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 p23w on Oct 19, 2016 10:53:10 GMT -5
I would be super surprised. Erod is nice, but Sale he ain't. Right, not now. But you don't know what Sale is like in 2 years either. You are right, but Sale is young (27) and has a track record (albeit with a terrible fielding team and not much offensive support). Erod has the elusive potential and not much of a track record with an offensive behemoth and a good defense. Sale has had an easier division with which to pad his track record but he has a winning record against the Jays (and is a NYYankee killer). That and the fact that, like Price he gives you 200+ IP. I think it is with crimson colored glasses that Red Sox fans view Erod, whereas Sale is and has been top shelf going on 5 years. I am optimistic about Erod, but I have serious doubts that he will approach the status of Sale.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 19, 2016 11:21:34 GMT -5
This whole postseason is like watching the Red Sox Graduates. on a related note, why didn't we go after Rich Hill a little bit harder last year? "We" tried. Dombrowski wanted shiny new toys, /he wanted a better guarantee of a rotation slot than the Sox could give him. The hole was at the top of the rotation. Price was a much better fit for that even with the benefit of hindsight. Note that Hill, who had major questions about how he'd hold up over the course of a season pointed out by myself and others here, only pitched 110 innings this year. Maybe you could argue they should have pushed Kelly to the bullpen to make room for Hill, but that's not the "shiny new toys" argument.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 19, 2016 13:13:31 GMT -5
I would be completely unsurprised if ERod were better. I'm been essentially saying that for a year. Fun fact: there were 151 starters who threw 33 or more innings in the second half of the season. Just three of them were in the top 25 in both K% and low Hard%. Corey Kluber (11th and 19th), Jon Lester (22 / 4), and Eduardo Rodriguez (24/3). Noah Syndergaard (9 / 29), Kyle Hendricks (27 / 22) and Julio Urias (28 / 1) were in the top 30 in both. This is pretty good company. I'll wait for him to do it for 180+ innings before I anoint him a top 10 pitcher in baseball, but I hope to be surprised. I think he'll settle in as more of a #3 or back half 2.He's already had more than 180 innings when healthy and not tipping his pitches, and has been a solid #2.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,704
|
Post by nomar on Oct 19, 2016 13:16:30 GMT -5
I'll wait for him to do it for 180+ innings before I anoint him a top 10 pitcher in baseball, but I hope to be surprised. I think he'll settle in as more of a #3 or back half 2.He's already had more than 180 innings when healthy and not tipping his pitches, and has been a solid #2. Yeah, and he's never had that all in one season. When he was terrible, yes there was a reason for it, but it still happened. He hasn't proved he can go a year without tipping pitches or getting hurt.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 19, 2016 13:59:17 GMT -5
He's already had more than 180 innings when healthy and not tipping his pitches, and has been a solid #2. Yeah, and he's never had that all in one season. When he was terrible, yes there was a reason for it, but it still happened. He hasn't proved he can go a year without tipping pitches or getting hurt. But to "settle in as a #2 or 3," he'd have to revert to tipping his pitches, or get hurt and be ineffective because of it, every year. When you evaluate players, you identify how good they really seem to be when things like injuries, bad use by the manager, less effective and subsequently abandoned mechanics, etc., are factored out. Then you can factor in the actual likelihood of the negative things returning. There were a lot of people who doubted Daniel Murphy's hitting mechanics transformation from 2015. He hadn't proven he could hit with those mechanics for a full season, either.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,704
|
Post by nomar on Oct 19, 2016 14:14:12 GMT -5
Yeah, and he's never had that all in one season. When he was terrible, yes there was a reason for it, but it still happened. He hasn't proved he can go a year without tipping pitches or getting hurt. But to "settle in as a #2 or 3," he'd have to revert to tipping his pitches, or get hurt and be ineffective because of it, every year. When you evaluate players, you identify how good they really seem to be when things like injuries, bad use by the manager, less effective and subsequently abandoned mechanics, etc., are factored out. Then you can factor in the actual likelihood of the negative things returning. There were a lot of people who doubted Daniel Murphy's hitting mechanics transformation from 2015. He hadn't proven he could hit with those mechanics for a full season, either. How many transformations like Murphy have happened at his age and stuck? As for E-Rod, you're putting a ton of stock into his end of the season, and he wasn't a #1 pitcher in the second half as is, so an extrapolation of that sample wouldn't constitute a pitcher who would have to regress to be an average #2. I can accept your opinion that it would be unsurprising for him to pass Sale if you think Sale is bound for regression and you're high on Rodriguez, but you seem to be cherry picking his good stints and accepting them as his only future. His sample of being bad is essentially just as big. That's why I'm skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 19, 2016 17:22:06 GMT -5
Staying healthy and maintaining a consistent delivery are skills, ones that Rodriguez has consistently struggled with throughout his career. The likelihood of those negative things returning is fairly significant. Plus, not all of Rodriguez's struggles can be attributed to injuries or pitch-tipping (e.g., his extreme fly-ball tendencies, which carried over into his good stretches).
