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.
2016-2017 Red Sox Offseason (Non-Manager) Discussion
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 15, 2016 8:03:34 GMT -5
I would think Devers would be ready by 2019 and could wind up at 1b or DH depending upon if Travis is a viable regular or Hanley triggers his option. Yoan Moncada hit .310 / .415 / .500 in Salem in 262 PA after the 2015 ASB, with a .212 K rate. He performed the next year as expected, and the consensus on his ETA is another half year. Rafael Devers hit .333 / .375 / .557 in 264 PA in Salem this year starting July 1, with a .186 K rate. That's pretty much just as promising. Note that Andrew Benintendi hit .341 / .413 / .563 in Salem in 155 PA this year, with an .059 K rate. He was in MLB in less than 2 months. It's very clear from a scouting perspective as well that lower K rates mean a faster path to MLB. Devers had a better K rate than Moncada at Salem, especially given his higher Iso. That pretty much offsets the lesser IsoD and puts him on as fast a track. Guys who can dominate high-A pitching, as a rule of thumb, don't take another full 2 years. They show up some time between the start of May and the end of July of the second following year. That's Devers' ETA. Yes, I know Devers could fast track. He could also struggle or get injured. My guess is that he's knocking on the door at some point in 2018, although like I said, if he tears thru Portland and is at AAA by July, we could see him in Aug or Sep this upcoming year. At some point in 2018 is more realistic, but I projected him conservatively as 2019 which would basically mean he's more of a replacement for Hanley Ramirez if Ramirez's option doesn't trigger. To me the question is do you block Sam Travis with Encarnacion? Encarnacion is a much better offensive player now, not even close, but then you have to commit to a big contract to a player who's more likely to decline and just as bothersome, the QO situation would result in the Red Sox losing a badly needed draft pick. At this point, as the top players graduate or near graduation from the minors, the Red Sox need to restock their farm system as it is no longer as deep as it had been and losing that pick, even at 26, would be a big detriment. Perhaps, if Devers does "fast track" and to prevent losing a draft pick, but help the lineup out - I don't believe that Sandoval at 3b and Shaw at 1b is a great way to start the season, would be to sign Beltran for a season if they can. And I do like Sam Travis a good deal and think he can be a good player. Put it this way, I'm a lot higher on Sam Travis than I as Travis Shaw who was awful the last four months of the season and to me, I consider little more at this point than depth or trade bait. As an askide, my knee jerk thought was that the Red Sox should always save the money for that big free agent winter after the 2018 season and that Jose Fernandez was the guy to get and spend all that money on. Makes me so sad to think that this supremely talented pitcher is gone at such a young, young age. The Red Sox at this point should make Mookie an offer he can't refuse.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 15, 2016 10:10:46 GMT -5
Can you make the "Sam Travis is at least a platoon-starting caliber 1B by early/mid-2017" argument for me? A lot of folks seem to be concerned about blocking Mr. Travis, and it's a point of view I just don't understand. We're talking about a guy who missed more than half a season due to a serious injury, who might not be ready for Spring Training, and who was a fringe prospect even before that. Why would you count on getting anything from him in 2017 and beyond? I have zero hesitation to "block" him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 15, 2016 10:44:31 GMT -5
Can you make the "Sam Travis is at least a platoon-starting caliber 1B by early/mid-2017" argument for me? A lot of folks seem to be concerned about blocking Mr. Travis, and it's a point of view I just don't understand. We're talking about a guy who missed more than half a season due to a serious injury, who might not be ready for Spring Training, and who was a fringe prospect even before that. Why would you count on getting anything from him in 2017 and beyond? I have zero hesitation to "block" him. I don't think anybody would make the argument that Sam Travis has anything to contribute to the Boston Red Sox prior to August and that's a big if. If anything, it would be 2018. You could make the argument that Sam Travis is a fringe prospect who'll never amount to anything, nice hit tool, but not enough power for a 1b and certainly not a standout defensive player, and I can respect that. I think the kid will hit if given a chance, not somebody you'd want in the middle of the order but a good cost effective tough out batting 7th in the lineup. I admit to being higher on Travis than a lot of people here and don't have a ton to back that feeling up with, so I totally understand when you say you wouldn't worry about "blocking" Travis. The Red Sox, in my opinion, have a spot open in the lineup for at least this season. The idea of a full year of Sandoval does not excite me and I look at him as a waste of money. He doesn't have the bat at all for 1b or DH. The best he could do in my opinion is to keep 3b warm until Moncada is ready. And I don't have a lot of faith in Shaw at this point. Eventually Devers will be ready. If you see him playing alongside Hanley, then you don't sign Encarnacion because Devers and Hanley both need spots in the lineup assuming that Moncada takes 3b. Or if you see the timeline matching up and see Devers as most likely ready to take Hanley's spot when he ages/declines, then there's still an open spot in the lineup. That of course, doesn't mean that it has to be an expensive bat like Encarnacion that costs you a draft pick, but you'd like it to be a bat that can be above average.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 15, 2016 10:48:09 GMT -5
NM
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 15, 2016 11:06:45 GMT -5
Remember that the "Should the Angels trade Mike Trout ?" drama will be coming to a theater near you very soon. Could win an Oscar for best [insert meaningless category here].
