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.
2016 Non-Sox Thread
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2016 11:23:14 GMT -5
They were bidding against literally no other team. Unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 16, 2016 11:27:18 GMT -5
Just once I want Scott Boras to negotiate a contract for me. Once, really, is all it would take.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Jan 16, 2016 11:36:04 GMT -5
Boras has balls made of steel.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 16, 2016 12:03:15 GMT -5
The Orioles have a solid line-up and a strong bullpen, but a rotation that will allow them to finish last in the AL East. At least, I hope the team that finished last last year is not the same team that finished last last. Make sense? If Bundy, Harvey, and Gausman don't live up to their hype, they could definitely be a cellar dweller. All 3 of those kids have great talent, but for one reason or another it hasn't happen yet.
Losing their best starter this off-season, but Chris Tillman has to have a big year or they are toast.
They better try real hard to extend Machado!!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2016 12:13:13 GMT -5
The Orioles have a solid line-up and a strong bullpen, but a rotation that will allow them to finish last in the AL East. At least, I hope the team that finished last last year is not the same team that finished last last. Make sense? If Bundy, Harvey, and Gausman don't live up to their hype, they could definitely be a cellar dweller. All 3 of those kids have great talent, but for one reason or another it hasn't happen yet. Losing their best starter this off-season, but Chris Tillman has to have a big year or they are toast. They better try real hard to extend Machado!! I don't think there's a chance in hell they sign Machado. All but a few teams in the league would want him. He'll probably get $250-300 million.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jan 16, 2016 12:55:27 GMT -5
I must say, I see Kennedy getting $70m, Chen $80m (could rise to $96), Leake $90m and whatever it was, and I no longer feel bad about the Porcello contract. Or picking up Buch's option (didn't feel bad about it, but looks better in contrast). If Joe Kelly can sustain a bit of what he showed over the second half, this Sox rotation can actually be quite good, with money fairly well distributed.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Jan 16, 2016 13:30:42 GMT -5
Unless contracts suddenly level out (not likely), the Porcello deal will look fine at worst if he doesn't regress. Given that I see a big improvement out of him, I fully expect it to be considered a fair to good contract within 2 years. In an ideal world, Porcello and/or Buchholz will show enough to hold the team steady if/when Price opts out
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2016 15:05:46 GMT -5
I totally would've signed Ian Kennedy and tried covert him to the bullpen for about $66 million less.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by gerry on Jan 17, 2016 4:02:59 GMT -5
It's not just about improvement of video, but also that PITCHf/x (and its hitting and defense analogues) allow the analytics staff to take over a lot of the advance scouting functions that used to require scouts to go out on the road. It is sad and disconcerting. Scouts provide human intelligence about the human element of players to teams, independent of sales pitches from agents and school personnel. This is critical information which videos and computer programs are incapable of creating, much less understanding or evaluating. If this recent trend is CFO driven, It should soon prove to be shortsighted and counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jan 17, 2016 5:42:43 GMT -5
human intelligence about the human element of players [...] is critical information Please elaborate, what's an example of such information, why is it critical, and what do you do with it?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,699
|
Post by nomar on Jan 17, 2016 11:58:38 GMT -5
I totally would've signed Ian Kennedy and tried covert him to the bullpen for about $66 million less. It will be nice for him to have a good OF defense
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 17, 2016 12:56:27 GMT -5
Sure, but joining the DH league won't be. His HR/FB rate is very likely unsustainably high, but 22.8% LD, 38.5% GB, 7.8% IFFB, moving into the AL where his strikeout rate will probably drop around 4%? Not a good gamble at $70 million.