As an aside, for someone who really believes in the probative value of data, you sure do cite a lot of one-off "I-told-you-so" anecdotes.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 19, 2016 18:41:27 GMT -5
As someone who tracks a bit of West coast ball, I'll vouch for the fact that Hill was treated with kid gloves, as he should be. Intact, he's a valuable addition to any staff. The issue is always keeping him that way.
Both Oakland and the Dodgers gave him time off on an as needed basis. Even with that touch, he looks to me as if he's laboring, unable to get his back into his pitches. I'm wrong about a few things, and I could be wrong about this, but I'm not sure he can go much more than 80-90 innings. You have to ask if that's who a team might want as a staff mainstay.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 19, 2016 19:10:56 GMT -5
"We" tried. Dombrowski wanted shiny new toys, /he wanted a better guarantee of a rotation slot than the Sox could give him. The hole was at the top of the rotation. Price was a much better fit for that even with the benefit of hindsight. Note that Hill, who had major questions about how he'd hold up over the course of a season pointed out by myself and others here, only pitched 110 innings this year. Maybe you could argue they should have pushed Kelly to the bullpen to make room for Hill, but that's not the "shiny new toys" argument. I projected Hill to pitch 120 innings in 2016 (on this forum, before he signed with Beane). More importantly Hill pitched (now 116) quality innings, which has and remains a concern for the Red Sox. If you are making the comparison of Price, 220+ IP and an ERA of 4 or Hill and 110 IP and an ERA of 2 and change, you miss my point. This is not about Price or Hill this is about getting the maximum quality innings from your starting pitching. Of note is that Hill's missed time is not arm, elbow or shoulder related. His missed time was caused by blisters. Going forward with the knowledge that blisters can be treated and monitored Hill should project to 150-160 innings next year... quality innings all things being equal. Dombrowski's shiny new toys (Price, Kimbrell, Smith), did not deliver the value or the quality that Hill did. IMO, this misjudgement rivals the failure to match the NYYankee bid for Miller.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 19, 2016 21:10:09 GMT -5
/he wanted a better guarantee of a rotation slot than the Sox could give him. The hole was at the top of the rotation. Price was a much better fit for that even with the benefit of hindsight. Note that Hill, who had major questions about how he'd hold up over the course of a season pointed out by myself and others here, only pitched 110 innings this year. Maybe you could argue they should have pushed Kelly to the bullpen to make room for Hill, but that's not the "shiny new toys" argument. I projected Hill to pitch 120 innings in 2016 (on this forum, before he signed with Beane). More importantly Hill pitched (now 116) quality innings, which has and remains a concern for the Red Sox. If you are making the comparison of Price, 220+ IP and an ERA of 4 or Hill and 110 IP and an ERA of 2 and change, you miss my point. This is not about Price or Hill this is about getting the maximum quality innings from your starting pitching. Of note is that Hill's missed time is not arm, elbow or shoulder related. His missed time was caused by blisters. Going forward with the knowledge that blisters can be treated and monitored Hill should project to 150-160 innings next year... quality innings all things being equal. Dombrowski's shiny new toys (Price, Kimbrell, Smith), did not deliver the value or the quality that Hill did. IMO, this misjudgement rivals the failure to match the NYYankee bid for Miller. I agree. I would have went with Hill too. Though I'm not certain at the time what I would have done with Wright. With that said, "the shiney new toys" helped get us into the post season along with the mindset to start season that the coach is going to be allowed to play his best. And as for next year, I'm comfortable with our starting staff. We were a last place team last year. The shiney new toys helped us get to 1st in the best division in baseball and unless other teams make huge moves we'll probably be favored to take the division again. Looking forward to next year being favored instead of being favored to be in the dungeon. Let's get Chapman, a catcher, a cheap to moderate priced rh bat that can play 1b and 3b, and trade Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 19, 2016 21:42:42 GMT -5