ADD: I'll say I told ya in a few years but, I'd be willing to bet a box of stale donuts that Devers, Moncada and Bradley won't be teammates.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 15, 2016 12:12:54 GMT -5
Remember that the "Should the Angels trade Mike Trout ?" drama will be coming to a theater near you very soon. Could win an Oscar for best [insert meaningless category here]. ADD: I'll say I told ya in a few years but, I'd be willing to bet a box of stale donuts that Devers, Moncada and Bradley won't be teammates. They won't trade him this winter. He's signed for four more years, and I really doubt that trading four years of Mike Trout this winter is going to get you any more of a return than trading three years of Mike Trout next year. I get that the hard valuation math will be different next winter but as a practical matter they'll find a team to throw everything they have at Mike Trout next year just as easily as they would this year.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 15, 2016 12:46:18 GMT -5
Can you make the "Sam Travis is at least a platoon-starting caliber 1B by early/mid-2017" argument for me? A lot of folks seem to be concerned about blocking Mr. Travis, and it's a point of view I just don't understand. We're talking about a guy who missed more than half a season due to a serious injury, who might not be ready for Spring Training, and who was a fringe prospect even before that. Why would you count on getting anything from him in 2017 and beyond? I have zero hesitation to "block" him. Completely agree. It's not like he's Anthony Rizzo or even profiles like an average or above average offensive MLB first baseman. At least not yet. He might indeed be one down the road but he's no one I would be worried about "blocking." In truth very few minor league players are worthy of being "unblocked and clearing away average or better MLB players for them. If a player is elite he will force himself to MLB, even if in a different position than he started off in (Mookie) or find his way there a bit sooner than anticipated because of injury (Benintendi) but very few are of the caliber to worry about being blocked.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 15, 2016 13:08:03 GMT -5
I love how you compare Betts and Rizzo like there is anything to compare. Rizzo struggled out of the gate and Betts has played at all star level since he got to the bigs. Rizzo first three years in bigs -.4, 2.2 and 2.6 bwar, Betts was 2.1, 6.0 and 9.6. You were never going to get Betts to sign a contract anything like Rizzo 9 year deal that tops out at 73 million and that's only if he wins MVP or gets two top 5 finishes and has all options years picked up. It was a standard 7 year 41 million dollar deal. Even after Betts first 51 games and 2.1 bwar you were looking at closer to a Mike Trout deal than a Rizzo deal. You want a deal, lock up Swihart to a long term extension, he might sign a Rizzo deal and be just a big of a steal as Rizzo. I get people think Theo is a god, but he was never going to work a magic deal for Betts like he did for Rizzo. I didn't compare Rizzo and Betts outside of their contract situations when they first broke out. Theo had locked up Rizzo after his first breakout year. If the Sox had Theo here, I'd would of liked to think he would of seriously pursued a extension for Betts after Betts 2015 season when he broke out. Yes you weren't going to get a great team friendly deal like Theo did with Rizzo, but the Christian Yellich type of extension could of easily been brought to the table and the Sox could of saved tens of millions of dollars possibly. That time has now passed however, and now Betts is at Mike Trout extension status. Either the Sox wait 1-2 more years to see what kind of producer Mookie is or they pay through the nose instead of saving and don't pursue any free agents besides relievers maybe. wrong post- sorry
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 15, 2016 13:17:23 GMT -5
