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 Red Sox Spring Training News/Discussion
|
Post by 0ap0 on Feb 17, 2016 14:52:43 GMT -5
It's one exercise. At the beginning of the beginning of Spring Training. It's one exercise more than a week before spring training workouts begin.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Feb 17, 2016 15:30:10 GMT -5
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 17, 2016 20:31:03 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897/best-worst-mlb-offseasonMost improved teams (American League) Red Sox: ... ...How rare is it for a team to pull off two moves such as that in the same offseason? Well, the answer, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, is, basically, never. Elias says the Red Sox are the first team in history to acquire a Cy Young starter and a closer who led his league in saves at least four times in the same baseball winter. So there you go.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Feb 17, 2016 21:40:03 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897/best-worst-mlb-offseasonMost improved teams (American League) Red Sox: ... ...How rare is it for a team to pull off two moves such as that in the same offseason? Well, the answer, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, is, basically, never. Elias says the Red Sox are the first team in history to acquire a Cy Young starter and a closer who led his league in saves at least four times in the same baseball winter. So there you go. Given that neither of these players was acquired at a below market price, this could also be interpreted as no other team has ever been willing to liquidate so much of its future assets in a single off-season.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,699
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 17, 2016 22:51:40 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897/best-worst-mlb-offseasonMost improved teams (American League) Red Sox: ... ...How rare is it for a team to pull off two moves such as that in the same offseason? Well, the answer, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, is, basically, never. Elias says the Red Sox are the first team in history to acquire a Cy Young starter and a closer who led his league in saves at least four times in the same baseball winter. So there you go. Given that neither of these players was acquired at a below market price, this could also be interpreted as no other team has ever been willing to liquidate so much of its future assets in a single off-season. C'mon, it was two blocked prospects with some question marks. I think Margot will be a decent to good player (will he hit with much power and how will his OBP look) and Guerra should at worst play a strong defensive SS in the majors (but his OBP and his power numbers might be questionable) and I like Allen, too, but I don't think they dealt off the next Jeff Bagwell or the next Lou Brock or the next John Smoltz. They hardly cleared out their best and most needed prospects and they didn't trade prospects to acquire a starter, because if they had, they would have lost out on at least one of Moncada/Espinoza/Devers/Benintendi, and perhaps a Swihart or maybe even a Betts or a Bogaerts. It comes down to the Sox dealing two good (and blocked) and one possibly good prospect to get a top notch reliever and the Sox got an ace only having to surrender a lot of cash. They didn't even lose a draft pick to sign Price. They didn't gut their farm system to get a top closer and an ace.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 17, 2016 22:53:29 GMT -5
Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, and Dan Quisenberry are the only pitchers I can find who have led their league in saves four times since they started keeping it as an official statistic.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 17, 2016 23:05:03 GMT -5
My impression of some of what Elias pumps out, revolves around the idea that you can find just about any conjunction of relatively rare events and trumpet that as some sort of new record. OK, it makes for copy I guess, so they do it a lot. It was at one time unheard of to have a Cy Young candidate get picked up by another team. That's because, prior to Curt Flood/Marvin Miller/Catfish Huner it wasn't possible. So maybe a 40-50 year stretch. During that time, get a count of all the relief pitchers who won the saves title four times. That's probably not that big a sample. Now you really narrow it down: you have to have the serendipity/talent of someone who, in his walk year without even a chance for a compensatory pick coming back because he played for two teams, wins that prize. Enter David Price. Realize that, without that free pass, these are the possibilities for CY: - CY refuses the QO and signs with another team which returns a draft pick (Greinke v201
65 almost falls into this category) - CY is signed to a pre-arb/arb contract
- CY is signed to a long-term contract
That's a slim window to squeeze that CY winner through. This makes for light reading in my opinion. Sort of like the monkey typing out a Shakespeare sonnet by accident. Add: Thanks, James, for the heavy lifting. We are... talking.... rare......