I projected Hill to pitch 120 innings in 2016 (on this forum, before he signed with Beane). More importantly Hill pitched (now 116) quality innings, which has and remains a concern for the Red Sox. If you are making the comparison of Price, 220+ IP and an ERA of 4 or Hill and 110 IP and an ERA of 2 and change, you miss my point. This is not about Price or Hill this is about getting the maximum quality innings from your starting pitching. Of note is that Hill's missed time is not arm, elbow or shoulder related. His missed time was caused by blisters. Going forward with the knowledge that blisters can be treated and monitored Hill should project to 150-160 innings next year... quality innings all things being equal. Dombrowski's shiny new toys (Price, Kimbrell, Smith), did not deliver the value or the quality that Hill did. IMO, this misjudgement rivals the failure to match the NYYankee bid for Miller. I agree. I would have went with Hill too. Though I'm not certain at the time what I would have done with Wright. With that said, "the shiney new toys" helped get us into the post season along with the mindset to start season that the coach is going to be allowed to play his best. And as for next year, I'm comfortable with our starting staff. We were a last place team last year. The shiney new toys helped us get to 1st in the best division in baseball and unless other teams make huge moves we'll probably be favored to take the division again. Looking forward to next year being favored instead of being favored to be in the dungeon. Let's get Chapman, a catcher, a cheap to moderate priced rh bat that can play 1b and 3b, and trade Kimbrel. The shiny new toys contributed, but make no mistake, it was the massive offense that made a far more significant contribution. I'm not so sure that the ALE is the best division in baseball. I fully expect that 2017 will be quite competitive in the ALE. Each team has glaring deficiencies the Red Sox being quality innings from it's starters and inconsistency from its' bullpen. I am torn with regard to Chapman and I seriously doubt the Red Sox will sign him. I don't think we need to shop for a catcher, Aaron Hill fills your bill for 1B and 3B. Trading one of the shiny new toys would reflect badly on those responsible for his acquisition. Signing Rich Hill would help, but it will be expensive (not that this matters).
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 19, 2016 21:55:33 GMT -5
I agree. I would have went with Hill too. Though I'm not certain at the time what I would have done with Wright. With that said, "the shiney new toys" helped get us into the post season along with the mindset to start season that the coach is going to be allowed to play his best. And as for next year, I'm comfortable with our starting staff. We were a last place team last year. The shiney new toys helped us get to 1st in the best division in baseball and unless other teams make huge moves we'll probably be favored to take the division again. Looking forward to next year being favored instead of being favored to be in the dungeon. Let's get Chapman, a catcher, a cheap to moderate priced rh bat that can play 1b and 3b, and trade Kimbrel. The shiny new toys contributed, but make no mistake, it was the massive offense that made a far more significant contribution. I'm not so sure that the ALE is the best division in baseball. I fully expect that 2017 will be quite competitive in the ALE. Each team has glaring deficiencies the Red Sox being quality innings from it's starters and inconsistency from its' bullpen. I am torn with regard to Chapman and I seriously doubt the Red Sox will sign him. I don't think we need to shop for a catcher, Aaron Hill fills your bill for 1B and 3B. Trading one of the shiny new toys would reflect badly on those responsible for his acquisition. Signing Rich Hill would help, but it will be expensive (not that this matters). Other than I doubt sox go for Chapman and however tough our division may be next year which I have no idea next year beucase of offseason moves- I don't agree with anything else you've said. On a smaller level- last year I liked Hill- this year I like Scott as the last lefty. OFC it depends on other factors but I liked what I saw. And I've seen a lot of discussion on ERod. Very interested to see what he is in 2017.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 19, 2016 22:21:26 GMT -5
I would be super surprised. Erod is nice, but Sale he ain't. Right, not now. But you don't know what Sale is like in 2 years either. Yeah, I'd say I wouldn't be surprised, but I wouldn't call it "likely." I'd prefer they keep Rodriguez rather than mortgage the system for Sale. I think Rodriguez is a solid 2 with a 3/4 floor and significant (double-digit %) 1 upside.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 21, 2016 10:40:49 GMT -5
Uh oh: www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=14746"In...a message being received from the rest of the industry is a dramatic shift for one of baseball's oldest franchises: They will listen to trade offers on everybody. Miguel Cabrera. Justin Verlander. Ian Kinsler. Anybody." Dombrowski may not be able to help himself here.
