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.
Under-the-Radar Hopes and Fears
|
Post by jrffam05 on Feb 22, 2016 11:53:07 GMT -5
Price not opting out of his contract is another UTR fear of mine. If he ages like Curt Schilling, it might be alright. Price reminds me a bit of Schilling in that he doesn't back down from attention, his control and command are elite, and they truly are "horses" at the top of the rotation. If Price opts out, the Sox can surely make use of the money - I hear Fernandez might be available, but I think Price might be the one guy who bucks the trend of pitchers collapsing or declining drastically as they hit their mid 30s - as it was Schilling's last great year was in 2004, when he was 37 years old, and Price strikes me as a guy in better shape than Schilling. "If he ages like Curt Schilling, it will be alright" FTFY, but you can also apply this quote to any pitcher that ever lived. If he ages like Halliday, Sabathia, Lee, Pedro, or MLB pitchers in general, it would be bad. If Price does not opt out of his contract, it's because the option in underwater due to performance or injury. The chances of him declining his options to take less money is unlikely, unless Astro meets a girl dog in Boston and refuses to move. If over the next three years, he plays himself out of the $127M range on the open market, I'm not liking the odds of him justifying the $217M contract overall.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Feb 22, 2016 12:03:46 GMT -5
I know a lot can change quickly with salaries, but at this point in time, I find it hard to believe that Price would get significantly more than 4/127 that he'd be owed as a 33 year old. If he didn't decline much, he might get an extra year. Is that worth opting out if he likes Boston and has to compete for dollars with guys like Kershaw, Fernandez, Harper, Heyward, Harvey, Machado, McCutchen, and many others? I think salaries would have to continue to rise exponentially without slowing down for it to be very likely that he opts out. Zach Greinke is the best comp we have. He is coming off a monster year that Price isn't guaranteed to have, and the supply in that FA class may hurt Price's leverage, but if Price keeps up his "ace" level performance we are expecting and salaries continue to rise I think it's a no brainer he could beat 4Y/127M. If he doesn't opt out, I'm guessing it's because he's looking like Sabathia in 2013... or worse.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 22, 2016 12:13:03 GMT -5
I know a lot can change quickly with salaries, but at this point in time, I find it hard to believe that Price would get significantly more than 4/127 that he'd be owed as a 33 year old. If he didn't decline much, he might get an extra year. Is that worth opting out if he likes Boston and has to compete for dollars with guys like Kershaw, Fernandez, Harper, Heyward, Harvey, Machado, McCutchen, and many others? I think salaries would have to continue to rise exponentially without slowing down for it to be very likely that he opts out. Zach Greinke is the best comp we have. He is coming off a monster year that Price isn't guaranteed to have, and the supply in that FA class may hurt Price's leverage, but if Price keeps up his "ace" level performance we are expecting and salaries continue to rise I think it's a no brainer he could beat 4Y/127M. If he doesn't opt out, I'm guessing it's because he's looking like Sabathia in 2013... or worse. Greinke is a year younger than Price will be, so you can probably knock a year off of what he got. That would also probably knock the AAV down also because you're taking his predictably best year off (youngest). Not including any inflation of course... I just don't know that going from 4/127 to 5/160 while having to change cities and teams and while adding some new unrealistic expectations is worth it for someone who will have made $140 million at that point in his career.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 22, 2016 14:25:16 GMT -5
My fear is another thread turning into a discussion of opt-outs.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 22, 2016 14:47:44 GMT -5
Zach Greinke is the best comp we have. He is coming off a monster year that Price isn't guaranteed to have, and the supply in that FA class may hurt Price's leverage, but if Price keeps up his "ace" level performance we are expecting and salaries continue to rise I think it's a no brainer he could beat 4Y/127M. If he doesn't opt out, I'm guessing it's because he's looking like Sabathia in 2013... or worse. Greinke is a year younger than Price will be, so you can probably knock a year off of what he got. That would also probably knock the AAV down also because you're taking his predictably best year off (youngest). Not including any inflation of course... I just don't know that going from 4/127 to 5/160 while having to change cities and teams and while adding some new unrealistic expectations is worth it for someone who will have made $140 million at that point in his career. If changing cities/teams prevents you from accepting an extra $33M for 1 additional year of service, you are a crazy person.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Feb 22, 2016 15:09:14 GMT -5
My fear is another thread turning into a discussion of opt-outs. Sorry, I didn't really partake in the other 30 pages of option discussion. I'll conform and keep my comments to fat people and golf carts.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 22, 2016 15:36:45 GMT -5
UTR hope: Williams Jerez gets used as a SP and flourishes. He had a lot of longer outings last year, and I wonder if the team has maybe considered stretching him out. Regardless, I'm hoping (and believe) that he can/will contribute this year.
