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.
Will the Red Sox trade Hanley or Pablo?
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 16:45:46 GMT -5
Last time, we had this argument about Allen Craig. I'll note that I was actually quite bearish on Craig. The big difference between Craig and Sandoval/Ramirez is that the various indicators of Sandoval and Ramirez's decline can be explained by luck/small-sample-based stats, while literally every part of Craig's offensive game (the only thing he brought to the table) collapsed, which was verified by both statistical analysis and scouting. Ethan has already posted a Hanley analysis above while Norm has brought up the shoulder injury issue, but if you look at Sandoval's peripherals, you'll note that the major difference between his performance last year and his performance this year is (a) 30 points of BABIP and (b) a huge drop in defense (on the order of two-and-a-half wins). Defensive stats are prone to huge fluctuations because of the small samples involved and because the difference between an out and a double or a two-base-error is so large, and I'm pretty confident that he'll pick up at least a win or two there. He already looked much-improved defensively over the second half of the year. He was at -12 DRS through July and ended up -11, which means he was +1 in the second half. That sounds about right (there were multiple articles about his defensive improvement, and by my eye test, he was legitimately much improved). Offensively, there was a little slippage in K/BB/ISO, but not a lot, and the main culprit looks like BABIP. One-year blips like that happen, and players regularly bounce back from it. The other biggest cause of his offensive decline was his complete inability to hit LHP to start the year (.103/.153/.132 (-30 wRC+) in 73 PAs). Of course, he then dropped switch-hitting and hit .278/.305/.316 (66 wRC+) in 82 PAs lefty-on-lefty to end the year, and if he continues to do so, that tentatively looks like a true-talent improvement. His BABIP L v L was also at least 30 points high, so he probably won't continue to hit that 'well'. Maybe they should find a platoon for him.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 16:51:54 GMT -5
I'll note that I was actually quite bearish on Craig. The big difference between Craig and Sandoval/Ramirez is that the various indicators of Sandoval and Ramirez's decline can be explained by luck/small-sample-based stats, while literally every part of Craig's offensive game (the only thing he brought to the table) collapsed, which was verified by both statistical analysis and scouting. Ethan has already posted a Hanley analysis above while Norm has brought up the shoulder injury issue, but if you look at Sandoval's peripherals, you'll note that the major difference between his performance last year and his performance this year is (a) 30 points of BABIP and (b) a huge drop in defense (on the order of two-and-a-half wins). Defensive stats are prone to huge fluctuations because of the small samples involved and because the difference between an out and a double or a two-base-error is so large, and I'm pretty confident that he'll pick up at least a win or two there. He already looked much-improved defensively over the second half of the year. He was at -12 DRS through July and ended up -11, which means he was +1 in the second half. That sounds about right (there were multiple articles about his defensive improvement, and by my eye test, he was legitimately much improved). Offensively, there was a little slippage in K/BB/ISO, but not a lot, and the main culprit looks like BABIP. One-year blips like that happen, and players regularly bounce back from it. The other biggest cause of his offensive decline was his complete inability to hit LHP to start the year (.103/.153/.132 (-30 wRC+) in 73 PAs). Of course, he then dropped switch-hitting and hit .278/.305/.316 (66 wRC+) in 82 PAs lefty-on-lefty to end the year, and if he continues to do so, that tentatively looks like a true-talent improvement. His BABIP L v L was also at least 30 points high, so he probably won't continue to hit that 'well'. Maybe they should find a platoon for him. That righty swing was like a little kid learning to swing a bat though, so I think he's legitimately better as a LHB anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 16:55:23 GMT -5
His BABIP L v L was also at least 30 points high, so he probably won't continue to hit that 'well'. Maybe they should find a platoon for him. That righty swing was like a little kid learning to swing a bat though, so I think he's legitimately better as a LHB anyway. It's hard to believe he was ever a switch hitter, I know. But is he good enough to face LHP or should he be platooned?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 16:58:53 GMT -5
That righty swing was like a little kid learning to swing a bat though, so I think he's legitimately better as a LHB anyway. It's hard to believe he was ever a switch hitter, I know. But is he good enough to face LHP or should he be platooned? Idk if it's worth it to spend money on a platoon player for him. If we had someone from our system who he lefties well (100 wRC range) I'd be fine with it. Maybe Holt qualifies by those standards.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 6, 2015 17:56:26 GMT -5
It's hard to believe he was ever a switch hitter, I know. But is he good enough to face LHP or should he be platooned? Idk if it's worth it to spend money on a platoon player for him. If we had someone from our system who he lefties well (100 wRC range) I'd be fine with it. Maybe Holt qualifies by those standards. In 336 PA he has a 108 wRC vs LHP - so I don't see why he wouldn't hit vs most lefties (while hitting vs some righties for Castillo and occasionally filling in for Pedey). Now if a RHH, who can wRC greater than 108 and plays RF+3B became available at an affordable rate - even better. But I think that's a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Oct 6, 2015 21:26:30 GMT -5
That was someone on this forum and they were joking, fyi. That's correct. The Panda would have to not eat for 3 months and have his stomach stapled to have a chance for 60 lbs. My idea of 30 to 40 is really impossible also! I voted panda just because I think he is actually the more tradable player.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 7, 2015 8:31:33 GMT -5
I was just reading some of the Yankee comments on their websites....obviously they are calling for Giradi/Cashman's head.....One of them said they should trade Ellsbury for Hanley straight up, then they could bring up Judge....I thought about this & it would make sense for both (bad contract for bad contract)....then we can move Rusney for an arm....I know Jacoby has 2 more years then Hanley...we could break up righty left @ the top of the order..Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Alonzo on Oct 7, 2015 9:05:32 GMT -5
Hey guys, 1st post...