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 18, 2016 5:41:41 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897/best-worst-mlb-offseasonMost improved teams (American League) Red Sox: ... ...How rare is it for a team to pull off two moves such as that in the same offseason? Well, the answer, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, is, basically, never. Elias says the Red Sox are the first team in history to acquire a Cy Young starter and a closer who led his league in saves at least four times in the same baseball winter. So there you go. Tough call to say who was the most improved. You can say that the White Sox made the best improvements in a off-season. With their infield doing nothing last year, they went on to get Bret Lawrie and Todd Frazier. The Sox bullpen can also be made a case to be most improved from a year ago. After being in the bottom 5 of worst bullpens they should be a top 5 bullpen this coming year. So due to that I give a slight edge to the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Feb 18, 2016 6:08:31 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897/best-worst-mlb-offseasonMost improved teams (American League) Red Sox: ... ...How rare is it for a team to pull off two moves such as that in the same offseason? Well, the answer, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, is, basically, never. Elias says the Red Sox are the first team in history to acquire a Cy Young starter and a closer who led his league in saves at least four times in the same baseball winter. So there you go. Tough call to say who was the most improved. You can say that the White Sox made the best improvements in a off-season. With their infield doing nothing last year, they went on to get Bret Lawrie and Todd Frazier.The Sox bullpen can also be made a case to be most improved from a year ago. After being in the bottom 5 of worst bullpens they should be a top 5 bullpen this coming year. So due to that I give a slight edge to the Sox. They should really sign Desmond. Solid short stop who should come relatively cheap after his down season. They have a protected pick as well. Competition in that division is steep, but they should go for it.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Feb 18, 2016 6:51:07 GMT -5
Given that neither of these players was acquired at a below market price, this could also be interpreted as no other team has ever been willing to liquidate so much of its future assets in a single off-season. C'mon, it was two blocked prospects with some question marks. I think Margot will be a decent to good player (will he hit with much power and how will his OBP look) and Guerra should at worst play a strong defensive SS in the majors (but his OBP and his power numbers might be questionable) and I like Allen, too, but I don't think they dealt off the next Jeff Bagwell or the next Lou Brock or the next John Smoltz. They hardly cleared out their best and most needed prospects and they didn't trade prospects to acquire a starter, because if they had, they would have lost out on at least one of Moncada/Espinoza/Devers/Benintendi, and perhaps a Swihart or maybe even a Betts or a Bogaerts. It comes down to the Sox dealing two good (and blocked) and one possibly good prospect to get a top notch reliever and the Sox got an ace only having to surrender a lot of cash. They didn't even lose a draft pick to sign Price. They didn't gut their farm system to get a top closer and an ace. They traded two top 50 prospects, took on $40 million in new salary commitments (about 20% of payroll) for the next three years and $30 million for the four after, and they postponed extending their two young stars (likely due to the added payroll). Also, after all this, there will likely be another major hit to the farm system prior to the trade deadline. While they haven't gutted the farm, this is still a staggering investment of future assets for seven or eight present wins. When you say "never" in this case it is a reflection on the rarity of both the acquisition and the cost in future assets.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Feb 18, 2016 7:08:58 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897/best-worst-mlb-offseasonMost improved teams (American League) Red Sox: ... ...How rare is it for a team to pull off two moves such as that in the same offseason? Well, the answer, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, is, basically, never. Elias says the Red Sox are the first team in history to acquire a Cy Young starter and a closer who led his league in saves at least four times in the same baseball winter. So there you go. Given that neither of these players was acquired at a below market price, this could also be interpreted as no other team has ever been willing to liquidate so much of its future assets in a single off-season.D-Backs.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 18, 2016 8:00:00 GMT -5
Given that neither of these players was acquired at a below market price, this could also be interpreted as no other team has ever been willing to liquidate so much of its future assets in a single off-season.D-Backs. Padres last year
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 18, 2016 8:05:41 GMT -5
They traded two top 50 prospects, took on $40 million in new salary commitments (about 20% of payroll) for the next three years and $30 million for the four after, and they postponed extending their two young stars (likely due to the added payroll). Also, after all this, there will likely be another major hit to the farm system prior to the trade deadline. There is zero reason to think that the Price/Kimbrel acquisitions had any causal effect on their not extending Betts or Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 18, 2016 8:07:59 GMT -5
It officially begins today.
