slot. They're really not all that valuable anyway, because every pick is a relative (to other sports) crapshoot, and more years away from contributing. You're taking my words and inferring your own meaning. If you'd like me to clarify, by "tank" I meant play so poorly that it effectively forces a sell-off and rebuild, as opposed to the "elective" rebuilds some smaller and mid-market teams do when they're in the 75-80 win range. Cleveland needs more than "a couple things" to go right to make the playoffs in that division, and far more than that to be a perennial contender, **which is what they need to bring fans back to an empty stadium.** they're in financial dire straits, hence my thinking that salary relief would be very valuable to them. It's fine if you want to argue, but at least read the whole post and not just the one line you disagree with. That's fair, I had just never heard tanking referred to any way other than that before. I have to disagree about Cleveland though. They have 4, maybe 5 real stars. The Kipnis-Brantley-Kluber-Carrasco-Salazar foundation they have to build around is amazing. When you also take into account that they have several other solid players like Gomes, Perez, Santana, Lindor, Bauer, and Chisenhall, they're actually solid at 6 position player spots and 4 rotation spots. They have a couple problems, which are relatively easy to fix. The first is that they're sequencing luck has been horrible. They should be 65-59 according to BaseRuns. That's easy to fix. Wait for the luck to normalize. A 65-59 team would actually be in the playoffs next year. The other problems they have are that their bullpen is not that strong, and they're running out absolute garbage at the CF and RF spots. It's MUCH easier to fix a star studded team with a couple black holes in the field than a mediocre team all around. I think they're very close to the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 25, 2015 22:48:09 GMT -5
I said absolutely nothing about draft slot. They're really not all that valuable anyway, because every pick is a relative (to other sports) crapshoot, and more years away from contributing. You're taking my words and inferring your own meaning. If you'd like me to clarify, by "tank" I meant play so poorly that it effectively forces a sell-off and rebuild, as opposed to the "elective" rebuilds some smaller and mid-market teams do when they're in the 75-80 win range. Cleveland needs more than "a couple things" to go right to make the playoffs in that division, and far more than that to be a perennial contender, **which is what they need to bring fans back to an empty stadium.** they're in financial dire straits, hence my thinking that salary relief would be very valuable to them. It's fine if you want to argue, but at least read the whole post and not just the one line you disagree with. That's fair, I had just never heard tanking referred to any way other than that before. I have to disagree about Cleveland though. They have 4, maybe 5 real stars. The Kipnis-Brantley-Kluber-Carrasco-Salazar foundation they have to build around is amazing. When you also take into account that they have several other solid players like Gomes, Perez, Santana, Lindor, Bauer, and Chisenhall, they're actually solid at 6 position player spots and 4 rotation spots. They have a couple problems, which are relatively easy to fix. The first is that they're sequencing luck has been horrible. They should be 65-59 according to BaseRuns. That's easy to fix. Wait for the luck to normalize. A 65-59 team would actually be in the playoffs next year. The other problems they have are that their bullpen is not that strong, and they're running out absolute garbage at the CF and RF spots. It's MUCH easier to fix a star studded team with a couple black holes in the field than a mediocre team all around. I think they're very close to the playoffs. Yeah, tanking wasn't the best choice. And while it agree fully re: their core, money is a huge issue for them. We probably agree more than we've said...my point is that they have black holes *because* of their strict financial constraints. They can't afford to take on salary to get solid players to fill those spots. And while Kluber has had an off-year, I think the Sox the past several years show just how easy it is for projections to go outtge window. Cleveland's payroll issues hamstring their ability to acquire depth, which is a hallmark of championship teams. Absolutely, Lindor et all make up a nice young second wave, but as CC's, Kluber's, Kipnis's, and Salazar's salaries rise (even only incrementally), they're pushed harder up against their ceiling. Losing Swisher and Bourn will help a lot, but their CF and RF black holes will remain at least until then. That's why I think Margot (or really, JBJ) would be attractive to them. They're going to have a slim window when this first wave hits around 30 and the young guys start playing as solid to above-avg regulars. A guy like Miley gives them a cost-controlled, dependable 4/5, and Margot fits the second wave. Add in another high-upside prospect (Guerra might not be the best for them with Lindor and his distance from the majors), and they lose a couple of wins in the rotation but have payroll freedom to fill RF and injury-related holes that invariably come up. Their rotation can probably withstand the hit, too, if Bauer gets it together. Heck, maybe he's a more reasonable target than CC. Less drop-off for them, and R-CF in Fenway might help his HR problems. As much as I like CC and his contract, he is 28, and they'd be paying a lot more for current performance. I think the real trick is getting pitchers pre-prime (24/25) who have TOR upside. Part of why I hated seeing MFYs get Eovaldi. He's got 5-6 years at or near his current velo based on historical observations of SPs...plenty of time to figure it out. Regardless, I think Miley can be moved and, at least, Owens take his spot with little or no drop-off.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 25, 2015 23:17:00 GMT -5
Not sure this is exactly the right thread, but....
