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.
Sox Sign Shane Victorino: 3yrs/$39mil
|
Post by masquerade on Dec 6, 2012 14:21:16 GMT -5
No not really given the large contracts being given out to every type of player this offseason (from every team) I know that the market is warped, but wouldn't it then make better sense for the Sox to save their money for the guys who are difference makers if they are trying to compete in 2013 - like a Hamilton? And if they're not, then pass?. I keep seeing comments like this, and they're a bit strange for me. There seems to be this perception that Hamilton is an elite player, when hes really not. Victorino is 6 months older than Hamilton, so the age really isn't a factor here. Here are the last 4 years using fWAR: Hamilton: (note, the first season is only 400 PA, the rest are 600+) 1.8, 8.4, 4.1, 4.4 Bill James predicts Hamilton as basically a 4WAR player this year, and that looks completely reasonable to me. Thats what hes been his entire career outside of his bad 2009/good 2010. Victorino: 3.7, 3.8, 5.9, 3.3 Bill James predicts Victorino to be... a 4WAR player. Looks reasonable to me. Victorino's profile of good defense, good speed, lower K rate, etc, seem like they'll age better than Hamilton. Add in the fact that Victorino was 3/38, and Hamilton is looking like 5/100+, and Victorino is much less likely to get into off-field trouble, it seems like calling Hamilton a "difference maker" is true, but not in the way you intend it.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Dec 7, 2012 14:45:22 GMT -5
Chicks dig the long ball you know.
|
|
|
Post by pbgallag on Dec 9, 2012 20:33:27 GMT -5
Could the people bitching about the "overpay" here please A) actually provide some evidence, in terms of Victorino's projected value versus the market rate on wins, etc and B) explain to me why an overpay even matters given the Red Sox's financial situation? Overpay because it's a bad use of resources and Sox payroll already up to $140M according to Speier. And it's a bad signing altogether. The guy's horrible against right-handed pitching, which comprises more than 85% of the pitchers they will face this year. Cherrington paid top dollar for a "starter" (see Pagan, Angel) who figures to be offensively effective for only about 15% of his at bats. Brilliant. Less than 15%? Way to make up a completely absurd and fictitious number. It's typically around 30%. Cody Ross faced LHP 28% of the time last year.
|
|
|
Post by pbgallag on Dec 9, 2012 20:35:53 GMT -5
I would have easily taken a Nava/Ross platoon and saved the money. Paying Ross 3/$24M to play 30% of the time doesn't make a lot of sense, and doesn't save a lot of money either. And you lose the elite defense and baserunning.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 9, 2012 22:09:39 GMT -5
I know that the market is warped, but wouldn't it then make better sense for the Sox to save their money for the guys who are difference makers if they are trying to compete in 2013 - like a Hamilton? And if they're not, then pass?. I keep seeing comments like this, and they're a bit strange for me. There seems to be this perception that Hamilton is an elite player, when hes really not. Victorino is 6 months older than Hamilton, so the age really isn't a factor here. Here are the last 4 years using fWAR: Hamilton: (note, the first season is only 400 PA, the rest are 600+) 1.8, 8.4, 4.1, 4.4 Bill James predicts Hamilton as basically a 4WAR player this year, and that looks completely reasonable to me. Thats what hes been his entire career outside of his bad 2009/good 2010. Victorino: 3.7, 3.8, 5.9, 3.3 Bill James predicts Victorino to be... a 4WAR player. Looks reasonable to me. Victorino's profile of good defense, good speed, lower K rate, etc, seem like they'll age better than Hamilton. Add in the fact that Victorino was 3/38, and Hamilton is looking like 5/100+, and Victorino is much less likely to get into off-field trouble, it seems like calling Hamilton a "difference maker" is true, but not in the way you intend it. I'm sorry, but WAR doesn't really sway me. It's hardly a perfect stat, particularly on the defensive side of he ledger. There were a number of GMs who couldn't believe the Sox paid that much for a player like Victorino. He's an ordinary player who doesn't hit righties well. If Hamilton were available for 3 yrs, I'd much prefer him over Victorino - it's not even close. With Victorino, the Sox are simply overpaying for mediocrity. Hamilton is now a moot point anyways as it appears he's headed back to Texas now that Greinke is going to LA.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 10, 2012 18:24:35 GMT -5
There were a number of GMs who couldn't believe the Sox paid that much for a player like Victorino. Name one.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 10, 2012 18:44:08 GMT -5
There were a number of GMs who couldn't believe the Sox paid that much for a player like Victorino. Name one. C'mon, do you really think baseball officials would actually attach their names to anything that's remotely critical of another team? Just because they wouldn't doesn't mean that there weren't some instances where there wasn't some headshaking going on. I know it's easy to blame the media and say some sportswriters were bored, so they had nothing better to do than totally make up stuff, but I don't think it requires a leap of faith to think that the figure looks ridiculous next to the kind of player he is. Feel free to disagree, but if somebody told you in August that the Sox were going to free up a lot of money, would you have been thrilled to find out that they were going to give $13 million/year to Shane Victorino? Perhaps you would have been cool with that. Me, not so much. And I doubt I'm the only one who feels that was a major overpay by at least two to five million per year.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 10, 2012 18:47:49 GMT -5
Most free agents are signed for more than many/most other GMs would pay. Players tend to accept the highest offer....
