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 jimed14 on Nov 9, 2015 15:15:00 GMT -5
I sincerely apologize for mentioning Barnes for Melancon without putting any thought into it. Time to move on with people added to my block list.
|
|
|
Post by justen on Nov 9, 2015 15:18:55 GMT -5
Miller had 1 save before this year. No one cares about how many saves anyone has. Money is always prohibitive for small market teams. And interestingly enough, I just read Heyman saying that Miller could be traded this winter. Lol. Let's look at context here: Miller got the job because Betances struggled in spring and his velo dropped. Yankees are ONLY making Miller available because they'd then go out and trade for Kimbrel or Chapman, or sign O'Day. They're not thinking of trading Andrew Miller and not replacing him.But dude, go ahead and keep deluding yourself into thinking Matt Barnes could get you a 50 save closer. You could try really really really hard, and you still couldn't come up with a less likely trade scenario. Kinda feel like you are arguing with yourself here. Don't think anyone here genuinely thinks that Barnes has enough value to be a center piece to acquire a top flight closer. Barnes has an arm that offers pretty big potential out of the bullpen. That's pretty much common sense in which you seem to be assuming nobody has. Barnes offers wild-card potential in any potential trade, but obviously trading him now would be selling lower than low and really wouldn't make much sense anyway. And your point really doesn't make much sense (I may just be confused), the Yankees want to trade a guy with top-closer stuff for a just as expensive guy with top-closer stuff? Not sure what you mean there. Signing O'Day might make some sense after a Miller trade, but why strengthen an area like your bullpen through an acquisition, and then immediately retract from it? Cashman never said Miller was "available" only that he'd listen to what teams had to offer, just like all good GM's do.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 15:20:47 GMT -5
I sincerely apologize for mentioning Barnes for Melancon without putting any thought into it. Time to move on with people added to my block list. Is this like on the playground when someone grabs their toys and stomps home? lol
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 9, 2015 15:25:52 GMT -5
I sincerely apologize for mentioning Barnes for Melancon without putting any thought into it. Time to move on with people added to my block list. Is this like on the playground when someone grabs their toys and stomps home? lol Stop antagonizing other posters. This goes both ways. You can disagree with someone without being a jerk to them. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 15:34:16 GMT -5
Lol. Let's look at context here: Miller got the job because Betances struggled in spring and his velo dropped. Yankees are ONLY making Miller available because they'd then go out and trade for Kimbrel or Chapman, or sign O'Day. They're not thinking of trading Andrew Miller and not replacing him.But dude, go ahead and keep deluding yourself into thinking Matt Barnes could get you a 50 save closer. You could try really really really hard, and you still couldn't come up with a less likely trade scenario. Kinda feel like you are arguing with yourself here. Don't think anyone here genuinely thinks that Barnes has enough value to be a center piece to acquire a top flight closer. Barnes has an arm that offers pretty big potential out of the bullpen. That's pretty much common sense in which you seem to be assuming nobody has. Barnes offers wild-card potential in any potential trade, but obviously trading him now would be selling lower than low and really wouldn't make much sense anyway. And your point really doesn't make much sense (I may just be confused), the Yankees want to trade a guy with top-closer stuff for a just as expensive guy with top-closer stuff? Not sure what you mean there. Signing O'Day might make some sense after a Miller trade, but why strengthen an area like your bullpen through an acquisition, and then immediately retract from it? Cashman never said Miller was "available" only that he'd listen to what teams had to offer, just like all good GM's do. We're wildly overstating Barnes' value. His arm has showed no ability to limit contact in the major leagues. 11.6 H/9, 1.7HR/9. The exact last thing we're looking for in a reliever. And his minor league campaign was not that great either. People can hit a flat 95mph fastball. The potential you're referring to is essentially, "well if he suddenly gains pinpoint accuracy and movement on his fastball, he might be effective." Sure, you could say that about me as well. And re: the Cashman thing, I was only giving a scenario in which it would make sense. They know Betances can cover closing role with his somewhat diminished velocity. They can sell Miller for a prospect or two, sign O'day to the same contract that Miller has remaining, and use that prospect to include and flip towards someone like Carrasco. Do I think it would ever happen? Probably not, but closing is VALUABLE. So someone might overpay. We'll just have to see if someone offers Cashman a big time stud prospect like Matt Barnes that has him so enticed he'll bite.