A lot of things might just have gotten fixed this month. I think August has been a great month for the Sox (with the exception of Farrell's health issues).
I think there was a thread talking about what we hoped to see the remainder of 2015. My hope was to go on losing but get a lot of good things out of it, and basically the Sox have bounced around between 10 under and 14 under all month. They've lost ground to 6 NL teams and Oakland in trying to secure the top draft pick, but they're still well positioned to get a talented player.
But a lot of good things have happened.
1) Jackie Bradley Jr became a major league hitter this month. He looks like he could be an asset at the plate, finally fulfilling the promise he showed in the minors. He could be a guy who could even bat toward the top of the order, hit .270, draw walks so that he has a strong OBP, and do so without sacrificing the pop he has, as he looks capable of hitting 15 homers as a full-timer.
2) Bradley's ascent impacts the Sox because it allows Manny Margot (and because of Benintendi's mashing) to become prime trade bait and it allows Hanley Ramirez to try out 1b, which to his credit, he seems willing to do without playing the "they're jerking me around" card, not that he has the right to play it.
3) Rusney Castillo's emergence is huge. Along with Bradley, it chases Hanley out of LF (Thank goodness) and it gives the Sox a fly-chasing OF with good speed and defensive skills. Personally I'd have a defensive alignment of Castillo in LF, Betts in CF, and Bradley in RF at Fenway, and have a defensive alignment of Betts in LF, Bradley in CF, and Castillo in RF on the road, but I don't think that will likely happen. Castillo is hitting like a younger version of Shane Victorino, which is what we had hoped for. Now if only he can be as smart a baserunner...
4) Blake Swihart has hit very well this month. He's not overmatched at the plate, and I don't think there's any reason to think that he can't improve defensively and offensively going forward. I'm in the minority here, but as good as Vazquez's defense is, I prefer Swihart, who won't be confined to the #9 spot in the order as he matures. I don't think I could say that about Vazquez.
5) Don't know if this is good or not, but Joe Kelly has pitched well this month. Maybe, just maybe, he has finally turned the corner? Honestly, I suspect this is a tease, and we'll be stuck watching him disappoint us again next year, but if it isn't a tease, then the Sox really have something here.
There have been other positive developments such as Ortiz has shown he ages very, very slowly, Betts continues to hit well, Bogaerts continues to hit well, Travis Shaw is playing like at least a viable major leaguer going forward, Owens has pitched as we expected he would, alternating struggles with promise while ERod has continued to be dominant at times and awful at other times.
And of course, maybe the real #1 this month is the potential upgrade from Cherington to Dombrowski. Of course I'd like to see what he does first before making that declaration, but all of these things that have happened this month sets the Sox up for 2016. This feels like a different team than they've been most of the year and I think the arrow is pointing up for 2016.
Now Dombrowski has to hire a competent GM, and find a way to improve the bullpen and starting pitching without dealing present and future core players on the team. If he can do that, the Sox could go far in 2016 and if the core remains intact, then they can not only succeed in 2016, but they would be able to sustain it going forward.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 26, 2015 13:46:40 GMT -5
It's way too soon to start talking about exactly what decisions DDo needs to make, and what he need to do over the winter; I'll start that thread at the appropriate time.
But in the meantime, I already know that I'm looking forward to reading hilarious pieces by the CHB, Cafardo, et al about how much work he has to do to rebuild this terrible team.
Right now, the actual list, in its entirety, would seem to be:
-- Rebuild the bullpen. It's a relief that DDo's Tigers teams always had such a good pen. Seriously, this is probably the biggest challenge, ideally constituting the addition of two high-leverage arms, one from each side.
-- Trade for the best possible young starting pitcher.
-- Find a RHH 1B / OF for the bench, to join Hanigan, Holt, and Shaw, who will allow Hanley to DH against some LHP.
-- Use Margot, Guerra, Miley, Marrero, and probably Swihart to accomplish the above, plus non-compensation FAs.
