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.
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 29, 2015 12:07:23 GMT -5
I seriously doubt anyone on the board will complain if he starts next season off as he did this one. If he can do that for a few months without injuring himself, that's the time to sell high. That makes it unlikely that the Sox bring in Park, in my estimation. It also makes it very likely that some version of your master plan is adopted. Of course, Dombrowski hasn't contacted me lately, and he may have other plans. Travis Shaw might be. attractive to a few teams. If the Sox were to get a solid offer, he might go first. I do think they'll find a way to get Sam Travis time on the big club. If he continues to hit as he did this season, that will happen sooner rather than later. One or more of these options will be exercised before the season is too far along. There will be changes, players will get moved. I see the current FO being a lot more active in the trade market than Cherrington ever was. And then what happens if he has a season like last year again? The entire season is lost because we're more worried about selling high than giving him away? The scary thought with HanRam is that he could hit 35HR or 8Hr, hit .240 or .290 & neither one would shock me.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 29, 2015 12:28:17 GMT -5
And then what happens if he has a season like last year again? The entire season is lost because we're more worried about selling high than giving him away? The scary thought with HanRam is that he could hit 35HR or 8Hr, hit .240 or .290 & neither one would shock me. I'm mainly worried that he can't play 1B at an acceptable level. We're basically hoping that he can do what he couldn't do last year and that this time it will be different. I personally am ready to just dump him and I don't really care about getting good value for him. I care about winning games more than winning that trade. Those very easily could be mutually exclusive events.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 29, 2015 12:39:54 GMT -5
The scary thought with HanRam is that he could hit 35HR or 8Hr, hit .240 or .290 & neither one would shock me. I'm mainly worried that he can't play 1B at an acceptable level. We're basically hoping that he can do what he couldn't do last year and that this time it will be different. I personally am ready to just dump him and I don't really care about getting good value for him. I care about winning games more than winning that trade. Those very easily could be mutually exclusive events. Agreed on the defense....you really don't know what you'd get offensively or defensively, If the RS can move him, I don't think they would care if he played a GG 1st & hit 50HR, just knowing that it could have been a train wreck just as easy.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 29, 2015 12:56:12 GMT -5
The scary thought with HanRam is that he could hit 35HR or 8Hr, hit .240 or .290 & neither one would shock me. I'm mainly worried that he can't play 1B at an acceptable level. We're basically hoping that he can do what he couldn't do last year and that this time it will be different. I personally am ready to just dump him and I don't really care about getting good value for him. I care about winning games more than winning that trade. Those very easily could be mutually exclusive events. With the difference being that he actually was an infielder all his life, albeit not a very good one. I think he'll be adequate at first base.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 29, 2015 13:15:22 GMT -5
The scary thought with HanRam is that he could hit 35HR or 8Hr, hit .240 or .290 & neither one would shock me. I'm mainly worried that he can't play 1B at an acceptable level. We're basically hoping that he can do what he couldn't do last year and that this time it will be different. I personally am ready to just dump him and I don't really care about getting good value for him. I care about winning games more than winning that trade. Those very easily could be mutually exclusive events.They are mutually exclusive events, though, at least based on where we stand now. "Winning the trade" means making the team better, at least in terms of being able to use the freed up salary to more productive ends. The reason you keep Hanley isn't because you're afraid of losing the trade, it's that you think you can't move enough of his salary in order to make it worth it (in other words, you think he's worth more than what other teams will take on).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 29, 2015 15:04:39 GMT -5
I'm mainly worried that he can't play 1B at an acceptable level. We're basically hoping that he can do what he couldn't do last year and that this time it will be different. I personally am ready to just dump him and I don't really care about getting good value for him. I care about winning games more than winning that trade. Those very easily could be mutually exclusive events.They are mutually exclusive events, though, at least based on where we stand now. "Winning the trade" means making the team better, at least in terms of being able to use the freed up salary to more productive ends. The reason you keep Hanley isn't because you're afraid of losing the trade, it's that you think you can't move enough of his salary in order to make it worth it (in other words, you think he's worth more than what other teams will take on). But in the end, if he's below replacement level again, it's another disaster just like 2015. It's always worth it to not play a player who was as bad as Hanley last season. I know we continually argue about this about one player or another each year. Between Carp, Sizemore, Craig and Hanley, which one am I wrong about? It's not ever a 100% chance and using hindsight isn't fair, but my concerns have pretty much come true. We waste time and lose games while figuring out that players are well below replacement level in 1/3rd of a season and we wait for a rebound that never comes. Personally, I think there is a decent chance that paying Hanley to stay at home and playing Shaw makes the team better. Hanley's upside is probably close to what Shaw did this season. I also don't think they are particularly close to tightening the overall budget strings, since we've seen no indication of that yet.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 29, 2015 15:42:52 GMT -5
They are mutually exclusive events, though, at least based on where we stand now. "Winning the trade" means making the team better, at least in terms of being able to use the freed up salary to more productive ends. The reason you keep Hanley isn't because you're afraid of losing the trade, it's that you think you can't move enough of his salary in order to make it worth it (in other words, you think he's worth more than what other teams will take on). But in the end, if he's below replacement level again, it's another disaster just like 2015. It's always worth it to not play a player who was as bad as Hanley last season. I know we continually argue about this about one player or another each year. Between Carp, Sizemore, Craig and Hanley, which one am I wrong about? It's not ever a 100% chance and using hindsight isn't fair, but my concerns have pretty much come true. We waste time and lose games while figuring out that players are well below replacement level in 1/3rd of a season and we wait for a rebound that never comes. Personally, I think there is a decent chance that paying Hanley to stay at home and playing Shaw makes the team better.