|
|
|
Post by justen on Nov 10, 2015 8:53:45 GMT -5
Kinda feel like you are arguing with yourself here. Don't think anyone here genuinely thinks that Barnes has enough value to be a center piece to acquire a top flight closer. Barnes has an arm that offers pretty big potential out of the bullpen. That's pretty much common sense in which you seem to be assuming nobody has. Barnes offers wild-card potential in any potential trade, but obviously trading him now would be selling lower than low and really wouldn't make much sense anyway. And your point really doesn't make much sense (I may just be confused), the Yankees want to trade a guy with top-closer stuff for a just as expensive guy with top-closer stuff? Not sure what you mean there. Signing O'Day might make some sense after a Miller trade, but why strengthen an area like your bullpen through an acquisition, and then immediately retract from it? Cashman never said Miller was "available" only that he'd listen to what teams had to offer, just like all good GM's do. We're wildly overstating Barnes' value. His arm has showed no ability to limit contact in the major leagues. 11.6 H/9, 1.7HR/9. The exact last thing we're looking for in a reliever. And his minor league campaign was not that great either. People can hit a flat 95mph fastball. The potential you're referring to is essentially, "well if he suddenly gains pinpoint accuracy and movement on his fastball, he might be effective." Sure, you could say that about me as well. And re: the Cashman thing, I was only giving a scenario in which it would make sense. They know Betances can cover closing role with his somewhat diminished velocity. They can sell Miller for a prospect or two, sign O'day to the same contract that Miller has remaining, and use that prospect to include and flip towards someone like Carrasco. Do I think it would ever happen? Probably not, but closing is VALUABLE. So someone might overpay. We'll just have to see if someone offers Cashman a big time stud prospect like Matt Barnes that has him so enticed he'll bite. No, you're wildly overstating what the board's consensus of "Yeah, Barnes is a bit of a loogy but a better looking loogy than most loogy's". Literally no one has said "Barnes has a chance to be a big piece in the acquisition for a closer". Andrew Miller was a loogy (and failed starter) who threw hard and hadn't done much of anything. Barnes is simply a failed starter (happens all the time) who is much too young to totally discount talent wise. You can go on for a pretty good length of time on failed starters who who turned into pretty good relievers, and all for different reasons. Whether it be velocity uptick, cleaner mechanics from the stretch, or just have a more than suitable mentality (see: Papelbon, Jonathan) Am i trying to say he's the next M. Rivera? No that is ridiculous. Does the fact thart Barnes throws hard and has potential to be a mean he has good value? No... You are wildly understating the value of trying to maximize the effectiveness of your players. Re Miller availability: It's a pretty irrelevant argument at this point, because like you said, Miller isn't going anywhere being that no one is going to overwhelm Cashman with a blue-chipper.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 10, 2015 10:13:47 GMT -5
I just hope Barnes turns into something more than Ranaudo. Somewhat hard thrower that doesn't miss bats. I agree we have to give this guy a long leash to see if he can figure it out (as Wade Davis and Miller did).