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 10, 2012 18:51:59 GMT -5
Most free agents are signed for more than many/most other GMs would pay. Players tend to accept the highest offer.... Can't blame Victorino - he had to be thinking - "Wow, thank God, my career year in 2011 didn't go to waste". You're right that every year GMs do things that others say, wow that looks desperate. As much as I don't like seeing the Sox overpay Victorino like that, that's nothing compared to what KC did. I still cannot believe the KC let themselves get totally fleeced by TB like that. I hope Big Game James plays a huge part in delivering them to the post-season, because if he doesn't - wow, what a waste.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 10, 2012 19:02:58 GMT -5
Most free agents are signed for more than many/most other GMs would pay. Players tend to accept the highest offer.... Can't blame Victorino - he had to be thinking - "Wow, thank God, my career year in 2011 didn't go to waste". You're right that every year GMs do things that others say, wow that looks desperate. As much as I don't like seeing the Sox overpay Victorino like that, that's nothing compared to what KC did. I still cannot believe the KC let themselves get totally fleeced by TB like that. I hope Big Game James plays a huge part in delivering them to the post-season, because if he doesn't - wow, what a waste. I take it you missed CLE offer to Victorino?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 10, 2012 19:21:53 GMT -5
Can't blame Victorino - he had to be thinking - "Wow, thank God, my career year in 2011 didn't go to waste". You're right that every year GMs do things that others say, wow that looks desperate. As much as I don't like seeing the Sox overpay Victorino like that, that's nothing compared to what KC did. I still cannot believe the KC let themselves get totally fleeced by TB like that. I hope Big Game James plays a huge part in delivering them to the post-season, because if he doesn't - wow, what a waste. I take it you missed CLE offer to Victorino? I was well aware of their offer. Thought their offer in annual $ was inflated and their years offered was totally ridiculous. Again, if you believe this is a great deal, good for you - you have that right. I also have the right to think it's a ridiculous overpay on a mediocre player on the wrong side of 30.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 10, 2012 19:53:49 GMT -5
I, too, believe its too much for the Flyin' Hawaiian. But, as much as I hate to say it, the market was set for him when the Indians offered 4/44.