Yeah, Encarnacion is three years older than Hanley was, and will probably command an extra year at similar AAV. All for a player who can't play defense, at one of the easiest defensive positions. They don't *need* offense. A one-year, tradeable $13M deal for Buchholz is a LOT less of an outlay than $100+M/4-5 years. Simply comparing AAV ignores the major issue with an EE contract: the downside years. Can they "afford" it? Sure, especially with Hanley and Panda coming off the books in years 2-3 of an EE deal, when his skill erosion is likely to make for a bad (and nearly untradeable) contract. But throwing away $40M just because you can doesn't make it a good idea. The Sox are in a (nearly, see Cubs) unique position of having such abundant, supreme young talent that they can remain highly competitive while shedding (substantial) salary. A short Buchholz deal is easily shed, for some useful return. The idea that they've had some bad contracts suggests, you know...not trying to accumulate more. Save the $. Extend the young players. Keep a large margin of "free" cash for Otani, Harper, or a trade salary dump (like a revived Grienke) that has real impact. I think this team needs to prioritize "need" over "want," and pick the best, most value-conscious route. They *need* SP depth. This year demonstrated that. If one believes the pitching will be 40 or so runs better next year (I do, if they keep Buchholz as the 6, and the rest pitch as reasonably expected), and Benintendi will improve LF production (and reduce runs allowed defensively) by 20-25, then their **run differential** remains unchanged. They *need* an outstanding (LH) 'pen arm. Hell, for $15M a year, sign Chapman for 4-5 years. They'll save $10M a year over EE, and they can trade Chapman much more easily, for better return. He also costs no draft pick, and is much younger. As much as I think EE will help in 2017, I think the risk of him being an albatross contract is just way too high. Use that $ on short deals, low-risk/high-reward volume, shoring up the bullpen with tradeable, high-quality arms, and/or extending the young guys. They're still going to have the best offense in the AL. Heck, sign Bautista if he'll do 2+1(vesting option). But stay away from the big-money, long deals on aging players. I don't mind the idea of Chapman but he's going to be the most sought after free agent on the market this winter. I wouldn't be surprised either if Chapman's contract was approaching the EE contract, and he's only a reliever. He's going to get way more than 15 million a year AAV wise. He's going to break the record easily for a closer by a wide margin. All the big fish will be after him between the Nationals, Cubs, Yankees, and Dodgers. I just don't see the problem with DH types as they age. Sure they won't have a position, but sluggers have shown to bring the bat into their late 30's. Numerous examples of this between Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Ortiz, Beltran, A-Rod, Edgar Martinez. I would put EE in those class of hitters right now. He's arguably the best true slugger in the game when looking at the power and lack of strikeouts in his game. The Sox will be losing a lot of AAV by the time Otani (apparently won't be posted anytime soon as I learned), Harper, Machado become free agents. They're going to be losing the contracts of Rusney, Pablo, Porcello, Hanley, Kimbrel, and possibly Price too. That's something like 90+ million in AAV if Price doesn't opt out and 120+ million in AAV if Price does opt out. I'm all for starting pitching depth too, just not at 13.5 million like with Buchholz. That's way to much for a swingman option. Buchholz should be in fact be traded for either starting pitching depth or catching depth or both, especially in a depleted starting pitching market that offers nothing. Get Chapman and then trade Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 15, 2016 13:24:59 GMT -5
There is one rational move to keep the offense at an insanely great level despite Papi's absence, and that's to trade Travis Shaw and whatever prospects it takes for an elite LH hitting 1B, like Freddie Freeman. Or Freddie Freeman. Or Joey Votto?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 15, 2016 13:39:27 GMT -5
To me, the most interesting question is the catching situation. I'll just leave some Sandy Leon numbers here to get the conversation started:
June: 235 wRC+ July: 152 wRC+ August: 133 wRC+ Sept/Oct: 44 wRC+ Postseason: 43 wRC+
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 15, 2016 14:19:41 GMT -5
There is one rational move to keep the offense at an insanely great level despite Papi's absence, and that's to trade Travis Shaw and whatever prospects it takes for an elite LH hitting 1B, like Freddie Freeman. Or Freddie Freeman. Or Joey Votto? Freeman is obviously part of Atlanta's rebuilding process, so you're not going to get him unless you go full Dave Stewart (you never go full Dave Stewart). Votto's contract is scary, but he's probably as good a bet to be the next ageless slugger as anyone.
