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.
Offseason front office thread (10/16: Hazen to AZ)
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Oct 21, 2016 9:29:41 GMT -5
I'd take Theo over Dombrowski 11 times out of 10.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 21, 2016 9:50:07 GMT -5
From yesterdays 108 stiches I'll be honest - I'd have done Travis for half a season of Hill and the hope of re-signing him well before doing Espinoza for Pomeranz.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 21, 2016 13:21:33 GMT -5
From Keith Law's chat, today: Nobody gives a damn that Espinoza gave up a bunch of singles to players four years older than he is. EDIT: As far as Dombrowski goes, his track record pretty strong over the long term and decidedly mixed in 2016 for sure. But I'm going to play devil's advocate on him. Every single team is doing quantitative analytics well at the top, and every team is hiring some ex-Cleveland Indians intern who studied stats at Princeton as their GM. Let's assume that the return, right now, from a quant approach is diminishing, while a qualitative (e.g. scouting) approach is a place a team can get a real advantage. Baseball was very different when he turned around the 2003 Tigers - the worst team I've seen in my 30 years of watching baseball - in about three seasons. But he has an approach and he does it well. I feel like the problem a lot of people have isn't his track record, it's that his approach differs from the one they prefer. I'm consistently a month behind on my reading, so www.baseballamerica.com/minors/baseball-america-prospect-chat-17/#aZydeyQ4zHKwwxHq.97
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 22, 2016 3:23:03 GMT -5
Curious what Eric thinks about Tom Tippett leaving since he must have worked with him. Tippett has been with the team since 2003. I know Tom but we never really worked together. He's very good. I thought they had him doing too much -- both writing their software and (after I left) being the sole experienced complement to Bill James, who, for all his genius, has no traditional stat chops at all. I worry about the team without him. Every single team is doing quantitative analytics well at the top, and every team is hiring some ex-Cleveland Indians intern who studied stats at Princeton as their GM. Let's assume that the return, right now, from a quant approach is diminishing, while a qualitative (e.g. scouting) approach is a place a team can get a real advantage. Baseball was very different when he turned around the 2003 Tigers - the worst team I've seen in my 30 years of watching baseball - in about three seasons. But he has an approach and he does it well. I feel like the problem a lot of people have isn't his track record, it's that his approach differs from the one they prefer. A false dichotomy. Superior scouting will always be a significant advantage. There has always been a wide gap between the GMs and teams that could do a great job and those that did a lousy job. I agree: it's good to have a guy with a very positive track record. There's no evidence that the quant approach has hit the point of diminishing returns. You want to kill it there as much as you kill it with the scouting, and the sum of the two can be more than their individual parts. If they consciously let the quant side flag, they're not going to be able to compete no matter how good the scouting side is, just like the opposite. I can't imagine that someone working for John Henry would be allowed to believe otherwise. My only fear is that they may be buying into a diminishing-return notion, where they are committed to doing what they feel is due analytic diligence, but without actively looking to innovate and get an edge. If they do that, they'll be left behind.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Oct 23, 2016 15:54:39 GMT -5
Peter Gammons @pgammo While in Boston Amiel Sawdaye weighing between Red Sox GM and 'Backs ass't gm, one of his good friends says to watch out for the Twins
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 14:10:42 GMT -5
From Keith Law's chat, today: Nobody gives a damn that Espinoza gave up a bunch of singles to players four years older than he is. Upside, there it is again. I also believe Espinoza has a high upside/ceiling, that doesn't mean he didn't have a disappointing season. Julio Urias dominated low A at 16, with 11 plus strikeouts per 9 to go along with very good numbers. Espinoza at 18 in low A averaged 8.3 strikeouts per 9 with a bad WHIP. Urias put up better numbers in AAA and AA at 18 than Espinoza did in low A ball at the same age.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 14:19:08 GMT -5
The only way I could see people being disappointed was if they bought the narrative that he was gonna absolutely dominate low-a reach double-a by the end of the year and make his MLB debut some time next season. Let's just say I expected him to have a better season than Roniel Raudes and he didn't. Raudes averaged the same amount of strikeouts per 9 and had a lower WHIP. The were both 18 playing on same team, one was seen as a future Ace and the other a fringe back end starter. One has potential to have three plus or better pitches, while the other has potential for one plus pitch and two average ones. I never expected Espinoza to reach AA, but I did expect him to dominate low A and he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 24, 2016 15:18:00 GMT -5