|
|
|
Post by feez732 on Dec 10, 2012 19:54:11 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but WAR doesn't really sway me. It's hardly a perfect stat, particularly on the defensive side of he ledger. There were a number of GMs who couldn't believe the Sox paid that much for a player like Victorino. He's an ordinary player who doesn't hit righties well. If Hamilton were available for 3 yrs, I'd much prefer him over Victorino - it's not even close. With Victorino, the Sox are simply overpaying for mediocrity. Hamilton is now a moot point anyways as it appears he's headed back to Texas now that Greinke is going to LA. The primary problem with the defensive component of WAR is that people use it for single seasons, while the defensive component isn't really reliable until you look at a larger sample size. That's not really relevant here though, as Victorino has been consistently a slightly above average fielder in center field by UZR. We're not looking at wild fluctuations and even more, he hasn't earned a tremendous amount of value from defence over the four years cited anyways (in total about half a win combined over the fours). Even more, despite a strong defensive reputation, including three gold glove (two in the four years cited) and what seems to be a consensus opinion that he's strong defensively, WAR only seems to treat him as only a slightly above average defensive center fielder. I'm not sure then how you can just disregard masquerade's point simply because everyone knows WAR is a shoddy statistic... Also. I still cannot believe the KC let themselves get totally fleeced by TB like that. There were a number of GMs who thought it was a fair trade.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 10, 2012 19:57:07 GMT -5
I, too, believe its too much for the Flyin' Hawaiian. But, as much as I hate to say it, the market was set for him when the Indians offered 4/44. this is my point.. Look at the deals the other Of'ers signed (including Melky Cabrera a roid user)
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 10, 2012 20:25:03 GMT -5
Most free agents are signed for more than many/most other GMs would pay. Players tend to accept the highest offer.... And after 6+ years of team control, most of those guys are also on the wrong side of 30. But hey, if you're going to overpay for past performance over the decline years, you might as well go way overboard for the best player available, regardless of the situation. Shane Victorino couldn't possibly be a good contributor for a contending team...
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 10, 2012 20:43:52 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but WAR doesn't really sway me. It's hardly a perfect stat, particularly on the defensive side of he ledger. There were a number of GMs who couldn't believe the Sox paid that much for a player like Victorino. He's an ordinary player who doesn't hit righties well. If Hamilton were available for 3 yrs, I'd much prefer him over Victorino - it's not even close. With Victorino, the Sox are simply overpaying for mediocrity. Hamilton is now a moot point anyways as it appears he's headed back to Texas now that Greinke is going to LA. The primary problem with the defensive component of WAR is that people use it for single seasons, while the defensive component isn't really reliable until you look at a larger sample size. That's not really relevant here though, as Victorino has been consistently a slightly above average fielder in center field by UZR. We're not looking at wild fluctuations and even more, he hasn't earned a tremendous amount of value from defence over the four years cited anyways (in total about half a win combined over the fours). Even more, despite a strong defensive reputation, including three gold glove (two in the four years cited) and what seems to be a consensus opinion that he's strong defensively, WAR only seems to treat him as only a slightly above average defensive center fielder. I'm not sure then how you can just disregard masquerade's point simply because everyone knows WAR is a shoddy statistic... Also. I still cannot believe the KC let themselves get totally fleeced by TB like that. There were a number of GMs who thought it was a fair trade. I think it's hard enough to evaluate the accuracy of the defensive matrix as it is, but I can buy that Victorino has been a good glove man. My question regarding these defensive evaluation tools is how good are they at predicting decline? For example, the Sox signed Mike Cameron because their metrics told them that Cameron was a better CF than Ellsbury. He most likely was but by the time the Sox got him, that was no longer true. I'm not saying that Victorino's defense is going to fall off the cliff over the next three years - that remains to be seen, but it's hard to know if his defensive value will remain as high as it has been. I say this because when somebody talks about WAR, it's almost always talked about like it's the hammer that ends the conversation, the indisputable fact, but to me, because it is flawed, particularly on the defensive end, where Victorino's game is probably a plus, it's hard for me to say, yeah Victorino's defense makes the contract worth it - especially if we cannot predict his defense with any real accuracy going forward. I'm sure there are some GMs who think KC made themselves a great deal and maybe for their brief window, they did what they had to do, but say Tampa got a really good prospect in Odirizzi, let alone Myers, and Davis has question marks at this point as he hasn't established himself as a starter, and they have a short window of time for a good starter like Shields. I think TB got the better of the deal by far.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 10, 2012 20:45:22 GMT -5
I, too, believe its too much for the Flyin' Hawaiian. But, as much as I hate to say it, the market was set for him when the Indians offered 4/44. this is my point.. Look at the deals the other Of'ers signed (including Melky Cabrera a roid user) Cabrera's overall deal wasn't even half of what Victorino got. $16 million is small compared to $39 million. Of course, it's questionable what Cabrera will produce if he were to stay clean.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 10, 2012 21:23:47 GMT -5
For example, the Sox signed Mike Cameron because their metrics told them that Cameron was a better CF than Ellsbury. He most likely was but by the time the Sox got him, that was no longer true. Cameron was old but had excellent defensive metrics and a great health record - but got hurt. It's a risk, more so at his age, but with any player. I would guess that fielding is more reliable than hitting, especially for a player in his early 30's like Victorino.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 12, 2012 22:57:09 GMT -5
presser at noon
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Dec 13, 2012 17:36:25 GMT -5
Nice press conference. Does anyone have any advice on how to respond to a Philly friend who says that Victorino makes a lot of "bone-headed plays."
