|
Post by klostrophobic on Sept 10, 2015 2:34:34 GMT -5
So, that would mean something like this (at least if I had my way): Mookie JBJ Pedroia Papi Xander Hanley Castillo Catcher Panda I'm not sure how Shaw would fit in here. I doubt he'd get many ABs in place of Hanley at first and he doesn't fit in as an occasional Papi replacement against LHP. And yes, I would bat Panda ninth. He's the worst hitter in that lineup with the possible exception of the catcher, depending on who that catcher is. Nice lineup. Does any body know why they have sandavol hitting second now? I believe it is to induce a caloric deficit by way of giving him more atbats and thus more swings.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 12, 2015 20:22:08 GMT -5
Sandavol looks really weak at the plate lately. I wonder if we can include him in a package we send to San Diego for Kimbrel.
Just terrible at bats from him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 12, 2015 21:20:31 GMT -5
Sandavol looks really weak at the plate lately. I wonder if we can include him in a package we send to San Diego for Kimbrel. Just terrible at bats from him. Why would the Padres want him? They have better options at 3b. And they certainly wouldn't deal an asset like Kimbrel for a liability like Sandoval.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 13, 2015 1:01:58 GMT -5
Sandavol looks really weak at the plate lately. I wonder if we can include him in a package we send to San Diego for Kimbrel. Just terrible at bats from him. Why would the Padres want him? They have better options at 3b. And they certainly wouldn't deal an asset like Kimbrel for a liability like Sandoval. Because they saw what he did up the road in San Fran and wonder if lightening strikes again once he is back in the national league. Plus sandavol would need to be part of a package of players and tons of cash to get a Kimbrel,
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 13, 2015 8:45:10 GMT -5
I've been arguing all season that the fact that Sandoval is performing below his norm is not the reason the Sox had a poor season. And replacing him will have virtually no beneficial impact unless a truly terrific 3B could be found. And that really isn't possible right now. The evidence for my argument is that the team has done better the last few weeks despite the fact that he has not.
It would be a waste of resources to try to replace him now. He is adequate and I think the odds are reasonable that he will play better next year. But even if he doesn't it won't matter enough to be a problem needing a solution.
The primary problem needing a solution is obvious: the pitching. Even though the starters have been doing somewhat better, the Sox still have to acquire at least one top of the rotation guy. And the bullpen has to be rebuilt with better arms.
It still is possible that 1B will be a problem but it seems less likely than it did a few weeks ago.
By the end of next season we will have a much better idea who will be the Sox 3B in 2017 and beyond and it will be someone the Sox already have. The same may be true for 1B.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 13, 2015 8:57:25 GMT -5
I've been arguing all season that the fact that Sandoval is performing below his norm is not the reason the Sox had a poor season. And replacing him will have virtually no beneficial impact unless a truly terrific 3B could be found. And that really isn't possible right now. The evidence for my argument is that the team has done better the last few weeks despite the fact that he has not. It would be a waste of resources to try to replace him now. He is adequate and I think the odds are reasonable that he will play better next year. But even if he doesn't it won't matter enough to be a problem needing a solution. The primary problem needing a solution is obvious: the pitching. Even though the starters have been doing somewhat better, the Sox still have to acquire at least one top of the rotation guy. And the bullpen has to be rebuilt with better arms. It still is possible that 1B will be a problem but it seems less likely than it did a few weeks ago. By the end of next season we will have a much better idea who will be the Sox 3B in 2017 and beyond and it will be someone the Sox already have. The same may be true for 1B. The key to dealing Sandoval is dumping 19m per year. Not worrying about replacing a sub-par player. You become a better team if you improve your pitching with that 19m. Holt can give you what we got out of Sandoval. That allows you to spend that 19m on pitching. Other option is Shaw. Both are getting paid next to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2015 9:06:51 GMT -5
I just cannot stand watching him play. He's my least likeable type of player. He's like AJP without that a-hole personality.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,345
|
Post by radiohix on Sept 13, 2015 10:00:07 GMT -5
I just cannot stand watching him play. He's my least likeable type of player. He's like AJP without that a-hole personality. This. I litteraly change the channel when he comes to the plate! I can't stand the batting stance, the swinging at everything approach, the swing... Ireally hope they get rid of him this winter what ever the cost is.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Sept 13, 2015 10:55:43 GMT -5
Sandoval may be moved but it may be in a swap for bad contracts? Which bad contract would you want - Votto, Shields, someone else?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2015 11:04:35 GMT -5
I just cannot stand watching him play. He's my least likeable type of player. He's like AJP without that a-hole personality. This. I litteraly change the channel when he comes to the plate! I can't stand the batting stance, the swinging at everything approach, the swing... Ireally hope they get rid of him this winter what ever the cost is. I have a hard time figuring out which of Pablo or Hanley I want gone more.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
|
Post by nomar on Sept 13, 2015 11:11:32 GMT -5
Sandoval may be moved but it may be in a swap for bad contracts? Which bad contract would you want - Votto, Shields, someone else? Lol Votto's contract is too long but there's no way in hell they would take a Sandoval Votto swap. He's still a monster in the present.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 13, 2015 14:09:41 GMT -5
Sandoval may be moved but it may be in a swap for bad contracts? Which bad contract would you want - Votto, Shields, someone else? I would do shields for sandavol in a heartbeat. Plus I would throw them a bag of cash for their troubles.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Sept 13, 2015 20:13:51 GMT -5
David Price and two real good relief pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 13, 2015 21:34:26 GMT -5
David Price and two real good relief pitchers. I think the Cubs are going to be very aggressive trying to sign price.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Sept 14, 2015 14:47:16 GMT -5
The idea of reuniting Greinke and Bannister seems kinda cool. They would study as much tape as Belichick & Brady and create the same sort of 'split Gronk out wide and watch a middle LB piss himself playing CB for the first time in his career' matchup problems.