|
|
|
Post by joshmoody23 on Oct 21, 2016 11:15:13 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? Hosmer would be absolutely perfect, and I think the Royals wheel and deal, but Hosmer will be the guy they hold onto. EE is the obvious choice, but might be too RH heavy lineup. I still think EE is the guy, he's too talented to pass up. 2. Who's the starting catcher? Leon, Swihart or CVaz? Presumably Holaday and Hanigan are gone. Hanigan/Holaday, gone. I believe they look into a guy like Wilson Ramos to see what he's looking for after injury. He could be the perfect fit if he came back in the middle of the year. Leon/Swihart can get you through half a year. I believe Christian Vasquez is moved as a piece in a deal. 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. Unless we acquire a high contract 1B/DH via trade (a la Joey Votto, Miguel Cabrera, Victor Martinez), Pablo goes into next year as the starting 1B. Could also be used as a way to offset salary in a deal. I don't see Shaw on next years roster in any capacity, maybe AAA or he will be thrown into a deal for a reliever or part of a bigger trade. He won't have much value regardless.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? This is where it gets interesting. I believe they will pick up Buchholz option and trade him. Could land you a lights out reliever. 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? Kimbrel, Kelly, Koji, Ross, Barnes, and Hembree, and (shutdown lefty acquired via FA/Trade like Will Smith type) Robby Scott AAA depth for now. Carson Smith factors in at some point. 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? I see Jackie Bradley Jr getting traded in the big deal, E Rod could be involved if its someone like Sale or Quintana, those 2 guys have to start the package. Christian Vasquez would be involved as well. To replace JBJ, go after guys like Ben Revere or Cameron Maybe. These are the guys I either don't see factoring in to next years plans or being a part of something big.
Jackie Bradley Jr. Christian Vasquez Travis Shaw Clay Buchholz (too many ups and downs, more value to the rest of the league) Henry Owens - Same as Shaw, no value. E Rod or Drew Pomeranz - Only for a big starter Obvious - Tazawa, Hanigan, Holaday, Bryce Brentz
|
|
|
Post by lennsakata on Oct 21, 2016 13:15:12 GMT -5
Uh oh: www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=14746"In...a message being received from the rest of the industry is a dramatic shift for one of baseball's oldest franchises: They will listen to trade offers on everybody. Miguel Cabrera. Justin Verlander. Ian Kinsler. Anybody." Dombrowski may not be able to help himself here. They apparently do not plan to extend JD Martinez. Wouldn't mind seeing him in left and Benintendi/Betts in center/right with JBJ going the other way for one year of control on JD and the chance to extend for 4-5 years. K's are always an issue with him but if Bradley Jr is going the other way probably more than a wash in that dept.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Oct 21, 2016 13:22:17 GMT -5
Uh oh: www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=14746"In...a message being received from the rest of the industry is a dramatic shift for one of baseball's oldest franchises: They will listen to trade offers on everybody. Miguel Cabrera. Justin Verlander. Ian Kinsler. Anybody." Dombrowski may not be able to help himself here. They apparently do not plan to extend JD Martinez. Wouldn't mind seeing him in left and Benintendi/Betts in center/right with JBJ going the other way for one year of control on JD and the chance to extend for 4-5 years. K's are always an issue with him but if Bradley Jr is going the other way probably more than a wash in that dept. Looks like Dombrowski will not be the only one not able to help himself.... More stuff for the trade subforum!