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,783
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 10, 2015 10:38:11 GMT -5
Matt Barnes is a relief pitching lottery ticket with more value to our team than to another. Keep giving him the chance to be a middle reliever, and hope he figures it out.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 10, 2015 11:56:53 GMT -5
I just hope Barnes turns into something more than Ranaudo. Somewhat hard thrower that doesn't miss bats. I agree we have to give this guy a long leash to see if he can figure it out (as Wade Davis and Miller did). I don't know that this Ranaudo/Barnes comparison makes much sense. Barnes (career minor league 24.9% strikeout rate) has consistently missed more bats than Ranaudo did (career minor league 20.3 strikeout rate), especially in the upper minors. Barnes has always scouted as having better stuff (and in particular, a better fastball) than Ranaudo did.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 10, 2015 13:13:20 GMT -5
I just hope Barnes turns into something more than Ranaudo. Somewhat hard thrower that doesn't miss bats. I agree we have to give this guy a long leash to see if he can figure it out (as Wade Davis and Miller did). I don't know that this Ranaudo/Barnes comparison makes much sense. Barnes (career minor league 24.9% strikeout rate) has consistently missed more bats than Ranaudo did (career minor league 20.3 strikeout rate), especially in the upper minors. Barnes has always scouted as having better stuff (and in particular, a better fastball) than Ranaudo did. I know Barnes has better raw stuff/SO ratio.....Renaudo went 14-4 with the IL Cy Young in 2014 & had an overall, not staggering, but good Minor League history ......I know they are different pitchers. I was just saying Renaudo had trouble getting ML hitters out even from the pen (as does Barnes).....If I had to choose from the 2, obviously Barnes would be the guy.
|
|
|
Post by myleskennefick on Nov 10, 2015 14:20:40 GMT -5
Barnes figuring it out in the bullpen could be a big key to turning the bullpen around. That he is showing up to ST knowing how to prepare and not getting bounced back and forth between starting and relieving is a good thing. Mark Melancon is entering his 3rd arb year. I wonder if the Red Sox would be interested in trading for him a 2nd time. There's no logical reason as to why the Pirates would trade him. They contended last year, will again this year. Relief market isn't strong enough to warrant trading him and signing someone else to replace him. From Jon Heyman: According to two rival GMs, the Pirates' Mark Melancon, the top closer in the National League this year and winner of the Trevor Hoffman award, is also out there for the taking Link: mweb.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/25368830/inside-baseball-trade-market-for-top-closers-is-hot-more-from-gm-meetings
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 10, 2015 16:28:18 GMT -5
Might help the RS if more relievers other than Chapman & Kimbrel are on the market.....Melancon K/9 was down to 7.2, (from 9.0 last year) maybe Pittsburg saw something there. Melancon for one year is not nearly as valuable as Chapman for one year IMO.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Nov 10, 2015 19:56:28 GMT -5
I don't want Chapman or Kimbrel, but I would be willing to trade for Giles.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 11, 2015 2:06:15 GMT -5
Kinda feel like you are arguing with yourself here. Don't think anyone here genuinely thinks that Barnes has enough value to be a center piece to acquire a top flight closer. Barnes has an arm that offers pretty big potential out of the bullpen. That's pretty much common sense in which you seem to be assuming nobody has. Barnes offers wild-card potential in any potential trade, but obviously trading him now would be selling lower than low and really wouldn't make much sense anyway. And your point really doesn't make much sense (I may just be confused), the Yankees want to trade a guy with top-closer stuff for a just as expensive guy with top-closer stuff? Not sure what you mean there. Signing O'Day might make some sense after a Miller trade, but why strengthen an area like your bullpen through an acquisition, and then immediately retract from it? Cashman never said Miller was "available" only that he'd listen to what teams had to offer, just like all good GM's do. We're wildly overstating Barnes' value. His arm has showed no ability to limit contact in the major leagues. 11.6 H/9, 1.7HR/9. The exact last thing we're looking for in a reliever. And his minor league campaign was not that great either. People can hit a flat 95mph fastball.
The potential you're referring to is essentially, "well if he suddenly gains pinpoint accuracy and movement on his fastball, he might be effective." Sure, you could say that about me as well. And re: the Cashman thing, I was only giving a scenario in which it would make sense. They know Betances can cover closing role with his somewhat diminished velocity. They can sell Miller for a prospect or two, sign O'day to the same contract that Miller has remaining, and use that prospect to include and flip towards someone like Carrasco. Do I think it would ever happen? Probably not, but closing is VALUABLE. So someone might overpay. We'll just have to see if someone offers Cashman a big time stud prospect like Matt Barnes that has him so enticed he'll bite. How is this relevant to Barnes? In his MLB career, he's averaged 11.4" of FB movement. In the spreadsheet of 466 pitchers I threw together a couple of years ago, that would rank 45th. For the combination of movement and velocity (based on how they contribute to effectiveness, on average), his FB would rank 36th.