I hate Greinke's almost 32 and likely to sign a 6 year deal, but I guess I hate the thought of paying an already 30 year old Price $200+ million even more.
The Cueto story is also becoming more interesting with each start. His remaining 4-6 starts might mean the difference of $50M in his next contract.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
|
Post by nomar on Sept 14, 2015 16:16:54 GMT -5
I would take Price over Greinke and Cueto, but I really hope we don't land any of them.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 14, 2015 16:54:33 GMT -5
I would take Price over Greinke and Cueto, but I really hope we don't land any of them. Why?
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Sept 14, 2015 16:55:43 GMT -5
David Price and two real good relief pitchers. I think the Cubs are going to be very aggressive trying to sign price. Really? You really see the Cubs having a $150m+ pitcher and a $200m pitcher? They got a billion+ in TV revenue too? I don't see it; that's a lot of money to put on two pitchers. And I'm not sure they really need to. Arrieta looks like the real deal, they've got Lester, they can sign a #2 or very good #3 (heck, it's the national league). We'll see, I guess. I think Price is staying in the AL. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Yankees. Now they can afford 3-4 pitchers making $200m.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
|
Post by nomar on Sept 14, 2015 17:03:30 GMT -5
I would take Price over Greinke and Cueto, but I really hope we don't land any of them. Why? All too old for me. I would go 6 on Price max, he'll probably get more, I wouldn't touch Cueto because he's injury prone and overrated, and Greinke is 32 and will get 5 year minimum so I'll definitely pass there (not even delving into his psychological history). A trade is the way to go. Who do our scouts think could be getting a little more love than they deserve? We have a ton of organizational depth and need to make a move.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 14, 2015 17:25:24 GMT -5
All too old for me. I would go 6 on Price max, he'll probably get more, I wouldn't touch Cueto because he's injury prone and overrated, and Greinke is 32 and will get 5 year minimum so I'll definitely pass there (not even delving into his psychological history). A trade is the way to go. Who do our scouts think could be getting a little more love than they deserve? We have a ton of organizational depth and need to make a move. A trade may be more difficult and then you have the compounded issue of losing prospects. I am not against that, but just like the cost of signing a FA, we dont really know what the cost would be. I do think, given how well the team has played recently and the growth of the young guys, that the team should be less worried about the backend of a FA deal. If you get enough value from one of these guys in the first couples of years (i am not a big Cueto guy either) that should mesh well with hopeful continued growth of the position players and could really make a formidable team for a 3-4 year period. I hope they look into Greinke or Price, even if it is near 200 million.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Sept 14, 2015 22:12:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 15, 2015 8:04:59 GMT -5
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
|
Post by nomar on Sept 15, 2015 8:56:36 GMT -5
Genuinely asking your opinion: Do you see him being worth his deal more so than Price? He hasn't proven he can be more than a 7 K/9 guy in the AL, has a longer injury history, and I think pitching in the NL made him a bigger star than he truly is. He's probably a guy who can come in and post a .375 SIERA for us, but will get paid like he's much more than that. I don't see him bringing much or any excess value in the early stages of his deal, and he definitely won't at the end. Price would be safer, but I prefer not to give out a huge deal to a pitcher this year.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 15, 2015 8:58:44 GMT -5
I'm not really that educated on mlb contracts, but do any of them get extremely front loaded like in the nfl? Wouldn't it make sense to pay a pitcher in his early 30's alot at the beginning where he's actually worth the money and pay him alot less at the end, so that if he's declining, it's not much of a hit financially?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 15, 2015 9:07:48 GMT -5
I'm not really that educated on mlb contracts, but do any of them get extremely front loaded like in the nfl? Wouldn't it make sense to pay a pitcher in his early 30's alot at the beginning where he's actually worth the money and pay him alot less at the end, so that if he's declining, it's not much of a hit financially? You don't really see extreme front- or back-loading of contracts because the contract's value against the CBT is based on its average annual value (AAV). So for example, if you look at this: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/29/speier/loaG8jT7lwWCAPIsNIYKoK/story.html , Pablo Sandoval, for example, will make $17M but will count as $19M, and Buchholz will make $13M but count as $11.7M. The only extreme backloading you'll see is if a team is buying out a player's arbitration years, and that's less back-loading than it is paying an approximation of what the player would've made, scaled up or down.
|
|