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 21, 2016 14:10:56 GMT -5
Uh oh: www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=14746"In...a message being received from the rest of the industry is a dramatic shift for one of baseball's oldest franchises: They will listen to trade offers on everybody. Miguel Cabrera. Justin Verlander. Ian Kinsler. Anybody." Dombrowski may not be able to help himself here. Yeah but can you imagine this offense with Miguel Cabrera?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 21, 2016 14:16:26 GMT -5
Uh oh: www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=14746"In...a message being received from the rest of the industry is a dramatic shift for one of baseball's oldest franchises: They will listen to trade offers on everybody. Miguel Cabrera. Justin Verlander. Ian Kinsler. Anybody." Dombrowski may not be able to help himself here. Yeah but can you imagine this offense with Miguel Cabrera? I would actually go for that if they could minimize the prospect cost by taking on all the salary. Although Detroit's aim seems to be to maximize projects here. Unfortunately, given Dombrowski's history - or the data, for those who prefer that term - he does like to trade the prospects.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2016 14:44:29 GMT -5
"We" tried. Dombrowski wanted shiny new toys, /he wanted a better guarantee of a rotation slot than the Sox could give him. The hole was at the top of the rotation. Price was a much better fit for that even with the benefit of hindsight. Note that Hill, who had major questions about how he'd hold up over the course of a season pointed out by myself and others here, only pitched 110 innings this year. Maybe you could argue they should have pushed Kelly to the bullpen to make room for Hill, but that's not the "shiny new toys" argument. Totally agree with this -- Hill started a few games, looked great, but could easily have been a fluke and certainly was an injury risk. So he was always part of a secondary consideration -- not the top half of the rotation but the bottom. And looking at him that way, it was hard to compete contractually. Given his performance this season, I don't really see letting him go as being any difference maker. I guess the issue is if the Pomeranz trade would have been made -- but i don't think the answer is a guaranteed "no" -- in that Hill missed weeks (yes, mostly after that trade, but the Dodgers likely knew he was starting to have blister issues). So in the heat of the race with a guy who is in and out, Sox might have made the move anyway. Would Hill have helped them get home field? Who knows? The way they lost in the playoffs, it didn't likely matter. And Hill wasn't the difference maker there. This seems like a very unfair thing to ding Dombrowski on whatever people might think his other failings have been.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 21, 2016 15:20:58 GMT -5
I keep wondering why there are so many people on this board who want to trade JBJ. I read a piece about him in the NY Times a little while ago that rated him the best defensive CF in baseball and it wasn't close. It was part of a story on the technologies that have been developed to produce better defensive ratings. The author said when he watched Bradley it appeared to him that Bradley began moving before the ball was hit. I don't recall the name of the technology but it tracks the ball and the players on the field and it confirmed that JBJ, indeed, began moving towards where the ball would go before the ball was hit. If I come across the story again, I will post a link to it.
Bradley has his ups and downs as a hitter, but overall, he had a great season and he is just getting started. He is on my "no trade, no way" list.
Unless the Sox sign a thumper DH, or trade for Cabrera, I think Shaw should be the 1B while they find out if Panda can play and hit. I think it is a bit much to expect that Sam Travis will be ready.
I think the hardest thing to improve with the Sox is the bullpen. That is because you never know what you are going to get. One year the guy is great, the next year he isn't, then he is meh, and then, suddenly he is great again, or just goes to pieces, but maybe not in that order. I am not hot to trade much talent for RPs at this point.
In fact, I am not hot to do much in the way of trades this off season. This is fundamentally a very good team that could be considerably better without major changes. There still is a great deal of talent coming through the system. Some players may accelerate. I think minor tinkering and a couple RP FA signings might be a good approach until we see what the team is like next spring.
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Oct 21, 2016 16:08:14 GMT -5
I keep wondering why there are so many people on this board who want to trade JBJ. I read a piece about him in the NY Times a little while ago that rated him the best defensive CF in baseball and it wasn't close. It was part of a story on the technologies that have been developed to produce better defensive ratings. The author said when he watched Bradley it appeared to him that Bradley began moving before the ball was hit. I don't recall the name of the technology but it tracks the ball and the players on the field and it confirmed that JBJ, indeed, began moving towards where the ball would go before the ball was hit. If I come across the story again, I will post a link to it. Bradley has his ups and downs as a hitter, but overall, he had a great season and he is just getting started. He is on my "no trade, no way" list. Um, he was 1 for his last 11 in the three most important games of the year. That small, recent sample size is obviously way more significant than the fact that he's 26 years old, under team control for 4 more seasons, and just posted a 5 WAR season over 162 games. I would gladly trade him for another relief arm, or maybe a prospect package.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 21, 2016 17:08:37 GMT -5