Now, there are many ways this list could change between now and October, so we ought to try to restrain ourselves from speculating about them now, especially since all of them have already been the subject of endless back-and-forth (except the remote possibility that Craig fits the 3rd need). I'm resisting the temptation to visit them all again, myself. I just wanted to point out that this is the single likeliest scenario. And it's not a lot. It's one blockbuster deal (probably involving three clubs) and a bunch of small moves.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 26, 2015 14:40:53 GMT -5
-- Find a RHH 1B / OF for the bench, to join Hanigan, Holt, and Shaw, who will allow Hanley to DH against some LHP. I've said it previously, but (this is assuming we are looking for a RHH 1B/OF bat) I like Prado. He could play 3B, LF, and I'm assuming 1B and 2B also, and has great splits against LHP. This also gives us the option to spell Sandoval or JBJ instead of Ortiz, if Ortiz goes back to mashing LHP again next year. He's a guy who has positional flexibility, and having Holt and Shaw on the bench should help us limit him to mostly AB against LHP. Marlins are said to have a high price tag on Prado, which may be true but is kind of hard to believe. He's one of the highest paid players on that team but still on a reasonable contract. If we can get him for a reasonable package I'd be in on it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 28, 2015 10:06:48 GMT -5
In general the best team in baseball will compile approximately 50 WAR. If a team's objective is to win a division title, it should plan on assembling a 50 WAR team. To compete for a wild card requires between 35 and 40 WAR. This year's Red Sox will aggregate between 25 and 27 WAR. I think it likely that Betts, Bogaerts, Castllo, Bradley Jr, Swihart, Vasquez, Rodriguez et al should be worth another 5 WAR (and possibly more) in 2016. I think Sandoval, Ramirez and Porcello should also be worth a few more WAR. If the Red Sox can add a Price/Greinke/Cueto that's another 4 to 5 WAR. Given that a division champion has about a 12.5% chance of winning the World Series and a wild card winner has about a 6% chance, it seems to me that the obvious right strategy is to sign an ace and hold on to, at least, the team's premium prospects. Agreed. Swihart, Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ (man, it's nice putting him back in that group), Rodriguez, and Owens have all earned their spots, and with the exception of Owens, have established themselves as anywhere from "difficult to replace" to essential. Along with Castillo, they need to play, and as a group are a fairly solid bet to net several more wins next year. Heck, a Betts-JBJ-Castillo OF will net probably 3-4 more wins on defense alone (with most in LF, going from -19 DRS to maybe +5 or better?). Swiharts's defense has gotten demonstrably better and he's hitting. Vazquez should be back in some capacity too. Add in continued progress from Bogaerts, some regression towards career norms for Sandoval and Ramirez (out of LF), and Porcello...not bad. Sign a #1, bump Kelly to the pen, trade from redundancy (Miley-replace with Owens; maybe Margot-we've got JBJ, Betts, Benintendi; maybe Guerra-good time to extend Bogaerts) to fill major holes, and voila, 42-45 WAR team.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 28, 2015 10:13:09 GMT -5
-- Find a RHH 1B / OF for the bench, to join Hanigan, Holt, and Shaw, who will allow Hanley to DH against some LHP. I've said it previously, but (this is assuming we are looking for a RHH 1B/OF bat) I like Prado. He could play 3B, LF, and I'm assuming 1B and 2B also, and has great splits against LHP. This also gives us the option to spell Sandoval or JBJ instead of Ortiz, if Ortiz goes back to mashing LHP again next year. He's a guy who has positional flexibility, and having Holt and Shaw on the bench should help us limit him to mostly AB against LHP. Marlins are said to have a high price tag on Prado, which may be true but is kind of hard to believe. He's one of the highest paid players on that team but still on a reasonable contract. If we can get him for a reasonable package I'd be in on it. They gave up Eovaldi for him, thinking they would contend. They're (irrationally, and made worse by Eovaldi's performance in NY) going to want to recoup that loss. Good player but a bad option.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 28, 2015 10:19:00 GMT -5
It's way too soon to start talking about exactly what decisions DDo needs to make, and what he need to do over the winter; I'll start that thread at the appropriate time. But in the meantime, I already know that I'm looking forward to reading hilarious pieces by the CHB, Cafardo, et al about how much work he has to do to rebuild this terrible team. Right now, the actual list, in its entirety, would seem to be: -- Rebuild the bullpen. It's a relief that DDo's Tigers teams always had such a good pen. Seriously, this is probably the biggest challenge, ideally constituting the addition of two high-leverage arms, one from each side.