EDIT: Per fangraphs, his hard contact percentage was the highest in baseball and his soft contact percentage was the second lowest.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 17, 2016 16:01:59 GMT -5
The Royals do have a pretty good track record of refurbishing these types of pitcher though. The signing doesn't look great but it wouldn't be surprised at all if it ends up working out reasonably well.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 17, 2016 18:47:36 GMT -5
The Royals do have a pretty good track record of refurbishing these types of pitcher though. The signing doesn't look great but it wouldn't be surprised at all if it ends up working out reasonably well. That's fair, I suppose. I still feel like for that kind of money and the talent that is available - Yovanni Gallardo is better and could've been had on that conract, for instance - Kennedy doesn't make sense there. But the Royals have earned the benefit of of the doubt, which is still kind of a weird sentence to type.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 17, 2016 20:52:12 GMT -5
The Royals do have a pretty good track record of refurbishing these types of pitcher though. The signing doesn't look great but it wouldn't be surprised at all if it ends up working out reasonably well. That's fair, I suppose. I still feel like for that kind of money and the talent that is available - Yovanni Gallardo is better and could've been had on that conract, for instance - Kennedy doesn't make sense there. But the Royals have earned the benefit of of the doubt, which is still kind of a weird sentence to type. Yeah I mean even assuming they can pull the same voodoo with Kennedy as they have with Volquez/Young/Vargas/whoever the past few years, it still seems like they should have driven a harder bargain on the contract. Just because you think he can be worth $70m doesn't mean you should actually give him $70m.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 18, 2016 1:46:08 GMT -5
The Royals seem to like replacement-to-average starters who are dependable. Perhaps since we're always looking at WAR we're not valuing the skill/talent of dependability enough. I'm not sure how many replacement level starters who can pitch 180 innings are really out there - could be a market inefficiency we're missing (similar to relief pitching previously).
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by gerry on Jan 18, 2016 2:45:25 GMT -5
That's fair, I suppose. I still feel like for that kind of money and the talent that is available - Yovanni Gallardo is better and could've been had on that conract, for instance - Kennedy doesn't make sense there. But the Royals have earned the benefit of of the doubt, which is still kind of a weird sentence to type. Yeah I mean even assuming they can pull the same voodoo with Kennedy as they have with Volquez/Young/Vargas/whoever the past few years, it still seems like they should have driven a harder bargain on the contract. Just because you think he can be worth $70m doesn't mean you should actually give him $70m. But not if he and his agent also think, especially in this pitcher friendly $$ climate, he is worth 70M and more. Also, we don't know wbat kind of negotiations actually went on behind closed doors. It's been a crazy couple of years oit there.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 18, 2016 12:07:31 GMT -5
The Royals seem to like replacement-to-average starters who are dependable. Perhaps since we're always looking at 'WAR' we're not valuing the skill/talent of dependability enough. I'm not sure how many replacement level starters who can pitch 180 innings are really out there - could be a market inefficiency we're missing (similar to relief pitching previously). You put WAR in quotes even though you're the first one who has mentioned it. And dependability is worth something, but Kennedy only faced 713 batters last year, which was 72nd in MLB and fewer than C.C. Sabathia, Brett Anderson, and Marco Estrada (who was a reliever until May). He had reached 180+ innings each of the previous five seasons, so it's possible that 2015 was just a blip in terms of durability. But it's also possible, given all of the other things he was bad at, that it was a symptom of an overall decline. I just don't think 5/$70M is a sensible gamble here.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 18, 2016 18:24:21 GMT -5