UTR fear: that the Sox really have become the anti-Yankees as far as minor league pitching goes. NY has done very well creating successful MLBers from marginal- and non-prospects both in the rotation, and especially the bullpen. The Sox have developed (some of) their highest picks, but guys like Barnes, Light, Martin, Haley, etc (remember Austin Maddox?) have struggled with any semblance of consistency. Kimbrel/Smith helps, but at some point the team needs to learn to draft and develop guys who aren't clear-cut talents, especially to round out the bullpen and provide depth for deadline trades, and (less so, given the rise of Owens/Johnson and acquisition/development of Rodriguez) cost control for the rotation in the future.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Mar 3, 2016 13:30:25 GMT -5
My UTR fear is that ownership, hellbent on a David Ortiz fairy tale ending, wildly over spends at the deadline giving up 2 or 3 top 7 prospects and all that comes of it is a play in game loss.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 3, 2016 14:12:28 GMT -5
My UTR fear is that ownership, hellbent on a David Ortiz fairy tale ending, wildly over spends at the deadline giving up 2 or 3 top 7 prospects and all that comes of it is a play in game loss. The top 4 are not going in any deal for a rental, so this is essentially a fear that they'll deal Kopech and Johnson at the deadline. The one sort of deal that seems possible is for a LF because Castillo isn't cutting it and Benintendi is not yet ready, and it's not going to take both Kopech and Johnson to get two months of Josh Reddick. However, I think a perfectly reasonable and perceptive UTR fear would be shipping out Johnson or Kopech (or Travis or Basabe if they're the big emerging star) on a deadline deal ... which would still be a wild overpay (just like Iglesias and Montas for 1 1/3 years of Peavy was a wild overpay).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 3, 2016 14:47:05 GMT -5
UTR hope: Smith's arm actually turns out to be A titanium exoskeleton laminated in Kevlar, and he makes Gene Nelson in his prime look like vintage Johnny Way-Back Wasdin, all while remaining completely impervious to both bullets, and injury.
UTR fear: On the verge of a no-doubt All-Star selection for the best-in-AL Sox, and I n the midst of delivering yet another Tokyo-Drift-worthy slider, with a deafening boom, Smith's right arm disintegrates in a horrifying red mist. The subsequent bullpen domino tumble leads to above described trade disaster, with Johnson or Kopech headed out for Larry Anderson redux.
FWIW, I still love our 'pen, though. Tazawa/Smith/Uehara/Kimbrel is going to be a glorious amalgam of the Sox bullpens of 2003-2008, a Timlin/Williamson/Foulke/(righty)Wagner.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Mar 3, 2016 16:27:21 GMT -5
UTR hope: Roniel Raudes (yeah, I'm cheating a bit here, but he's been my favorite deep sleeper for a while)
UTR fear: Dave Dombrowski will make another Margot/Guerra for Kimbrel type deal at the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Mar 24, 2016 9:28:48 GMT -5
Hope: One of Matt Barnes, Pat Light and Heath Hembree can take a step forward to become a solid back of the bullpen arm. Fear: Carson Smith seriously injures his pitching arm. I'm scared to death by his mechanics.More a scare than anything, but meow
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 24, 2016 10:16:58 GMT -5
Hope: One of Matt Barnes, Pat Light and Heath Hembree can take a step forward to become a solid back of the bullpen arm. Fear: Carson Smith seriously injures his pitching arm. I'm scared to death by his mechanics.More a scare than anything, but meow I had the same fear. But at least Barnes looks like he's stepping up.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 24, 2016 10:38:45 GMT -5
In general, I just don't think the optimism surrounding this team is warranted. The Red Sox went 80-82 last year. Do they improve? Sure. But there's a big difference between 80 wins and being a genuine contender. There's a lot of question marks still. Every rotation slot other than the top one is pretty much a question mark. The infield could end up with a 1B at 3B and a DH at 1B. LF is a battle between offense and defense. Now, I can see a best-case scenario where the Sox win the AL East. But Ortiz, Buchholz, Bradley, Bogaerts and Shaw would be hard-pressed to repeat their stellar 2015 seasons. You'll improve in some areas but you'll get worse in others. And there's always the injuries. I just don't see a reason to think that a successful season by most people's standards is some kind of midline for this team. I'd guess they win 86-87 games. It'll be fun, but adding Price and Kimbrel doesn't magically make this a different team.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 24, 2016 11:36:43 GMT -5
No doubt that this Red Sox team is one of the higher-variance teams in the league. A pretty large proportion of their starting-level players have significant question marks either as young players without an established track record (Swihart, Vazquez, Shaw, Castillo, Bradley, Kelly, and, to a lesser (but still meaningful) extent, Betts, Bogaerts and Rodriguez) or veterans who have had both really good and really bad seasons in their recent past (Ramirez, Sandoval, Porcello, Buchholz). That covers either five or seven (depending on how you feel about Betts/Bogaerts) of their nine starting position players and either three or four (depending on how you feel about Rodriguez) of their five rotation spots.