I actually think Sandoval is easier to move, actually by a wide margin. The difference is that Hanley's suitor are drastically limited to half the league to to his DH status. If I was any other team, I might take him, but wouldn't make any more experiments with him on the field, not even at 1B.
Sandoval could be shopped out west. The 3B standard in the league is not exactly high and I feel that Sandoval is better suited in an NL environment (even though I cannot prove it, I think it's a valid argument for some players). If I was San Diego I would definitely look into it if the other team was willing to take dead money off my payroll.
Everyone is movable, this point's been proven over and over again. Wells was once considered completely immovable, same as Crawford who was severely injured when the trade occurred. It's possible, the stars just need to be aligned perfectly in order to have a match with so much money involved. I guess we could always trade Ramirez for Cano, but I don't know if panic moves will help us long term.
I am actually willing to go with Panda. He has a history of producing with his current body shape. He just needs to be good enough to not be a liability on the field and in the line-up. Hanley on the other hand is a massive headcase and I've seen more than enough of him. It was a travesty what he did in LF, even worse than Manny's antics in front of the green monster.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 7, 2015 9:28:59 GMT -5
Good thought.....I think they could move Pablo to SD or 2 or 3 other teams. 3B is thin across the league....BUT that would only work if Hanley can play 1B putting Shaw @ 3B....I don't like being cornered to have Holt @ 3B full time......I'd be more comfortable with Shaw/Pablo, than Hanley/Holt.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 7, 2015 10:07:01 GMT -5
Honest question, does Travis Shaw have the defensive profile to stick at 3B for more than a small sample size? He's only played 8 games there since called up. I haven't had much time to follow baseball recently, which was the best chance I could of had at watching Shaw.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 7, 2015 10:52:44 GMT -5
Honest question, does Travis Shaw have the defensive profile to stick at 3B for more than a small sample size? He's only played 8 games there since called up. I haven't had much time to follow baseball recently, which was the best chance I could of had at watching Shaw. Haven't seen much optimism there.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 7, 2015 11:35:52 GMT -5
Honest question, does Travis Shaw have the defensive profile to stick at 3B for more than a small sample size? He's only played 8 games there since called up. I haven't had much time to follow baseball recently, which was the best chance I could of had at watching Shaw. Haven't seen much optimism there. He looks a little stiff, perhaps lacking quickness/range and does not appear to have a strong throwing arm. I could see a few stop-gap performances or to get an additional lefty in the lineup but not as a permanent thing.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 7, 2015 12:16:42 GMT -5
Haven't seen much optimism there. He looks a little stiff, perhaps lacking quickness/range and does not appear to have a strong throwing arm. I could see a few stop-gap performances or to get an additional lefty in the lineup but not as a permanent thing. Good point.....So while everyone is ready to oust Pablo, other than Holt (which I don't think is the best use for him), Shaw or Marerro would be our choices there.....Could Shaw be much worse than Pablo offensively and defensively. I mean, I think he hit more dingers in 1/2 year than Pablo did for basically the whole year....