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Oct 15, 2016 16:54:26 GMT -5
Is there any chance Chapman signs with Boston while Kimbrel still wears a Red Sox uni?
Have to imagine Kimbrel would have to be moved first, which is a scary proposition if they don't have an agreement in place with Chapman already.
Unless they just offer him 2/$50 or something silly (which I think is the thing to do right now).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 15, 2016 17:29:39 GMT -5
Is there any chance Chapman signs with Boston while Kimbrel still wears a Red Sox uni? Have to imagine Kimbrel would have to be moved first, which is a scary proposition if they don't have an agreement in place with Chapman already. Unless they just offer him 2/$50 or something silly (which I think is the thing to do right now). I think they are one inning closers. I doubt the Sox pay $30/year for an 8th and 9th inning guy combined. It's interesting to see Andrew Miller's usage. They're using him the way closers were used in the 1970s except that he's not necessarily closing. He's technically being used as a "fireman" rather than a closer, which is an interesting concept and something that can only be pulled off if the fireman is exceptional and the closer isn't too far behind. I mean when the Sox were playing Cleveland I would be happy when Miller was out of the game and Allen was in because I felt the Sox had a chance against Allen, something they didn't have against Miller. The Sox could have used Koji as the traditional closer and had they had the foresight could have used Miller as a "fireman" reliever by signing him as well. I wonder how many guys can be that dominant over multiple innings.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 15, 2016 19:20:01 GMT -5
Yeah, Encarnacion is three years older than Hanley was, and will probably command an extra year at similar AAV. All for a player who can't play defense, at one of the easiest defensive positions. They don't *need* offense. A one-year, tradeable $13M deal for Buchholz is a LOT less of an outlay than $100+M/4-5 years. Simply comparing AAV ignores the major issue with an EE contract: the downside years. Can they "afford" it? Sure, especially with Hanley and Panda coming off the books in years 2-3 of an EE deal, when his skill erosion is likely to make for a bad (and nearly untradeable) contract. But throwing away $40M just because you can doesn't make it a good idea. The Sox are in a (nearly, see Cubs) unique position of having such abundant, supreme young talent that they can remain highly competitive while shedding (substantial) salary. A short Buchholz deal is easily shed, for some useful return. The idea that they've had some bad contracts suggests, you know...not trying to accumulate more. Save the $. Extend the young players. Keep a large margin of "free" cash for Otani, Harper, or a trade salary dump (like a revived Grienke) that has real impact. I think this team needs to prioritize "need" over "want," and pick the best, most value-conscious route. They *need* SP depth. This year demonstrated that. If one believes the pitching will be 40 or so runs better next year (I do, if they keep Buchholz as the 6, and the rest pitch as reasonably expected), and Benintendi will improve LF production (and reduce runs allowed defensively) by 20-25, then their **run differential** remains unchanged. They *need* an outstanding (LH) 'pen arm. Hell, for $15M a year, sign Chapman for 4-5 years. They'll save $10M a year over EE, and they can trade Chapman much more easily, for better return. He also costs no draft pick, and is much younger. As much as I think EE will help in 2017, I think the risk of him being an albatross contract is just way too high. Use that $ on short deals, low-risk/high-reward volume, shoring up the bullpen with tradeable, high-quality arms, and/or extending the young guys. They're still going to have the best offense in the AL. Heck, sign Bautista if he'll do 2+1(vesting option). But stay away from the big-money, long deals on aging players. I don't mind the idea of Chapman but he's going to be the most sought after free agent on the market this winter. I wouldn't be surprised either if Chapman's contract was approaching the EE contract, and he's only a reliever. He's going to get way more than 15 million a year AAV wise. He's going to break the record easily for a closer by a wide margin. All the big fish will be after him between the Nationals, Cubs, Yankees, and