A nice view of Fenway South
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Feb 18, 2016 8:23:28 GMT -5
They traded two top 50 prospects, took on $40 million in new salary commitments (about 20% of payroll) for the next three years and $30 million for the four after, and they postponed extending their two young stars (likely due to the added payroll). Also, after all this, there will likely be another major hit to the farm system prior to the trade deadline. There is zero reason to think that the Price/Kimbrel acquisitions had any causal effect on their not extending Betts or Bogaerts. Of course there is. They added 40 million in AAV. Extending Betts and Bogaerts would cost another 15 to 20 million. There is an obvious causal relationship; adding Price and Kimbrel unquestionably compromised the Red Sox ability to extend these players. Whether they would have done so without these acquisitions is admittedly unknown.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 18, 2016 8:29:15 GMT -5
There is zero reason to think that the Price/Kimbrel acquisitions had any causal effect on their not extending Betts or Bogaerts. Of course there is. They added 40 million in AAV. Extending Betts and Bogaerts would cost another 15 to 20 million. There is an obvious causal relationship. Whether this was the motivation is obviously unknown. And whether it's a bad thing or a good thing to not extend them will be unknown for years. Whether they would be open to sign an extension will be unknown unless they sign one. And when they actually leave the team, then we can complain about it. Before then, it's pointless for so many reasons. Of course I actually agree with you that spending that much money comes from somewhere, though they haven't really seemed to ever put a limit on spending so far.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 18, 2016 9:24:54 GMT -5
There is zero reason to think that the Price/Kimbrel acquisitions had any causal effect on their not extending Betts or Bogaerts. Of course there is. They added 40 million in AAV. Extending Betts and Bogaerts would cost another 15 to 20 million. There is an obvious causal relationship; adding Price and Kimbrel unquestionably compromised the Red Sox ability to extend these players. Whether they would have done so without these acquisitions is admittedly unknown. You're assuming that the reason they haven't extended Betts or Bogaerts (yet) is because they are concerned about near-term AAV (remember, it's a pure luxury tax question because most extensions are structured to be similar to a player's natural pre-arb/arb/FA progression and so their post-extension 2016 salary is usually not much higher than their pre-extension 2016 salary). That's awfully presumptuous. At a 30% tax rate for second-time taxpayers, we're talking about ~$3m in extra tax payments this year. I'm skeptical that that extra $3m tax payment has anything to do with why they haven't been extended yet. It almost certainly has far more to do with wanting to get another year's worth of data in before signing them long-term, and let's not forget that the players and their agents have a say in the matter as well.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Feb 18, 2016 9:53:51 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897/best-worst-mlb-offseasonMost improved teams (American League) Red Sox: ... ...How rare is it for a team to pull off two moves such as that in the same offseason? Well, the answer, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, is, basically, never. Elias says the Red Sox are the first team in history to acquire a Cy Young starter and a closer who led his league in saves at least four times in the same baseball winter. So there you go. Given that neither of these players was acquired at a below market price, this could also be interpreted as no other team has ever been willing to liquidate so much of its future assets in a single off-season. When Price was signed, I agree I thought it was market price. After the Grienke/Shelby Miller & some other starting pitching costs, I believe the Price deal looks better. Also, with Papi/Koji coming off the books after this year & will be replaced with minimum pay players (Travis/Light/ect) that's 25 million coming off the books next year. I could also see Taz leaving due to the relief pitching depth.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Feb 18, 2016 10:20:21 GMT -5
It officially begins today. A nice view of Fenway South It appears the sox tried to replicate field 1 to resemble Fenway as well. The only concern is the left field "wall" looks like a netting/chain link fence type deal. Many left fielders will be learning their craft on that field & I think it would help them immensely to get reps using a wall, not a net. Ft Myers kicked in 80 mil to build the complex. I would think the Sox could kick in 100k or so to have a "wall". I would also hope if/when they build a new AAA stadium, it also replicates Fenway (Like Greenville).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 18, 2016 10:28:46 GMT -5
I hope that it doesn't. The Fenway replica thing has been done. Variety is the spice of life and all that. I'd prefer more subtle nods to Fenway - the shade of green paint, manual LF scoreboard, something like that.