But remember that just about all of the above players (except maybe Shaw, Castillo and Kelly, and even then...) have legitimate All-Star-level upsides, either because they're young players who clearly have that upside or veterans who have had seasons at that level in the last three years. As such, I think this team has easy 95+ upside if everything breaks right, just like it has 75 win downside if nothing does. When you average it all out, you get somewhere in the mid/high-eighties (which is where most of the projection systems have them-- Fangraphs says 88, PECOTA says 85), but it could easily be much higher or much lower than that-- which is, after all, why they play the games.
By the way, the culprit for that uncertainty? The player development gap that happened between 2008 and 2014 or so (basically, between Ellsbury/Buchholz and Bogaerts, they didn't develop any starting-caliber players that they kept around (though they traded guys like Rizzo, Reddick and Iglesias)) and a bunch of free agent signings that have looked pretty bad. There's a reason Epstein and Cherington got fired, after all.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 24, 2016 12:56:31 GMT -5
No doubt that this Red Sox team is one of the higher-variance teams in the league. A pretty large proportion of their starting-level players have significant question marks either as young players without an established track record (Swihart, Vazquez, Shaw, Castillo, Bradley, Kelly, and, to a lesser (but still meaningful) extent, Betts, Bogaerts and Rodriguez) or veterans who have had both really good and really bad seasons in their recent past (Ramirez, Sandoval, Porcello, Buchholz). That covers either five or seven (depending on how you feel about Betts/Bogaerts) of their nine starting position players and either three or four (depending on how you feel about Rodriguez) of their five rotation spots. But remember that just about all of the above players (except maybe Shaw, Castillo and Kelly, and even then...) have legitimate All-Star-level upsides, either because they're young players who clearly have that upside or veterans who have had seasons at that level in the last three years. As such, I think this team has easy 95+ upside if everything breaks right, just like it has 75 win downside if nothing does. When you average it all out, you get somewhere in the mid/high-eighties (which is where most of the projection systems have them-- Fangraphs says 88, PECOTA says 85), but it could easily be much higher or much lower than that-- which is, after all, why they play the games. By the way, the culprit for that uncertainty? The player development gap that happened between 2008 and 2014 or so (basically, between Ellsbury/Buchholz and Bogaerts, they didn't develop any starting-caliber players that they kept around (though they traded guys like Rizzo, Reddick and Iglesias)) and a bunch of free agent signings that have looked pretty bad. There's a reason Epstein and Cherington got fired, after all. The draft/signing dead space from around 2006-2010 really hurt them. Starting in 2011 then started rebuilding their minor league talent, but those guys (even on an accelerated pace, really) have taken 3-4 years to make the majors, and probably 5-6 years to really establish themselves. And a lot of the talent they did develop they traded away (Kelly, Fuentes, Rizzo for Gonzalez...though only Rizzo panned out; Montas and Iglesias for Peavy). Those post-2007 attempts at uber-team construction neglected the key component of successful, stable teams...homegrown talent. Some of it was just bad luck, but some was poor decision-making.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 24, 2016 13:03:31 GMT -5
FWIW, this team does have good depth, if not a ton of sure-fire above-avg players. Hanley Ramirez is a big wildcard...he looks pretty good at 1b, and if he hits like 2013, watch out. Shaw seems to be capable of pulling off a full season's continuation of last year. But with Sandoval, Ortiz (simply by virtue of his age), JBJ, Castillo, and most of the pitching staff between Price and Kimbrel, yeah, who knows? I'm genuinely hopeful that Barnes has figured things out, and that one of Light/Jerez/Hembree/Martin will provide a big arm addition to the 'pen by July. Very broad spread of potential outcomes...