Dodgers. I just don't see the problem with DH types as they age. Sure they won't have a position, but sluggers have shown to bring the bat into their late 30's. Numerous examples of this between Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Ortiz, Beltran, A-Rod, Edgar Martinez. I would put EE in those class of hitters right now. He's arguably the best true slugger in the game when looking at the power and lack of strikeouts in his game. The Sox will be losing a lot of AAV by the time Otani (apparently won't be posted anytime soon as I learned), Harper, Machado become free agents. They're going to be losing the contracts of Rusney, Pablo, Porcello, Hanley, Kimbrel, and possibly Price too. That's something like 90+ million in AAV if Price doesn't opt out and 120+ million in AAV if Price does opt out. I'm all for starting pitching depth too, just not at 13.5 million like with Buchholz. That's way to much for a swingman option. Buchholz should be in fact be traded for either starting pitching depth or catching depth or both, especially in a depleted starting pitching market that offers nothing. Dollars to donuts, the Giants break the bank to sign Chapman in the off season.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 15, 2016 23:45:25 GMT -5
Chapman to SF actually seems like a pretty good call. His profile, in that giant (haha) park, with Righetti as the pitching coach, Bochy managing, and an excellent 1-2 to front a rotation that can plug anyone in 3-5? That's a winning combo.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Oct 16, 2016 8:11:47 GMT -5
The offseason is here, sadly. Feel free to read your dog-eared version of The Green Fields of the Mind. Issues for discussion (non-manager division): 1. Who replaces Papi's bat? Encarnacion is the obvious choice, notwithstanding that he is a RHH and will cost a 1st round draft pick (#26). Could also seek a trade for a LHH 1B such as Eric Hosmer. Where does Sam Travis fit in? 2. Who's the starting catcher? Leon, Swihart or CVaz? Presumably Holaday and Hanigan are gone. 3. Who's the third baseman? I assume Moncada will need further seasoning to start the year. That leaves Holt, Panda and Shaw to compete for 3B in spring training, with Panda the heavy (pun intended) favorite and Shaw/Holt filling out the bench. 4. Do we change any starters? It seems clear that Buchholz's option will be picked up. That leaves six starters for five spots (assuming Kelly stays in the bullpen, where he seems to project as a late-inning option). Does Dombrowski re-visit a trade for Sale or Quintana? 5. Who fills out the bullpen? Kimbrel, Kelly, Barnes, Ross and the 6th starter (assuming no injuries/trades) seem like locks. I'll assume Smith is not ready to start the year and Taz/Abad are gone. Hembree is out of options. Does Koji and/or Ziegler return for one more year at short money? Can Robbie Scott make the big club or will he ride the shuttle? Is it worth spending big bucks in the bullpen? 6. Which prospects are likely to be traded to fill out the roster? Does Moncada's awful September free him up in Dombrowski's eyes for a trade? What about Leon/JBJ's awful ALDS? Will Benny's trade value be too high to pass on a potential blockbuster? No Farrell discussion, please. No trade proposals, either. No one replaces papi's bat. Encarnacion I think is out because? He will want a min of 3 and probably as many as 5 years. 20 mil is not too much money for 1 or 2 years but too much for 4 or 5. I do not think the Front O will want to lose a 1st rounder. Unless someone falls in their laps I think dd goes with a committee approach. Most times I think hanley dh's . Farrell uses it as a spot to rest starters. Plus a full year of beni in left, swihart for a half of year and signing a guy like a pearce makes up a lot of papi's bat. Plus with a full year of banister I think the total pitching will be better.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Oct 16, 2016 8:22:09 GMT -5