Hanley's upside is probably close to what Shaw did this season.I also don't think they are particularly close to tightening the overall budget strings, since we've seen no indication of that yet. I doubt that. He has the track record of being a much, much better hitter than Shaw. If injuries and defensive incapability mitigate that remains to be seen, but I'm betting on Hanley hitting well.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 29, 2015 15:56:47 GMT -5
They are mutually exclusive events, though, at least based on where we stand now. "Winning the trade" means making the team better, at least in terms of being able to use the freed up salary to more productive ends. The reason you keep Hanley isn't because you're afraid of losing the trade, it's that you think you can't move enough of his salary in order to make it worth it (in other words, you think he's worth more than what other teams will take on). But in the end, if he's below replacement level again, it's another disaster just like 2015. It's always worth it to not play a player who was as bad as Hanley last season. I know we continually argue about this about one player or another each year. Between Carp, Sizemore, Craig and Hanley, which one am I wrong about? It's not ever a 100% chance and using hindsight isn't fair, but my concerns have pretty much come true. We waste time and lose games while figuring out that players are well below replacement level in 1/3rd of a season and we wait for a rebound that never comes. Personally, I think there is a decent chance that paying Hanley to stay at home and playing Shaw makes the team better. Hanley's upside is probably close to what Shaw did this season. I also don't think they are particularly close to tightening the overall budget strings, since we've seen no indication of that yet. If you think that Hanley projects to be a replacement-level-or-worse player next year (or has a significant chance of being a replacement-level-or-worse player), then yes, it makes sense to dump him for whatever you can get (or just cut him, for that matter). I would disagree with that projection, though. You know, regression and all that. PS: Allen Craig got all of 59 plate appearances during the semi-competitive part of the Red Sox season this year, and Mike Carp got all of 103 plate appearances and Grady Sizemore only got 201 plate appearances during the semi-competitive part of the Red Sox season last year. Yes, those were really bad plate appearances, but in each case, the Red Sox cut bait fairly quickly, and in no case was that player's performance even close to the difference between being a competitive team and a non-competitive team. I maintain that your fear of sub-replacement players dragging down the team is overblown.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 29, 2015 18:56:41 GMT -5
If you think that Hanley projects to be a replacement-level-or-worse player next year (or has a significant chance of being a replacement-level-or-worse player), then yes, it makes sense to dump him for whatever you can get (or just cut him, for that matter). I would disagree with that projection, though. You know, regression and all that. PS: Allen Craig got all of 59 plate appearances during the semi-competitive part of the Red Sox season this year, and Mike Carp got all of 103 plate appearances and Grady Sizemore only got 201 plate appearances during the semi-competitive part of the Red Sox season last year. Yes, those were really bad plate appearances, but in each case, the Red Sox cut bait fairly quickly, and in no case was that player's performance even close to the difference between being a competitive team and a non-competitive team. I maintain that your fear of sub-replacement players dragging down the team is overblown. Dumping Hanley just to play Shaw is pointless, because Shaw is still the backup plan if you bring Hanley back and he's a disaster again. There's no reason not to just keep both players.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 29, 2015 19:06:07 GMT -5
If you think that Hanley projects to be a replacement-level-or-worse player next year (or has a significant chance of being a replacement-level-or-worse player), then yes, it makes sense to dump him for whatever you can get (or just cut him, for that matter). I would disagree with that projection, though. You know, regression and all that. PS: Allen Craig got all of 59 plate appearances during the semi-competitive part of the Red Sox season this year, and Mike Carp got all of 103 plate appearances and Grady Sizemore only got 201 plate appearances during the semi-competitive part of the Red Sox season last year. Yes, those were really bad plate appearances, but in each case, the Red Sox cut bait fairly quickly, and in no case was that player's performance even close to the difference between being a competitive team and a non-competitive team. I maintain that your fear of sub-replacement players dragging down the team is overblown. Dumping Hanley just to play Shaw is pointless, because Shaw is still the backup plan if you bring Hanley back and he's a disaster again. There's no reason not to just keep both players. It's not pointless if playing Hanley early cost a few wins.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 29, 2015 20:32:09 GMT -5