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 24, 2016 15:32:08 GMT -5
In general, I just don't think the optimism surrounding this team is warranted. The Red Sox went 80-82 last year. Do they improve? Sure. But there's a big difference between 80 wins and being a genuine contender. There's a lot of question marks still. Every rotation slot other than the top one is pretty much a question mark. The infield could end up with a 1B at 3B and a DH at 1B. LF is a battle between offense and defense. Now, I can see a best-case scenario where the Sox win the AL East. But Ortiz, Buchholz, Bradley, Bogaerts and Shaw would be hard-pressed to repeat their stellar 2015 seasons. You'll improve in some areas but you'll get worse in others. And there's always the injuries. I just don't see a reason to think that a successful season by most people's standards is some kind of midline for this team. I'd guess they win 86-87 games. It'll be fun, but adding Price and Kimbrel doesn't magically make this a different team. When you factor in the AL / NL disparity, both FanGraphs and ZiPS project them to be the best team in baseball, while projecting every guy you mention to have seasons we would regard as disappointing (and while giving way more time to Swiihart than Vazquez while projecting the latter to be much better). If you fix the catcher playing time projection at Baseball Prospectus and conservatively give them an extra win, they have the Sox in a tie for 2nd, with Tampa and Houston (after Cleveland). The flaw in your logic was that merely replacing Hanley in LF and Sandoval at 3B with average starting players gets you to 85 wins. Even if everything else that went wrong last year goes wrong again. Even without Price and Kimbrel. There's actually not a big difference between an 80 win team and a contender when you have two guys who combine to be 2.2 wins below AAA level in the starting lineup. Fix those so that you are merely mediocre there, and you are just some tweakage away from contending.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 24, 2016 15:35:47 GMT -5
No doubt that this Red Sox team is one of the higher-variance teams in the league. A pretty large proportion of their starting-level players have significant question marks either as young players without an established track record (Swihart, Vazquez, Shaw, Castillo, Bradley, Kelly, and, to a lesser (but still meaningful) extent, Betts, Bogaerts and Rodriguez) or veterans who have had both really good and really bad seasons in their recent past (Ramirez, Sandoval, Porcello, Buchholz). That covers either five or seven (depending on how you feel about Betts/Bogaerts) of their nine starting position players and either three or four (depending on how you feel about Rodriguez) of their five rotation spots. But remember that just about all of the above players (except maybe Shaw, Castillo and Kelly, and even then...) have legitimate All-Star-level upsides, either because they're young players who clearly have that upside or veterans who have had seasons at that level in the last three years. As such, I think this team has easy 95+ upside if everything breaks right, just like it has 75 win downside if nothing does. When you average it all out, you get somewhere in the mid/high-eighties (which is where most of the projection systems have them-- Fangraphs says 88, PECOTA says 85), but it could easily be much higher or much lower than that-- which is, after all, why they play the games. By the way, the culprit for that uncertainty? The player development gap that happened between 2008 and 2014 or so (basically, between Ellsbury/Buchholz and Bogaerts, they didn't develop any starting-caliber players that they kept around (though they traded guys like Rizzo, Reddick and Iglesias)) and a bunch of free agent signings that have looked pretty bad. There's a reason Epstein and Cherington got fired, after all. PECOTA's saying 87 now. They had 210% of the Mariners' 1B PT apportioned (by listing Dae-Ho Lee's 10% twelve times) and when they fixed that, everything else shifted.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 30, 2016 23:22:43 GMT -5
In general, I just don't think the optimism surrounding this team is warranted. The Red Sox went 80-82 last year. Do they improve? Sure. But there's a big difference between 80 wins and being a genuine contender. There's a lot of question marks still. Every rotation slot other than the top one is pretty much a question mark. The infield could end up with a 1B at 3B and a DH at 1B. LF is a battle between offense and defense. Now, I can see a best-case scenario where the Sox win the AL East. But Ortiz, Buchholz, Bradley, Bogaerts and Shaw would be hard-pressed to repeat their stellar 2015 seasons. You'll improve in some areas but you'll get worse in others. And there's always the injuries. I just don't see a reason to think that a successful season by most people's standards is some kind of midline for this team. I'd guess they win 86-87 games. It'll be fun, but adding Price and Kimbrel doesn't magically make this a different team. Price and Kimbrel added elite players in areas that needed help. Adding those two to top of rotation and bullpen has a big trickle down effect. The bullpen could be one of the best in league. Sure the rotation has question marks but it also has depth. Tons of teams would kill to have major league ready pitchers like Owens and Johnson waiting in AAA for depth. The biggest reason why I think this team could be elite is the crazy amount of young talent on this team. Those players are the key to the season for me. Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, Erod, Owens, Shaw, Swihart, Barnes, Johnson and Vazquez. I can easily see everyone of them playing better this year except for Shaw and I really don't think his play was a fluke. Just don't see him doing better. The other big factor is DD. If this team needs something he will make a trade.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,675
|
Post by gerry on Apr 14, 2016 15:37:08 GMT -5
Greinke is a year younger than Price will be, so you can probably knock a year off of what he got. That would also probably knock the AAV down also because you're taking his predictably best year off (youngest). Not including any inflation of course... I just don't know that going from 4/127 to 5/160 while having to change cities and teams and while adding some new unrealistic expectations is worth it for someone who will have made $140 million at that point in his career. If changing cities/teams prevents you from accepting an extra $33M for 1 additional year of service, you are a crazy person. Or a happy and contented person, as well as financially set up for several lifespans.
|
|
|