The offseason is here, sadly. Feel free to read your dog-eared version of The Green Fields of the Mind. Issues for discussion (non-manager division): 1. Who replaces Papi's bat? Encarnacion is the obvious choice, notwithstanding that he is a RHH and will cost a 1st round draft pick (#26). Could also seek a trade for a LHH 1B such as Eric Hosmer. Where does Sam Travis fit in? 2. Who's the starting catcher? Leon, Swihart or CVaz? Presumably Holaday and Hanigan are gone. 3. Who's the third baseman? I assume Moncada will need further seasoning to start the year. That leaves Holt, Panda and Shaw to compete for 3B in spring training, with Panda the heavy (pun intended) favorite and Shaw/Holt filling out the bench. 4. Do we change any starters? It seems clear that Buchholz's option will be picked up. That leaves six starters for five spots (assuming Kelly stays in the bullpen, where he seems to project as a late-inning option). Does Dombrowski re-visit a trade for Sale or Quintana? 5. Who fills out the bullpen? Kimbrel, Kelly, Barnes, Ross and the 6th starter (assuming no injuries/trades) seem like locks. I'll assume Smith is not ready to start the year and Taz/Abad are gone. Hembree is out of options. Does Koji and/or Ziegler return for one more year at short money? Can Robbie Scott make the big club or will he ride the shuttle? Is it worth spending big bucks in the bullpen? 6. Which prospects are likely to be traded to fill out the roster? Does Moncada's awful September free him up in Dombrowski's eyes for a trade? What about Leon/JBJ's awful ALDS? Will Benny's trade value be too high to pass on a potential blockbuster? No Farrell discussion, please. No trade proposals, either. Leon starts the season based on what we know now. cv is the backup. Swihart at AAA to start but forces a decision for the roster by late june early july. Would not surprise me to see hanigan get a reduced offer to stay around the organization. Can help swihart a lot at AAA. By year end I see swihart the starter and cv as the backup. Romaninski could push in here somewhere as well. Leon I see getting moved. I think the hot 5 or 6 weeks is just a fluke.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Oct 16, 2016 9:52:43 GMT -5
The offseason is here, sadly. Feel free to read your dog-eared version of The Green Fields of the Mind. Issues for discussion (non-manager division): 1. Who replaces Papi's bat? Encarnacion is the obvious choice, notwithstanding that he is a RHH and will cost a 1st round draft pick (#26). Could also seek a trade for a LHH 1B such as Eric Hosmer. Where does Sam Travis fit in? 2. Who's the starting catcher? Leon, Swihart or CVaz? Presumably Holaday and Hanigan are gone. 3. Who's the third baseman? I assume Moncada will need further seasoning to start the year. That leaves Holt, Panda and Shaw to compete for 3B in spring training, with Panda the heavy (pun intended) favorite and Shaw/Holt filling out the bench. 4. Do we change any starters? It seems clear that Buchholz's option will be picked up. That leaves six starters for five spots (assuming Kelly stays in the bullpen, where he seems to project as a late-inning option). Does Dombrowski re-visit a trade for Sale or Quintana? 5. Who fills out the bullpen? Kimbrel, Kelly, Barnes, Ross and the 6th starter (assuming no injuries/trades) seem like locks. I'll assume Smith is not ready to start the year and Taz/Abad are gone. Hembree is out of options. Does Koji and/or Ziegler return for one more year at short money? Can Robbie Scott make the big club or will he ride the shuttle? Is it worth spending big bucks in the bullpen? 6. Which prospects are likely to be traded to fill out the roster? Does Moncada's awful September free him up in Dombrowski's eyes for a trade? What about Leon/JBJ's awful ALDS? Will Benny's trade value be too high to pass on a potential blockbuster? No Farrell discussion, please. No trade proposals, either. 3rd base WOW no clear cut answer there. Moncada definitely in the minors. Probably AAA and maybe to start with AA. Will be interesting to see if they leave him at 3rd. Somewhere I read that it makes sense because of his arm and his speed that he might play better in the outfield. Interesting thought. Panda is the obvious choice because of experience and his BIG contract. Holt, shaw and possibly hernandez could play third. If they pick up a guy like pearce who can play 3rd and first might open up some opportunities to trade shaw while they wait for moncada and or devers.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Oct 16, 2016 10:00:04 GMT -5