Dumping Hanley just to play Shaw is pointless, because Shaw is still the backup plan if you bring Hanley back and he's a disaster again. There's no reason not to just keep both players. It's not pointless if playing Hanley early cost a few wins. And it's extra pointless if Hanley is good next year, which is also entirely possible. Also, it's funny how people treat Shaw, an afterthought going into this season, like he's a mortal lock to be an above replacement level player. The guy doesn't have a great track record or prospect pedigree and he's not even particularly young at this point. You can't count on either guy, which is why you keep both around.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 30, 2015 0:15:13 GMT -5
I'm with you. Unless someone makes an overwhelming offer for one or the other - which likely won't happen - they should hang on to both. That gives the team the most options moving forward, with the bonus that Shaw can cover the other corner as well. If Sam Travis stays on the same trajectory, there may be a few cards that can be played as the season moves on. The range of possibilities will depend on the performance of each of them, of course. But selling low is a loser's game.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 30, 2015 7:05:21 GMT -5
Whether any upgrade at 1B from Hanley makes sense depends on four factors:
1) How good Hanley will be. The better he is, the harder it is to justify an upgrade. 2) How much you get for Hanley in trade, including salary relief. The less you get, the harder it is to justify.
These can be reduced to the size of the gap between what we feel Hanley will be worth, and what some other team feels he will be worth. If someone (like the O's) wants him to DH, that may produce some of the needed gap, but most of it would have to be produced by the Sox being more pessimistic in their projection. And being right.
3) How good the replacement will be. The better he is, the easier it is to justify the upgrade. 4) The acquisition cost, in players and/or draft picks, plus the salary commitment. The less the outlay, the easier it is to justify.
These can be reduced to the gap between the incoming player's actual value, and the perceived value of the other team, or of the market, if he's a FA.
To make Park happen, you need some combination of a team that's higher on Hanley than the Sox are, and the Sox being higher on Park than the market, and the Sox being right on both counts.
(In theory, such a combination could include a team paying all of Hanley's salary, which would then mean that the Sox would be in a neutral position with the market. But that seems like an impossible scenario. It seems almost certain that the Sox would have to eat some salary, and the more they eat, the more value they need to get from Park relative to his cost.)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 30, 2015 7:55:18 GMT -5
3) How good the replacement will be. The better he is, the easier it is to justify the upgrade. 4) The acquisition cost, in players and/or draft picks, plus the salary commitment. The less the outlay, the easier it is to justify. See: Adrian Beltre signed with Mike Lowell still on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 30, 2015 8:00:23 GMT -5
Whether any upgrade at 1B from Hanley makes sense depends on four factors: 1) How good Hanley will be. The better he is, the harder it is to justify an upgrade. 2) How much you get for Hanley in trade, including salary relief. The less you get, the harder it is to justify. These can be reduced to the size of the gap between what we feel Hanley will be worth, and what some other team feels he will be worth. If someone (like the O's) wants him to DH, that may produce some of the needed gap, but most of it would have to be produced by the Sox being more pessimistic in their projection. And being right. 3) How good the replacement will be. The better he is, the easier it is to justify the upgrade. 4) The acquisition cost, in players and/or draft picks, plus the salary commitment. The less the outlay, the easier it is to justify. These can be reduced to the gap between the incoming player's actual value, and the perceived value of the other team, or of the market, if he's a FA. To make Park happen, you need some combination of a team that's higher on Hanley than the Sox are, and the Sox being higher on Park than the market, and the Sox being right on both counts. (In theory, such a combination could include a team paying all of Hanley's salary, which would then mean that the Sox would be in a neutral position with the market. But that seems like an impossible scenario. It seems almost certain that the Sox would have to eat some salary, and the more they eat, the more value they need to get from Park relative to his cost.) Speaking of Baltimore, this is (somewhat) similar when everyone punted on Nelson Cruz a few years ago, thinking he would not come back strong after his PED suspension & they signed him for $8 Mil & then hit 50 HR....I know this is apples to oranges but the same thing can happen, although Cruz played a OK, not great OF...If Hanley can just play an OK 1B (I know that's a big if), he may be OK.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 30, 2015 10:49:09 GMT -5