Now, plenty of people make this mistake, but this is more evidence for my longstanding claim that assertions about FB movement based on observation bear no correlation to reality. And dramatic evidence to boot -- you just proclaimed a 90th percentile FB movement, movement bordering on plus-plus, to be flat. No, it's not being hit because it's flat. It's being hit because it's not well commanded, and it looks flat to you because it's been hit hard. He has the stuff to be an elite reliever, just like Miller did. If he can gain command (like Miller did), it will happen. Oh, and I love that he "might be effective" if he gained "pinpoint" command. Yeah, let's move the goalposts to Mars but describe the results like they were still in your backyard. If he gained "pinpoint" command of his fastball -- well, think how effective Koji would have been in 2013 if he had been throwing 95 instead of 89. I was unaware that "effective" was a synonym for "historically great." He doesn't need "pinpoint" command to pitch the 7th of 8th inning with that FB, just good command.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Nov 11, 2015 9:08:56 GMT -5
I think we can all agree that with a 10 million dollar salary, there is a high chance the Pirates could make a move. He might also cost a little more than Matt Barnes (but not as much as everyone may think).
That being said, if I'm the Red Sox, I would not make that trade in a vacuum. Melancon "And The Infinite Sadness" as some of my buddies called him is just a complete risk to come back here. The fans wouldn't like the move and he'd have a pretty short leash with the media imo. The last thing DD would want to do in his first year is copy Ben Cherington. I'd rather take the risk of holding onto Barnes and hope he becomes something similar. We'd have him for a lot longer and cheaper. His value is not high right now and it would be prudent for the FO to ride him out a little longer.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 11, 2015 9:10:12 GMT -5
Red Sox have interest in Joakim Soria.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Nov 11, 2015 9:17:07 GMT -5
Red Sox have interest in Joakim Soria.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 11, 2015 9:30:30 GMT -5
Red Sox have interest in Joakim Soria. He'd fit the power arm factor Dombrowski is seeking. While he may not be the closer, he'd slide in nicely as a set up guy to take some of the pressure off Taz.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 11, 2015 9:35:27 GMT -5
Soria averages 91-92 on his fastball. He's not really a power pitcher and has never been, even in his KC days.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 11, 2015 10:10:51 GMT -5
Soria averages 91-92 on his fastball. He's not really a power pitcher and has never been, even in his KC days. If he got his FB up to 93, would he be a power pitcher? Power or not, the guy has more Ks than IP in his career. In his recent stint with Dombrowski's Tigers he went 3-1 with a 2.83 era and 24 saves with 67.2 IP. However you describe his velocity, he' be a solid alternative to O'Day, should the Sox be outbid.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,783
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 11, 2015 10:26:49 GMT -5
I like Soria as a 7th inning guy. O'Day looks like he may get overpaid, though.
Best route to find RP may be the trade market. Giles would be great, but I don't want to give up much for a reliever; even one with multiple years of team control. Seems like trades for relievers always benefit the team getting rid of the reliever.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 11, 2015 10:31:09 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not saying he's a bad pitcher, but it seems like a stretch to characterize him as a power pitcher, especially if (and I've seen this a bunch on these forums, though not specifically from you that I can remember) you don't think Tazawa (and his 93-94 mph fastball) is a power pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by myleskennefick on Nov 11, 2015 11:46:08 GMT -5
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,783
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 11, 2015 11:58:49 GMT -5
He makes a lot of money, but a sub-2.00 SIERA and a 3.40 ERA makes him a very interesting trade candidate IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 11, 2015 12:53:39 GMT -5
|
|
|