The offseason is here, sadly. Feel free to read your dog-eared version of The Green Fields of the Mind. Issues for discussion (non-manager division): 1. Who replaces Papi's bat? Encarnacion is the obvious choice, notwithstanding that he is a RHH and will cost a 1st round draft pick (#26). Could also seek a trade for a LHH 1B such as Eric Hosmer. Where does Sam Travis fit in? 2. Who's the starting catcher? Leon, Swihart or CVaz? Presumably Holaday and Hanigan are gone. 3. Who's the third baseman? I assume Moncada will need further seasoning to start the year. That leaves Holt, Panda and Shaw to compete for 3B in spring training, with Panda the heavy (pun intended) favorite and Shaw/Holt filling out the bench. 4. Do we change any starters? It seems clear that Buchholz's option will be picked up. That leaves six starters for five spots (assuming Kelly stays in the bullpen, where he seems to project as a late-inning option). Does Dombrowski re-visit a trade for Sale or Quintana? 5. Who fills out the bullpen? Kimbrel, Kelly, Barnes, Ross and the 6th starter (assuming no injuries/trades) seem like locks. I'll assume Smith is not ready to start the year and Taz/Abad are gone. Hembree is out of options. Does Koji and/or Ziegler return for one more year at short money? Can Robbie Scott make the big club or will he ride the shuttle? Is it worth spending big bucks in the bullpen? 6. Which prospects are likely to be traded to fill out the roster? Does Moncada's awful September free him up in Dombrowski's eyes for a trade? What about Leon/JBJ's awful ALDS? Will Benny's trade value be too high to pass on a potential blockbuster? No Farrell discussion, please. No trade proposals, either. Unless someone falls in their lap for a cheap price, I see no changes to the starters. You should add owens and Johnson to the 6 and see at ST who does what? I read on this site where the 6th starter is used quite a bit so getting rid of one of the 6 does not make sense to me. Going after sales for sure, and Quintana maybe, would cost too much in prospects to make a deal.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 16, 2016 14:46:45 GMT -5
I love how you compare Betts and Rizzo like there is anything to compare. Rizzo struggled out of the gate and Betts has played at all star level since he got to the bigs. Rizzo first three years in bigs -.4, 2.2 and 2.6 bwar, Betts was 2.1, 6.0 and 9.6. You were never going to get Betts to sign a contract anything like Rizzo 9 year deal that tops out at 73 million and that's only if he wins MVP or gets two top 5 finishes and has all options years picked up. It was a standard 7 year 41 million dollar deal. Even after Betts first 51 games and 2.1 bwar you were looking at closer to a Mike Trout deal than a Rizzo deal. You want a deal, lock up Swihart to a long term extension, he might sign a Rizzo deal and be just a big of a steal as Rizzo. I get people think Theo is a god, but he was never going to work a magic deal for Betts like he did for Rizzo. I didn't compare Rizzo and Betts outside of their contract situations when they first broke out. Theo had locked up Rizzo after his first breakout year. If the Sox had Theo here, I'd would of liked to think he would of seriously pursued a extension for Betts after Betts 2015 season when he broke out. Yes you weren't going to get a great team friendly deal like Theo did with Rizzo, but the Christian Yellich type of extension could of easily been brought to the table and the Sox could of saved tens of millions of dollars possibly. That time has now passed however, and now Betts is at Mike Trout extension status. Either the Sox wait 1-2 more years to see what kind of producer Mookie is or they pay through the nose instead of saving and don't pursue any free agents besides relievers maybe. You were never going to get Betts to sign an extension anything close to Yellich. Even after his breakout year in 2015 you were looking close to a Mike Trout extension. Yellich contract is 7 years and 50 million. You said they wouldn't get a great deal like Rizzo, then think they could have signed him to a contract that is almost the same! Theo wouldn't have done anything different. Betts was a tough case and I think the team did the right thing in waiting. You don't just give out Mike Trout type deals after 1 and 1/3 seasons without a huge amount of risk. Sure an extension now might cost 10-20 million more, but it also will have a lot less risk. There is a thing called a sophomore slump and no one not even the Red Sox would have expected Betts to move into Mike Trout land with a 9.6 war season. So the argument that Theo could have saved Sox 100 million on an extension is crazy, it was never going to happen. Betts is not like either player you mentioned and Theo is not some wizard that was going to do some magic and make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 16, 2016 15:00:54 GMT -5