Hanley's value is at an all time low, and hopefully the injury, new position and adjustment to playing in Boston are in the rear window and he'd improve, therefore shouldn't be moved- yet at least. Also, despite some positive reports I don't see that Sam Travis was better at a lower level than Travis Shaw was, and Shaw did crush it at that postseason league to add a bit of credibilty, not to mention his far superior size, plus look at the difficult adjustment, initially even prospects at Xander and Mookie's level faced- so I wooudn't necessarily count on Sam Travis until proven. So I'm with keeping both and seeing what happens.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 30, 2015 11:08:11 GMT -5
Also, I was not a big fan of the Sandoval signing, due to his longterm decline, at the bidding war price we paid out. I was quite excited, however, about Hanley, and we did get him below max. market terms, and he has elite ceiling, recently, and in April, while Papi is year to year at his age- last year could be an outlier for Hanley and I wouldn't dump him- yet.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 30, 2015 11:34:06 GMT -5
Also, I was not a big fan of the Sandoval signing, due to his longterm decline, at the bidding war price we paid out. I was quite excited, however, about Hanley, and we did get him below max. market terms, and he has elite ceiling, recently, and in April, while Papi is year to year at his age- last year could be an outlier for Hanley and I wouldn't dump him- yet. We got Hanley below max, but with the caveat that we paid $22 million per year for a DH while they've been squeezing Papi for his entire career because he's just a DH. I pretty much hate the fact that if they don't dump Hanley, we are once again heading into a season hoping that he can adjust to a new position without seeing him play one inning.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 30, 2015 12:01:00 GMT -5
Also, I was not a big fan of the Sandoval signing, due to his longterm decline, at the bidding war price we paid out. I was quite excited, however, about Hanley, and we did get him below max. market terms, and he has elite ceiling, recently, and in April, while Papi is year to year at his age- last year could be an outlier for Hanley and I wouldn't dump him- yet. I know it's popular to say it now, but I felt the same way about Pablo. Just didn't look like a true athlete. A good 3B should look like WMB.....How many good 3B look like Pablo....I think ownership panicked & was taking either Pablo or Headley as they were the consensus top 2 3B on the market....Headley had question marks too...I did like Hanley's signing though, didn't think it would be a stretch for him to play LF (figured to be Manny-like), RH power we needed, prime years, ect....I would rather have him @ 4/22 than 5/100. Everything being equal, I'd move Pablo.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 30, 2015 14:26:35 GMT -5
I can spot a good baseball player just by the way he looks!
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,314
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Oct 30, 2015 14:39:27 GMT -5
With Fat Pablo, we know we have by far, the worst 3rd baseman in the division but with Hanley as a 1st baseman, it's up for debate. Still I hate them both and wish we could get rid of them!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 30, 2015 14:42:30 GMT -5
A good 3B should look like WMB Seems to have worked out fine for Middlebrooks so far... Just curious, how'd you feel about how third basemen were supposed to look when this adonis was playing the position at an all-star level and competing for MVP awards?
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Oct 30, 2015 15:26:34 GMT -5
I love this thread.
Nothing of substance to add, but it's making my work day so enjoyable!
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 30, 2015 16:06:54 GMT -5
A good 3B should look like WMB Seems to have worked out fine for Middlebrooks so far... Just curious, how'd you feel about how third basemen were supposed to look when this adonis was playing the position at an all-star level and competing for MVP awards? And his career lasted how long?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 30, 2015 16:12:59 GMT -5
Seems to have worked out fine for Middlebrooks so far... Just curious, how'd you feel about how third basemen were supposed to look when this adonis was playing the position at an all-star level and competing for MVP awards? And his career lasted how long? About six times longer than Middlebrooks'.
|
|
|