The Royals seem to like replacement-to-average starters who are dependable. Perhaps since we're always looking at 'WAR' we're not valuing the skill/talent of dependability enough. I'm not sure how many replacement level starters who can pitch 180 innings are really out there - could be a market inefficiency we're missing (similar to relief pitching previously). You put WAR in quotes even though you're the first one who has mentioned it. And dependability is worth something, but Kennedy only faced 713 batters last year, which was 72nd in MLB and fewer than C.C. Sabathia, Brett Anderson, and Marco Estrada (who was a reliever until May). He had reached 180+ innings each of the previous five seasons, so it's possible that 2015 was just a blip in terms of durability. But it's also possible, given all of the other things he was bad at, that it was a symptom of an overall decline. I just don't think 5/$70M is a sensible gamble here. Was a quick answer and didn't want to take the time to underline. Fixed for ya. Kennedy has thrown 1,175 innings over the past 6 years which ranks 14th in baseball. The 13 guys ahead of him all have a higher AAV aside from Haren and Dickey - who are 4 and 10 years older respectively. And he has had at least 30 starts in each of those 6 seasons. A contrarian could easily point out that all of those innings are wearing away at him and are more a negative indicator than a positive one. But nonetheless, an argument can be made for paying Kennedy those kind of dollars. Personally, I'm more surprised and concerned for the length rather than the AAV. Even if he's worth the AAV today, he is unlikely to be worth it 5 years from now, and there doesn't appear to be surplus value in the early years of the contract to offset injury or diminished skills later on. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 18, 2016 19:02:31 GMT -5
...Personally, I'm more surprised and concerned for the length rather than the AAV. Even if he's worth the AAV today, he is unlikely to be worth it 5 years from now, and there doesn't appear to be surplus value in the early years of the contract to offset injury or diminished skills later on. Guess we'll just have to wait and see. If you're going to talk like that, you need to have a measure right? A way to establish that worth? Since you brought it up, let me flesh it out for you. Kennedy will have to generate more of that worth in the next 5 years, than he has in his career - so far - to make the contract. That's not impossible, of course. He'll also be playing in a ballpark that should help him along. But it seems just as likely that he won't, at least to me. I think it's marginal enough that it isn't going to cost KC a whole lot. But it is a bit of money for what is a slightly better than average starter. The Sox probably have at least four guys as good on the roster right now. Porcello at 26 has been worth more, and Buchholz at 30 much more, the latter doing that for less than half the money Kennedy has been promised. Yet posters gripe about both their salaries. What's wrong with this picture?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 18, 2016 22:24:37 GMT -5
Justin Upton gets 6/$132 from the Tigers. Sensible deal for the Tigers, and if Upton plays well he'll have another pretty decent contract down the road. And since the #9 pick is protected and they'd already signed Zimmermann, it's only costing a #3 which really is a non-consideration when you're talking about a player you're willing to give over $100 million to.
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Jan 19, 2016 9:46:14 GMT -5
Justin Upton gets 6/$132 from the Tigers. Sensible deal for the Tigers, and if Upton plays well he'll have another pretty decent contract down the road. And since the #9 pick is protected and they'd already signed Zimmermann, it's only costing a #3 which really is a non-consideration when you're talking about a player you're willing to give over $100 million to. So much for that pillow contract. Nice deal by both sides IMO. Like all new contracts apparently, Upton recieves an Opt-Out after year two, allowing him to test the market again at 30. ESPN.com
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 19, 2016 12:04:52 GMT -5
Justin Upton gets 6/$132 from the Tigers. Sensible deal for the Tigers, and if Upton plays well he'll have another pretty decent contract down the road. And since the #9 pick is protected and they'd already signed Zimmermann, it's only costing a #3 which really is a non-consideration when you're talking about a player you're willing to give over $100 million to. So much for that pillow contract. Nice deal by both sides IMO. Like all new contracts apparently, Upton recieves an Opt-Out after year two, allowing him to test the market again at 30. ESPN.comMore of a chance Upton opt's out than Price.....Upton will clearly get more than 4/88 after 2 years if he just maintains his numbers. Petco & Tiger Stadium are not that dissimilar. Though AAV will probably be similar, he'll add another 2 years to that, which will conceivably be a 8 year/22 per deal when it's all said & done.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 19, 2016 12:44:35 GMT -5
The more I think about it, taking into account both the player involved and the overall dollars this cotract seems as low-risk as a contract that includes an opt-out can be.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2016 12:54:32 GMT -5
Probably not the right place for it, but Pearl Jam just announced two shows at Fenway, 8/5 and 8/7. I guess that's non-Sox, huh?
Would love to make it up there for that.
|
|
|