Can you make the "Sam Travis is at least a platoon-starting caliber 1B by early/mid-2017" argument for me? A lot of folks seem to be concerned about blocking Mr. Travis, and it's a point of view I just don't understand. We're talking about a guy who missed more than half a season due to a serious injury, who might not be ready for Spring Training, and who was a fringe prospect even before that. Why would you count on getting anything from him in 2017 and beyond? I have zero hesitation to "block" him. You have many times told me that a player is never blocked and that we should never ever think that way. As you have said so many times you never know when injuries and bad seasons will happen. Now I wouldn't pencil Travis in for anything other than depth next year and I'm very high on him. Can you explain to me how he is a "fringe prospect"? Sure right now he's not a top prospect, but he is for sure a true legit prospect. For me when you say Fringe prospect, that's someone like Travis Shaw. A guy that is going to be a long shot to even get to the majors. If things didn't break just right for Shaw he might never have played a game for the Red Sox. Oh yea and power numbers at first base are way down.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 16, 2016 16:46:46 GMT -5
To me, the most interesting question is the catching situation. I'll just leave some Sandy Leon numbers here to get the conversation started: June: 235 wRC+ July: 152 wRC+ August: 133 wRC+ Sept/Oct: 44 wRC+ Postseason: 43 wRC+ You can simplify that: Through August 22: 158 vs RHP, 242 vs LHP = 188 Afterwards (regular season): 26, 38 = 36 With FG's game logs you can get all the data for both stretches (and most of it by handedness with their splits tool). Ditto for pitch/fx data. I'll do that at some point. And here's a quick answer to the Q, did they pitch him differently? CH includes splitters. From RHP: FB 37%, 40% SI 18%, 12% FC 8%, 8% SL 12%, 9% CU 8%, 14% CH 17%, 18% From LHP: FB 39%, 29% SI 22%, 17% FC 9%, 12% SL 9%, 17% CU 7%, 11% CH 14%, 15% Righties threw 94% the same pitches. 6% of pitches, evenly split between fastballs and sliders, became curves. That can't be the cause. I'll look at location next.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 16, 2016 20:57:49 GMT -5
Got to admit I was a little surprised when looking at Hosmers stats. I knew he was good last season but it was sandwiched between two pretty meh seasons of 0 FWar and a negative this year. I don't think I'd be inclined to give up the talent needed to get one year of Hosmer. I like his youth and it appears he uses the opposite field a good bit and he's hit very well in Fenway. Heyman has said KC has been told to cut payroll so they could be active. I wonder if a third team needing a starter (Buch) could offset the prospects.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 17, 2016 10:29:01 GMT -5
Here's a useful bit of information: when you move a 3B to 1B, on average, in practice, you lose 0.3 WAR per 150. You really don't want to make roster changes based on that. You lose 9.2 runs of offensive value, but on average you gain 6.5 on defense (based on all guys who have played both positions in the same year).
As you might expect, the better you play 3B, the more value you tend to lose when you switch to 1B, since there are defensive skills you're no longer using much. The difference, though, is small; enough to help you decide which one of a pair of 1B / 3B types should play 3B (the better defender overall, just as you'd expect), but probably never large enough to make you shuffle your roster. (If you had Beltre and Arenado, sure, but almost any team with a pair of these guys will have one who isn't super-elite at 3B. There's so much noise in the data, BTW, that I'm not even trying to put a number on the size of the effect, but the correlation is clear.)
Two lessons from this:
1) Shaw in his career is +5 DRS/150 at 1B and +16 at 3B, but it's much likelier that he's really been a +15 1B, +8 3B guy. That projects to something like +11 at 1B and +5 at 3B when you regress to the mean.
Sandoval was a -2 defender at 3B from 2012 to 2014, which means he'd probably be about +3 at 1B (he was +6 there early in his career, in just 478 innings). If both are starting, there's no question that you want Shaw at 3B.
2) There should be no concern about lost value moving Devers to 1B. And if you do that rather than trade him, you're holding open the option of moving Moncada to CF or 2B and Devers back to 3B.
|
|
|