The only way I could see people being disappointed was if they bought the narrative that he was gonna absolutely dominate low-a reach double-a by the end of the year and make his MLB debut some time next season. Let's just say I expected him to have a better season than Roniel Raudes and he didn't. Raudes averaged the same amount of strikeouts per 9 and had a lower WHIP. The were both 18 playing on same team, one was seen as a future Ace and the other a fringe back end starter. One has potential to have three plus or better pitches, while the other has potential for one plus pitch and two average ones. I never expected Espinoza to reach AA, but I did expect him to dominate low A and he didn't. So if one Raudes knows how to pitch at a younger age than Espinoza, that makes Raudes the more proven prospect in your eyes? What? It's perfectly acceptable for Espinoza to have the year he had and still be viewed as one of the top 5 pitching prospects in the game. Whether you chose to accept this or not is your problem.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Oct 24, 2016 15:18:22 GMT -5
The only way I could see people being disappointed was if they bought the narrative that he was gonna absolutely dominate low-a reach double-a by the end of the year and make his MLB debut some time next season. Let's just say I expected him to have a better season than Roniel Raudes and he didn't. Raudes averaged the same amount of strikeouts per 9 and had a lower WHIP. The were both 18 playing on same team, one was seen as a future Ace and the other a fringe back end starter. One has potential to have three plus or better pitches, while the other has potential for one plus pitch and two average ones. I never expected Espinoza to reach AA, but I did expect him to dominate low A and he didn't. Don't you think it's entirely possible the goals set forth by the organization have nothing to do with stats? Perhaps instead of him wiping everyone out with a changeup or curve they wanted him to focus on getting ahead in counts or establishing fastball command or working out of the stretch or whatever his perceived weaknesses are.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 24, 2016 17:26:55 GMT -5
It's perfectly acceptable for Espinoza to have the year he had and still be viewed as one of the top 5 pitching prospects in the game. Whether you chose to accept this or not is your problem. Discussion pretty much over, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 24, 2016 17:28:21 GMT -5
Peter Gammons @pgammo While in Boston Amiel Sawdaye weighing between Red Sox GM and 'Backs ass't gm, one of his good friends says to watch out for the Twins This seems bad to me.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 24, 2016 17:34:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 24, 2016 17:51:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 24, 2016 18:01:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 18:17:00 GMT -5
Let's just say I expected him to have a better season than Roniel Raudes and he didn't. Raudes averaged the same amount of strikeouts per 9 and had a lower WHIP. The were both 18 playing on same team, one was seen as a future Ace and the other a fringe back end starter. One has potential to have three plus or better pitches, while the other has potential for one plus pitch and two average ones. I never expected Espinoza to reach AA, but I did expect him to dominate low A and he didn't. So if one Raudes knows how to pitch at a younger age than Espinoza, that makes Raudes the more proven prospect in your eyes? What? It's perfectly acceptable for Espinoza to have the year he had and still be viewed as one of the top 5 pitching prospects in the game. Whether you chose to accept this or not is your problem. More proven, yea I think it does. Please explain how it doesn't prove he's more proven? Doesn't change the fact that Espinoza has a higher ceiling, just that Espinoza is not advanced at 18 as a player like Urias whom people think Espinoza is just like. The thing was that Espinoza was billed as the type of pitcher that doesn't come along that often because he was supposed to be very advanced for his age. So for a pitcher the same age with a lot less stuff to be more advanced is shocking to me. Go read the fangraph article I posted a page or two back, only prospect sites think Espinoza is a top 5 pitching prospect. Other teams don't value him that highly. They overrate prospect due to ceiling, without the stats to back it up. I could get behind a top 10-20 ranking, but top 5 is a little crazy at this point. So if I'm so wrong, is fangraph wrong? Because they clearly say other teams don't value Espinoza as a top 5 pitching prospect!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 18:30:27 GMT -5
Let's just say I expected him to have a better season than Roniel Raudes and he didn't. Raudes averaged the same amount of strikeouts per 9 and had a lower WHIP. The were both 18 playing on same team, one was seen as a future Ace and the other a fringe back end starter. One has potential to have three plus or better pitches, while the other has potential for one plus pitch and two average ones. I never expected Espinoza to reach AA, but I did expect him to dominate low A and he didn't. Don't you think it's entirely possible the goals set forth by the organization have nothing to do with stats? Perhaps instead of him wiping everyone out with a changeup or curve they wanted him to focus on getting ahead in counts or establishing fastball command or working out of the stretch or whatever his perceived weaknesses are. Maybe, but that seems like a stretch to me. I'm sure teams had Urias and Raudes working on things and they still did very well. I mean come on every young player is working on something. With a young pitcher you want to build up confidence, so I would be shocked if Red Sox asked him to do something that would result in him not pitching well. Example it wasn't till Owens got to AAA that they really started messing with him trying to get him to drastically improve his command and control. The reason is he dominated lower hitter without it and I'm sure they hoped it would just work itself out.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 24, 2016 18:33:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 24, 2016 18:37:52 GMT -5