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 13, 2012 17:51:47 GMT -5
Nice press conference. Does anyone have any advice on how to respond to a Philly friend who says that Victorino makes a lot of "bone-headed plays." When you play in a band box with fly balls smoking everywhere what do you expect!
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Dec 14, 2012 7:28:42 GMT -5
If we assume there are no other shakeups in the 2013 roster construction, where does Victorino hit in the lineup? I'd say anywhere from 5-8 makes sense.
Ellsbury Pedroia Ortiz Napoli Nava/Gomes Victorino WMB Salty/Ross/Lavarnway Iglesias
I could see him in the 8th spot to drum up a little small ball type stuff with Iglesias just as much as this lineup, but doubt someone who signs for that much would hit that low.
|
|
|
Post by benfromma on Dec 14, 2012 8:36:14 GMT -5
We are better than last year, but how much ? Is this a championship driven roster or even wild card ? Roster questions: Starters- no real ace unless Lester or Bucholtz pitch to their abilities rotation is just fair Bullpen- could be a strength, but need closer (Bailey ? probably someone else) Lineup- Gomes in left ok against lefties, need left handed bat (possibilities Kalish is he recoved from injuries ?, Nava marginal player @best ) SS- Iglesias excellent fielder no bat can carry him if we get good production from first 8 (lf Gomes/Nava/ Kalish and Catcher Salty/Ross/ Lavarnway are the keys)
Really our problem is that unless everything is perfect and all the stars align we are still a last place team our pitching cannot matchup against great lineups like the Angels, Tigers, Yankees and many other AL lineups. So hopefully now we add pieces that will help us in future try stockpile young talent that we can use either on our team or as trade chips to build our roster.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 14, 2012 9:01:26 GMT -5
I'm sure there are some GMs who think KC made themselves a great deal and maybe for their brief window, they did what they had to do, but say Tampa got a really good prospect in Odirizzi, let alone Myers, and Davis has question marks at this point as he hasn't established himself as a starter, and they have a short window of time for a good starter like Shields. I think TB got the better of the deal by far. TB only gets the better end of the deal if Myers is valuable. He could still easily be a 50 defender (albeit with a great arm) who strikes out 200 times a season. 30 homers is nice, but a .240/.320 line with that power is a slightly above average RF. If KC gets to the playoffs then the trade is absolutely worth it to them. Also, Odirizzi is a 3/4 starter, not quite a "really good prospect". Still valuable, but he's less of a prospect at the same point in their careers as Davis was.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 14, 2012 9:47:39 GMT -5
We are better than last year, but how much ? Is this a championship driven roster or even wild card ? Roster questions: Starters- no real ace unless Lester or Bucholtz pitch to their abilities rotation is just fair Bullpen- could be a strength, but need closer (Bailey ? probably someone else) Lineup- Gomes in left ok against lefties, need left handed bat (possibilities Kalish is he recoved from injuries ?, Nava marginal player @best ) SS- Iglesias excellent fielder no bat can carry him if we get good production from first 8 (lf Gomes/Nava/ Kalish and Catcher Salty/Ross/ Lavarnway are the keys) Really our problem is that unless everything is perfect and all the stars align we are still a last place team our pitching cannot matchup against great lineups like the Angels, Tigers, Yankees and many other AL lineups. So hopefully now we add pieces that will help us in future try stockpile young talent that we can use either on our team or as trade chips to build our roster. Pretty much my feelings. As I have said, the only two guys I think we might trade are Lester and Ells (I think Aceves will be gone but for what?)...and as many have accurately stated, they are not going to command max until they show that they are 'back'. I think we are a 75-85 win team depending on whether the wind is fair or foul. But that is OK with me as long as we stay the course and take the right tacks.
|
|
|