|
|
sarcasmo
Rookie
Formerly known as mtomeo
Posts: 91
|
Post by sarcasmo on Feb 18, 2016 10:41:01 GMT -5
It's one exercise. At the beginning of the beginning of Spring Training. It's one exercise more than a week before spring training workouts begin. Because yesterday was his first time working out in 6 months. I look like the a$$ here so I'm willing to drop it. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Feb 18, 2016 11:06:49 GMT -5
@jmastrodonato: John Farrell says Brian Bannister and the Red Sox are hoping RHP Carlos Marmol can try a new arm slot that helps him bounce back into form.
So it begins...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 18, 2016 11:31:38 GMT -5
It officially begins today. A nice view of Fenway South It appears the sox tried to replicate field 1 to resemble Fenway as well. The only concern is the left field "wall" looks like a netting/chain link fence type deal. Many left fielders will be learning their craft on that field & I think it would help them immensely to get reps using a wall, not a net. Ft Myers kicked in 80 mil to build the complex. I would think the Sox could kick in 100k or so to have a "wall". I would also hope if/when they build a new AAA stadium, it also replicates Fenway (Like Greenville). You can tell this from the blimp shot? Also, I'd note that the left fielders can use the "wall" inside the park whenever they want. It's not like they're high schoolers who need to ask permission.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Feb 18, 2016 11:38:07 GMT -5
Of course there is. They added 40 million in AAV. Extending Betts and Bogaerts would cost another 15 to 20 million. There is an obvious causal relationship; adding Price and Kimbrel unquestionably compromised the Red Sox ability to extend these players. Whether they would have done so without these acquisitions is admittedly unknown. You're assuming that the reason they haven't extended Betts or Bogaerts (yet) is because they are concerned about near-term AAV (remember, it's a pure luxury tax question because most extensions are structured to be similar to a player's natural pre-arb/arb/FA progression and so their post-extension 2016 salary is usually not much higher than their pre-extension 2016 salary). That's awfully presumptuous. At a 30% tax rate for second-time taxpayers, we're talking about ~$3m in extra tax payments this year. I'm skeptical that that extra $3m tax payment has anything to do with why they haven't been extended yet. It almost certainly has far more to do with wanting to get another year's worth of data in before signing them long-term, and let's not forget that the players and their agents have a say in the matter as well. Wow! You know what I'm thinking without my writing it, even though you don't know what I'm thinking even when I do (you appear to have missed the last paragraph of my last post). But jokes aside, like everyone else here I am trying to express complicated ideas in a couple easily read paragraphs. If you look at (1) the size of the Boston/NE market relative to that of other teams, (2) their relative payroll and (3) their behavior over the last 15 years, there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that the luxury tax threshold coincides closely with the level of payroll they feel comfortable carrying. I realize I am speculating, but it sure looks a lot like $200 million is a threshold of some kind for this team. Therefore as you say and I admitted, we don't know if the Red Sox would have tried to resign either of these players (although I can't imagine any justification for not trying to extend Betts now). However, there is no doubt that adding $40 million in payroll had an impact on their ability to do so (which is not say that it made it impossible). It is also not outrageous to suggest that future assets sacrificed to acquire Price and Kimbrel are as extraordinary as the present assets acquired.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 18, 2016 12:21:49 GMT -5
Extending Betts or Bogaerts would not cost that much in 2016 dollars. While extensions have a higher AAV than going pre-arb/arb, the first year usually doesn't involve that much actual cash expenditure. For instance, Pedroia's extension included a $1.5m signing bonus and a $1.5m salary in the first year. Buchholz was similar ($1m signing bonus, $3.5m first year).
As such, I don't think the additions of Price and Kimbrel and the resultant ~$190m or so 2016 payroll has any meaningful effect on their ability to sign Betts/Bogaerts to long-term extensions. Remember, this ownership group has shown the willingness to stretch their payroll to accommodate special situations-- think Moncada, for instance. The Price/Kimbrel acquisitions do have real opportunity costs, but I don't think it's reasonable to characterize the lack of a Betts/Bogaerts extension as one of them.
|
|
|