So if one Raudes knows how to pitch at a younger age than Espinoza, that makes Raudes the more proven prospect in your eyes? What? It's perfectly acceptable for Espinoza to have the year he had and still be viewed as one of the top 5 pitching prospects in the game. Whether you chose to accept this or not is your problem. More proven, yea I think it does. Please explain how it doesn't prove he's more proven? Doesn't change the fact that Espinoza has a higher ceiling, just that Espinoza is not advanced at 18 as a player like Urias whom people think Espinoza is just like. The thing was that Espinoza was billed as the type of pitcher that doesn't come along that often because he was supposed to be very advanced for his age. So for a pitcher the same age with a lot less stuff to be more advanced is shocking to me. Go read the fangraph article I posted a page or two back, only prospect sites think Espinoza is a top 5 pitching prospect. Other teams don't value him that highly. They overrate prospect due to ceiling, without the stats to back it up. I could get behind a top 10-20 ranking, but top 5 is a little crazy at this point. So if I'm so wrong, is fangraph wrong? Because they clearly say other teams don't value Espinoza as a top 5 pitching prospect! I can't believe I'm even adding to this ridiculous argument, but Espinoza had a lower FIP than Raudes this year. Furthermore, you also realize that lower minor prospects with greater command and control and lesser stuff often do better than the best prospects, but that changes as they move up levels when the hitters can destroy a 90 mph well located fastball without plus secondaries. Do you really not understand BABIP and why it's useless to care about ERA in the low minors? Do not mention WHIP or ERA again please. They are absolutely useless if you're insisting on scouting a stat line. How the hell do you know teams are valuing Espinoza less than prospect sites?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 18:55:42 GMT -5
More proven, yea I think it does. Please explain how it doesn't prove he's more proven? Doesn't change the fact that Espinoza has a higher ceiling, just that Espinoza is not advanced at 18 as a player like Urias whom people think Espinoza is just like. The thing was that Espinoza was billed as the type of pitcher that doesn't come along that often because he was supposed to be very advanced for his age. So for a pitcher the same age with a lot less stuff to be more advanced is shocking to me. Go read the fangraph article I posted a page or two back, only prospect sites think Espinoza is a top 5 pitching prospect. Other teams don't value him that highly. They overrate prospect due to ceiling, without the stats to back it up. I could get behind a top 10-20 ranking, but top 5 is a little crazy at this point. So if I'm so wrong, is fangraph wrong? Because they clearly say other teams don't value Espinoza as a top 5 pitching prospect! I can't believe I'm even adding to this ridiculous argument, but Espinoza had a lower FIP than Raudes this year. Furthermore, you also realize that lower minor prospects with greater command and control and lesser stuff often do better than the best prospects, but that changes as they move up levels when the hitters can destroy a 90 mph well located fastball without plus secondaries. Do you really not understand BABIP and why it's useless to care about ERA in the low minors? Do not mention WHIP or ERA again please. They are absolutely useless if you're insisting on scouting a stat line. How the hell do you know teams are valuing Espinoza less than prospect sites? Go read the fangraph article I posted, that's exactly what it says. That's not my opinion it's fangraphs, that teams values do not line up with prospect rankings. That's my whole point Espinoza was billed as a guy that's very advanced with command and control for his age. Yet he is clearly not that advanced, hence why I feel he had a disappointing season. He was billed as the next Urias yet he seems to have a ways to go to get to that level. You guys seem to be acting like Espinoza was just some normal 18 year old starter, not a once every 10-20 year old pitcher like he was hyped up to be. You saying Raudes has better command and control is exactly my whole point! Espinoza is not as advanced for his age as we have been told. Again I'm not saying he doesn't still have a high ceiling, just that his season was disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 24, 2016 19:11:33 GMT -5