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 7, 2015 12:49:32 GMT -5
It doesn't make sense to trade Sandoval in order to give third base to Shaw or Holt, because you can just stash Shaw in Pawtucket and give him the job if Sandoval is awful again. The Red Sox are more likely to have a functioning third baseman next year with both of those players in the organization rather than just one. Trading Sandoval only makes sense if you're signing or trading for a replacement.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2015 12:57:23 GMT -5
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,519
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 7, 2015 13:05:44 GMT -5
Good thought.....I think they could move Pablo to SD or 2 or 3 other teams. 3B is thin across the league....BUT that would only work if Hanley can play 1B putting Shaw @ 3B....I don't like being cornered to have Holt @ 3B full time......I'd be more comfortable with Shaw/Pablo, than Hanley/Holt. I keep seeing this Panda to San Diego thing, but why? What's in it for the Pads? They dealt Chase Headley for Solarte, who had a nice year. I can't see the Padres being desperate for Panda. They certainly wanted him before this year, but I don't know that they'd want him now.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 7, 2015 15:30:12 GMT -5
hint: Chaz talks about his defense in this link. It's better than you might think.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Oct 7, 2015 16:50:11 GMT -5
Sandoval to SD for WMB. Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 7, 2015 16:53:15 GMT -5
Sandoval to SD for WMB. Ha ha. He who laughs last..... Jenny may have taken all the starch out of him.....just looked at his stats.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 7, 2015 17:45:18 GMT -5
Sandoval to SD for WMB. Ha ha. He who laughs last..... Jenny may have taken all the starch out of him.....just looked at his stats. Oh you devil you!
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 7, 2015 19:04:17 GMT -5
That was someone on this forum and they were joking, fyi. That's correct. The Panda would have to not eat for 3 months and have his stomach stapled to have a chance for 60 lbs. My idea of 30 to 40 is really impossible also! Getting older...metabolism slowing down. I think that the Sox will have to 'scale' back....30 lbs is more likely with a regimen tougher than Jared Sullinger's (who BTW, looks the same as last year). Look, it's not only the weight and his attitude toward same with Pablo. The guy can't lay off any pitch. He could be DL'd swinging at one that hits him...and goodness knows how hard he tried this year. Two bad contracts and a struggle to rid them...Beckett and Gonzo revisited. "Do you feel lucky punk?...well do ya"? Not damn likely to happen. I say puhleeze do not sign another long term contract...even for God or a reasonable facsimile thereof. They are risky in the extreme. Please have patience in the farm and in the system. You will be rewarded in the afterlife and on earth for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Oct 7, 2015 20:37:01 GMT -5
I don't think the Red Sox could trade Ramirez unless they eat at least 50% of his salary as he is a DH and comes with a large price tag. Sandoval could probably be traded with the Red Sox assuming about 25% to 30% of his salary or perhaps taking another bad contract in return. It still boggles my mind what the heck the Red Sox were thinking when they signed both of these players which had very obvious issues with respect to weight (Sandoval), lack of discipline (both), compete level (Ramirez) and yet still provided both of them with large long term contracts.
|
|
|
Post by carmenfanzone on Oct 7, 2015 22:30:01 GMT -5
Is there any chance Hanley could play 3rd? He was a shortstop until this year. The reports I have heard about him at 1B are that he can field ground balls but they are not sure he can do the first baseman stuff (taking throws in the dirt, getting his footwork down so he can hold the bag while getting offline throws, etc.). He doesn't have to do that at 3rd.
I know they have the Panda at 3B, but it might be Hanley's best position (besides DH).
I still think Hanley can hit if they can keep him healthy. I am not convinced he can play 1B any better than he played LF. Try both of them at 3B in the spring and start the one that you think is better. Shaw can start at 1B with maybe Travis helping latter in the year ( if we are lucky). This only works roster wise if you have someone like Holt who can backup everywhere. If Ortiz gets hurt or needs a day off you can DH Hanley. If you trade Hanley and Ortiz gets hurt, who is the DH?
To trade either one, I an afraid you are going to have to pay a large portion of their contract for whomever you trade them to and the Red Sox depth is such that you will also probably have to sign or trade for another 1B/3B. That is money and assets that would be better spent fixing the pitching IMO.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Oct 8, 2015 6:05:17 GMT -5
Addition by subtraction. Both have to go, one way or another. If they can get someone decent in return, great. If not, release them. Money is no object to Henry, so that shouldn't matter. Forget the money. Look for the talent.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 8, 2015 7:43:45 GMT -5
It doesn't make sense to trade Sandoval in order to give third base to Shaw or Holt, because you can just stash Shaw in Pawtucket and give him the job if Sandoval is awful again. The Red Sox are more likely to have a functioning third baseman next year with both of those players in the organization rather than just one. Trading Sandoval only makes sense if you're signing or trading for a replacement. It makes sense if you can get rid of him now. If he's awful again, they're stuck with him and do what? Send him home?
|
|
|