-- Trade for the best possible young starting pitcher. -- Find a RHH 1B / OF for the bench, to join Hanigan, Holt, and Shaw, who will allow Hanley to DH against some LHP. -- Use Margot, Guerra, Miley, Marrero, and probably Swihart to accomplish the above, plus non-compensation FAs. Now, there are many ways this list could change between now and October, so we ought to try to restrain ourselves from speculating about them now, especially since all of them have already been the subject of endless back-and-forth (except the remote possibility that Craig fits the 3rd need). I'm resisting the temptation to visit them all again, myself. I just wanted to point out that this is the single likeliest scenario. And it's not a lot. It's one blockbuster deal (probably involving three clubs) and a bunch of small moves.
While I agree with most of what you're saying, you're killing me with the desire to trade Swihart. Vazquez's arm strength/accuracy (think of post-TJ command issues pitchers have) and hitting are complete unknowns right now. Swihart's raking, and his defense is steadily improving. I think they're better off signing a #1 and holding into Swihart. This year should be a reminder that positional depth (especially at key positions like C) is absolutely essential.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 28, 2015 12:58:20 GMT -5
While I agree with most of what you're saying, you're killing me with the desire to trade Swihart. Vazquez's arm strength/accuracy (think of post-TJ command issues pitchers have) and hitting are complete unknowns right now. Swihart's raking, and his defense is steadily improving. I think they're better off signing a #1 and holding into Swihart. This year should be a reminder that positional depth (especially at key positions like C) is absolutely essential. Swihart has been hitting well for about 50 PA... If you consider that proof of anything then go ahead and pencil in Travis Shaw as our starting 1B while you're at it. Anyway, last I heard Vazquez was going to play winter ball, so there will be opportunity enough to evaluate whether he's back to his old self before trading Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 28, 2015 13:01:09 GMT -5
While I agree with most of what you're saying, you're killing me with the desire to trade Swihart. Vazquez's arm strength/accuracy (think of post-TJ command issues pitchers have) and hitting are complete unknowns right now. Swihart's raking, and his defense is steadily improving. I think they're better off signing a #1 and holding into Swihart. This year should be a reminder that positional depth (especially at key positions like C) is absolutely essential. Swihart has been hitting well for about 50 PA... If you consider that proof of anything then go ahead and pencil in Travis Shaw as our starting 1B while you're at it. Anyway, last I heard Vazquez was going to play winter ball, so there will be opportunity enough to evaluate whether he's back to his old self before trading Swihart. I would say that Swihart was a higher regarded prospect than Shaw, and he's up sooner than expected and holding his own and improving, so I wouldn't be too anxious to deal Swihart either. I'd like to see what he grows into. And I like his future better than Vazquez's.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 28, 2015 13:03:30 GMT -5
While I agree with most of what you're saying, you're killing me with the desire to trade Swihart. Vazquez's arm strength/accuracy (think of post-TJ command issues pitchers have) and hitting are complete unknowns right now. Swihart's raking, and his defense is steadily improving. I think they're better off signing a #1 and holding into Swihart. This year should be a reminder that positional depth (especially at key positions like C) is absolutely essential. Swihart has been hitting well for about 50 PA... If you consider that proof of anything then go ahead and pencil in Travis Shaw as our starting 1B while you're at it. Anyway, last I heard Vazquez was going to play winter ball, so there will be opportunity enough to evaluate whether he's back to his old self before trading Swihart. Is that even possible? Maybe if he's DH'ing, but I don't know how he can throw at full effort under 8 months from TJS.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 29, 2015 0:06:24 GMT -5
While I agree with most of what you're saying, you're killing me with the desire to trade Swihart. Vazquez's arm strength/accuracy (think of post-TJ command issues pitchers have) and hitting are complete unknowns right now. Swihart's raking, and his defense is steadily improving. I think they're better off signing a #1 and holding into Swihart. This year should be a reminder that positional depth (especially at key positions like C) is absolutely essential. Swihart has been hitting well for about 50 PA... If you consider that proof of anything then go ahead and pencil in Travis Shaw as our starting 1B while you're at it. Anyway, last I heard Vazquez was going to play winter ball, so there will be opportunity enough to evaluate whether he's back to his old self before trading Swihart. Swihart's hitting about .280 with an OPS around .700, in a lot more than 50 PA. He's been on fire for 50 PA. And frankly, his minor league track record is a lot more consistent than Shaw's, as is his scouting report. I find the SSS argument to be an oversimplification (see Anderson Espinoza discussion) when the SSS is confirmation of past trends and scouting. Also, how many PAs do you think Vazquez gets in winter ball? Coming back from injury, maybe 120? 150? And somehow that's plenty to judge how he'll perform in the *majors* next year? Sorry, I think you're contradicting yourself there, unless there's some magical barrier between 50 MLB PAs and 100 winter-ball AA-equivalent PAs.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 29, 2015 3:37:06 GMT -5