I can't believe I'm even adding to this ridiculous argument, but Espinoza had a lower FIP than Raudes this year. Furthermore, you also realize that lower minor prospects with greater command and control and lesser stuff often do better than the best prospects, but that changes as they move up levels when the hitters can destroy a 90 mph well located fastball without plus secondaries. Do you really not understand BABIP and why it's useless to care about ERA in the low minors? Do not mention WHIP or ERA again please. They are absolutely useless if you're insisting on scouting a stat line. How the hell do you know teams are valuing Espinoza less than prospect sites? Go read the fangraph article I posted, that's exactly what it says. That's not my opinion it's fangraphs, that teams values do not line up with prospect rankings. That's my whole point Espinoza was billed as a guy that's very advanced with command and control for his age. Yet he is clearly not that advanced, hence why I feel he had a disappointing season. He was billed as the next Urias yet he seems to have a ways to go to get to that level. You guys seem to be acting like Espinoza was just some normal 18 year old starter, not a once every 10-20 year old pitcher like he was hyped up to be. You saying Raudes has better command and control is exactly my whole point! Espinoza is not as advanced for his age as we have been told. Again I'm not saying he doesn't still have a high ceiling, just that his season was disappointing. Espinoza still had a better FIP than Raudes. There are so many things that we don't know from scouting stat lines in the minors, such as whether they are working on a particular pitch instead of actually trying to win. I'm sure Espinoza could strike everyone out if he only threw his 100 mph fastball, but there is more to learn to get better. Results mean almost nothing in the low minors, outside of k and bb rates.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 19:32:35 GMT -5
Go read the fangraph article I posted, that's exactly what it says. That's not my opinion it's fangraphs, that teams values do not line up with prospect rankings. That's my whole point Espinoza was billed as a guy that's very advanced with command and control for his age. Yet he is clearly not that advanced, hence why I feel he had a disappointing season. He was billed as the next Urias yet he seems to have a ways to go to get to that level. You guys seem to be acting like Espinoza was just some normal 18 year old starter, not a once every 10-20 year old pitcher like he was hyped up to be. You saying Raudes has better command and control is exactly my whole point! Espinoza is not as advanced for his age as we have been told. Again I'm not saying he doesn't still have a high ceiling, just that his season was disappointing. Espinoza still had a better FIP than Raudes. There are so many things that we don't know from scouting stat lines in the minors, such as whether they are working on a particular pitch instead of actually trying to win. I'm sure Espinoza could strike everyone out if he only threw his 100 mph fastball, but there is more to learn to get better. Results mean almost nothing in the low minors, outside of k and bb rates. There FIP are almost the same 2.99 to 3.12. There strikeouts per 9 are the same and Raudes has much better walks per 9, but both were very good. So your not slightly disappointed that Espinoza didn't strikeout a lot more hitters than Raudes? Sure 8.3 per 9 is good, but it's not great. It's no where near the 11 plus that Urias did at age 16 in low A or the 11 plus he did at high A at 17.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 24, 2016 19:36:45 GMT -5
Espinoza still had a better FIP than Raudes. There are so many things that we don't know from scouting stat lines in the minors, such as whether they are working on a particular pitch instead of actually trying to win. I'm sure Espinoza could strike everyone out if he only threw his 100 mph fastball, but there is more to learn to get better. Results mean almost nothing in the low minors, outside of k and bb rates. There FIP are almost the same 2.99 to 3.12. There strikeouts per 9 are the same and Raudes has much better walks per 9, but both were very good. So your not slightly disappointed that Espinoza didn't strikeout a lot more hitters than Raudes? Sure 8.3 per 9 is good, but it's not great. It's no where near the 11 plus that Urias did at age 16 in low A or the 11 plus he did at high A at 17. There were multiple reports that he was working on pitching to contact this year, so my opinion of him hasn't changed at all.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 24, 2016 19:48:38 GMT -5
To be fair and this is coming from one of the biggest Pomeranz fans around, the trade was such a classic example of buying high while selling low to fill a need. These are usually very bad and the first months of Drew here haven't been great, but the jury is certainly still out on this one.
I think it's evidently less of a crazy trade than Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 24, 2016 19:52:26 GMT -5
Let's wait until we get more info. Shall we?
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,691
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2016 19:58:14 GMT -5
I think Sawdaye will wind up in Arizona. He knows his opinions will probably carry a lot more clout with Hazen then it would with Dombrowski. Wren is probably the only person whose opinion carries a lot of clout with Dombrowski. I don't think the Sox will wind up having an assistant GM type.
I don't think I'll every truly understand why Henry has been so willing to give so much autonomy to Dombrowski but would never truly give Theo that same autonomy? It's almost as if Dombrowski is a grown up and Theo is just a teenager. Can't give him that kind of power. It's almost like Nick Cafardo logic.
|
|
|