Swihart has been hitting well for about 50 PA... If you consider that proof of anything then go ahead and pencil in Travis Shaw as our starting 1B while you're at it. Anyway, last I heard Vazquez was going to play winter ball, so there will be opportunity enough to evaluate whether he's back to his old self before trading Swihart. Is that even possible? Maybe if he's DH'ing, but I don't know how he can throw at full effort under 8 months from TJS. Tommy John has a quicker recovery time for position players-- usually six to nine months. It may be slightly different for catchers, however, and the track record there is not great.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 29, 2015 6:47:20 GMT -5
Swihart has been hitting well for about 50 PA... If you consider that proof of anything then go ahead and pencil in Travis Shaw as our starting 1B while you're at it. Anyway, last I heard Vazquez was going to play winter ball, so there will be opportunity enough to evaluate whether he's back to his old self before trading Swihart. Swihart's hitting about .280 with an OPS around .700, in a lot more than 50 PA. He's been on fire for 50 PA. And frankly, his minor league track record is a lot more consistent than Shaw's, as is his scouting report. I find the SSS argument to be an oversimplification (see Anderson Espinoza discussion) when the SSS is confirmation of past trends and scouting. Also, how many PAs do you think Vazquez gets in winter ball? Coming back from injury, maybe 120? 150? And somehow that's plenty to judge how he'll perform in the *majors* next year? Sorry, I think you're contradicting yourself there, unless there's some magical barrier between 50 MLB PAs and 100 winter-ball AA-equivalent PAs. It doesn't work that way re: "confirmation of past trends and scouting" this is exactly the same stuff people were saying after Buchholz's start vs the Yankees. SSS is SSS. Also, Swihart's rocking a .364 BABIP (actually probably higher because of the inside the park HR.) He never had a BABIP close to that in the minors, and BABIPs usually decline from the minors to the majors. He's only at 90 wRC+. He's been improving, but any improvement he makes will be cancelled out or more than cancelled out by BABIP regression, and I haven't been all that impressed by his defense. I still think he's a ways away from being a starting MLB catcher
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 29, 2015 7:31:03 GMT -5
Also, how many PAs do you think Vazquez gets in winter ball? Coming back from injury, maybe 120? 150? And somehow that's plenty to judge how he'll perform in the *majors* next year? Sorry, I think you're contradicting yourself there, unless there's some magical barrier between 50 MLB PAs and 100 winter-ball AA-equivalent PAs. I only really need to see one throw from home to second that has zip and is on the money to know that he can still do it - the rest is a matter of trusting his work ethic which I am more than happy to do. As for his batting, I just have no reason to believe that TJS is going to mess that up significantly.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Aug 29, 2015 8:45:26 GMT -5
I don't want to take this thread towards trade proposals. However, I would like to understand Swihart's value. Would he be available in a Sonny Gray or Chris Sale trade? Would people include him in for a lower level pitcher such as Carrasco? Or is he completely untouchable?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 29, 2015 12:12:44 GMT -5
I don't want to take this thread towards trade proposals. However, I would like to understand Swihart's value. Would he be available in a Sonny Gray or Chris Sale trade? Would people include him in for a lower level pitcher such as Carrasco? Or is he completely untouchable? I've said it often - I'm happy to trade Swihart. The reason is that his trade value is much higher than that of Vazquez, but his actual value is not. But since both still have quite a bit of uncertainty left it is easy and reasonable to disagree with my position.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 29, 2015 19:09:31 GMT -5
I don't want to take this thread towards trade proposals. However, I would like to understand Swihart's value. Would he be available in a Sonny Gray or Chris Sale trade? Would people include him in for a lower level pitcher such as Carrasco? Or is he completely untouchable? I've said it often - I'm happy to trade Swihart. The reason is that his trade value is much higher than that of Vazquez, but his actual value is not. But since both still have quite a bit of uncertainty left it is easy and reasonable to disagree with my position. I can not imagine the sox moving swihart. I know anything is possible, but swihart has really come on this year and for a guy who basically skipped triple a, I have been extremely impressed with him. Young athletic catchers who can hit decently are a rare commodity.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 30, 2015 18:58:27 GMT -5
I've said it often - I'm happy to trade Swihart. The reason is that his trade value is much higher than that of Vazquez, but his actual value is not. But since both still have quite a bit of uncertainty left it is easy and reasonable to disagree with my position. I can not imagine the sox moving swihart. I know anything is possible, but swihart has really come on this year and for a guy who basically skipped triple a, I have been extremely impressed with him. Young athletic catchers who can hit decently are a rare commodity. And how would you describe catchers who can literally throw out runners better than anyone alive*, and who frame like a Molina? I mean, other than "best defensive player in baseball"? (Well, maybe that answers my question. That's a unique commodity.) *Yeah, we need to see how his arm comes back. But a) both scouts and stats said that the margin between Vazquez and whoever was next was sizeable, and b) his skill was more because of his astounding pop times than his arm strength, which was merely plus. And those won't be affected.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 30, 2015 21:23:36 GMT -5
I can not imagine the sox moving swihart. I know anything is possible, but swihart has really come on this year and for a guy who basically skipped triple a, I have been extremely impressed with him. Young athletic catchers who can hit decently are a rare commodity. And how would you describe catchers who can literally throw out runners better than anyone alive*, and who frame like a Molina? I mean, other than "best defensive player in baseball"? (Well, maybe that answers my question. That's a unique commodity.) *Yeah, we need to see how his arm comes back. But a) both scouts and stats said that the margin between Vazquez and whoever was next was sizeable, and b) his skill was more because of his astounding pop times than his arm strength, which was merely plus. And those won't be affected. I do not look at this as an either or situation, depth is good, The sox have the best defensive cf in baseball, but they sent him down when he could not hit above .200. Who is to say that if come May, Vazquez is hitting .150, the sox do not send him to Pawtucket for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 31, 2015 1:01:15 GMT -5
We have to see how that rehab goes, but assuming he's back to his old self, he won't be going anywhere unless he's traded. The team has made it clear they think this guy is the best catcher they have.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 31, 2015 10:05:06 GMT -5
I just saw on MLBRumors that the Yankees claimed Dave Robertson who was put on revocable waivers by the White Sox, but that no trade seemed likely.
Aren't the Red Sox ahead of the Yankees in being able to claim players?
I think Robertson might have been an interesting - but very expensive - addition to the Sox bullpen. He's had a better year this year than he did last year with a FIP of 2.09 and a WHIP of .885. He's one of the best RPs in baseball.
It seems likely that the White Sox might be asking too much for him. There are three more years left in the four-year $46 million contract he signed with the White Sox. Teams are not likely to offer a whole lot of player value in a deal for him and also pick up that contract.
However, I'd rather have him than pick up the Buchholz option.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 31, 2015 10:28:43 GMT -5
I just saw on MLBRumors that the Yankees claimed Dave Robertson who was put on revocable waivers by the White Sox, but that no trade seemed likely. Aren't the Red Sox ahead of the Yankees in being able to claim players? I think Robertson might have been an interesting - but very expensive - addition to the Sox bullpen. He's had a better year this year than he did last year with a FIP of 2.09 and a WHIP of .885. He's one of the best RPs in baseball. It seems likely that the White Sox might be asking too much for him. There are three more years left in the four-year $46 million contract he signed with the White Sox. Teams are not likely to offer a whole lot of player value in a deal for him and also pick up that contract. However, I'd rather have him than pick up the Buchholz option. Even despite being injured, Buchholz has been worth a full win more than Robertson this season based on bWAR, fWAR, and WARP.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 31, 2015 10:57:45 GMT -5
I am not convinced of the value of WAR calculations for pitchers. It this case, they don't pass the smell test.
Think about the impact on the Sox next year of having a couple or three of really superior RPs, like - but not necessarily - Robertson. But I think he, alone, would have a bigger positive impact on the team than Buchholz ever will.
As we watch this team as now constructed it is much different from what we saw earlier in the year and very promising for next year. The major fixes needed now are in the pitching - a top of the rotation stopper and almost a complete rebuild of the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 31, 2015 11:15:42 GMT -5
How does it not pass the smell test? Buchholz pitched more than double the innings that Robertson has this year.
A good closer is worth something like a number 3 or number 4 starter in terms of value. It's just that their failures are amplified because it's typically in the last inning of a close game, leading directly to a loss.
|
|
|