Because you are new - and welcome BTW - you probably don't know that sarcasm usually is put in italics. He probably is going to have quite a few more All Star appearances and people would trade him for a pitcher whose arm could fall off in a year.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 21, 2016 23:54:25 GMT -5
/he wanted a better guarantee of a rotation slot than the Sox could give him. The hole was at the top of the rotation. Price was a much better fit for that even with the benefit of hindsight. Note that Hill, who had major questions about how he'd hold up over the course of a season pointed out by myself and others here, only pitched 110 innings this year. Maybe you could argue they should have pushed Kelly to the bullpen to make room for Hill, but that's not the "shiny new toys" argument. Totally agree with this -- Hill started a few games, looked great, but could easily have been a fluke and certainly was an injury risk. So he was always part of a secondary consideration -- not the top half of the rotation but the bottom. And looking at him that way, it was hard to compete contractually. Given his performance this season, I don't really see letting him go as being any difference maker. I guess the issue is if the Pomeranz trade would have been made -- but i don't think the answer is a guaranteed "no" -- in that Hill missed weeks (yes, mostly after that trade, but the Dodgers likely knew he was starting to have blister issues). So in the heat of the race with a guy who is in and out, Sox might have made the move anyway. Would Hill have helped them get home field? Who knows? The way they lost in the playoffs, it didn't likely matter. And Hill wasn't the difference maker there. This seems like a very unfair thing to ding Dombrowski on whatever people might think his other failings have been. There are many times I disagree with ericvman, and many other times I agree with him. As a lurker, I thought last year he laid a very convincing argument for Hill. And I know what I saw with my own eyes. I think DD made a mistake. I will say I was wrong this year- (I don't want to make it seem like I'm much of anything other than a fan. I'm wrong a lot too so making an occasional mistake isn't a big deal.) I thought before DD's 1st pickup of Kimbrel, that the playoffs weren't going to happen. So kudos to him and all the players. I was wrong. I didn't think he'd build a playoff team his 1st year and this year was an exciting year. With that said, I know what I saw last year from Hill's short stint and it was terrific. And when Eric spoke of Hill's stuff and I believe fangraphs was a source, - just in my view - I still don't agree why they didn't pick Hill up. You just don't give up on good pitchers and I thought Hill "had it." Overall though I'm not that bummed. We made the playoffs. Though if we ended up giving up prospects for him after we let him go, I'd have been upset because I felt strongly we should have kept Hill.
This year on a lesser note, I think Scott is of value. I didn't quite see him a lot but what I saw he looks good and is cheap. Now I read somewhere a writer saying pickup Abad and put Scott in AAA. I say no. So if at some point the sox ending up trading Scott and he does pretty well while Abad is bad, we might hear again "well, there was no room for him at the time." I'll just believe he should have pitched for the sox in the show. I'm not as confident but still I think he belongs. Hill belonged too. Scott would be on my 25 man roster next year unless DD trades or scoops up other good fa's. But Scott over Abad please. And we should have kept Hill. IMO he showed he was a good pitcher.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 22, 2016 2:59:27 GMT -5
But to "settle in as a #2 or 3," he'd have to revert to tipping his pitches, or get hurt and be ineffective because of it, every year. When you evaluate players, you identify how good they really seem to be when things like injuries, bad use by the manager, less effective and subsequently abandoned mechanics, etc., are factored out. Then you can factor in the actual likelihood of the negative things returning. There were a lot of people who doubted Daniel Murphy's hitting mechanics transformation from 2015. He hadn't proven he could hit with those mechanics for a full season, either. How many transformations like Murphy have happened at his age and stuck? As for E-Rod, you're putting a ton of stock into his end of the season, and he wasn't a #1 pitcher in the second half as is, so an extrapolation of that sample wouldn't constitute a pitcher who would have to regress to be an average #2. I can accept your opinion that it would be unsurprising for him to pass Sale if you think Sale is bound for regression and you're high on Rodriguez, but you seem to be cherry picking his good stints and accepting them as his only future. His sample of being bad is essentially just as big. That's why I'm skeptical. The correct question to ask about Murphy is: what percentage of such transformations, where we have dramaticaly better results from a well-documented significant change in approach, stick? I can think of Bautista and J.D. Martinez as positive examples. Kevin Millar had one that lasted a month (when he opened his stance crazily) that worked because it turned his old cold zones into hot ones, and then pitchers figured out where the new cold zones were, and he went nack to his natural style when it proved to be no better (or worse). Can you think of any others? Staying healthy and maintaining a consistent delivery are skills, ones that Rodriguez has consistently struggled with throughout his career. The likelihood of those negative things returning is fairly significant. Plus, not all of Rodriguez's struggles can be attributed to injuries or pitch-tipping (e.g., his extreme fly-ball tendencies, which carried over into his good stretches). As an aside, for someone who really believes in the probative value of data, you sure do cite a lot of one-off "I-told-you-so" anecdotes. Almost nothing in that sentence is true. If you know studies that show that being injury-prone is real (excluding suspected PED users) and that E-Rod's track record passes the bar where it's significant, I'd sure like to see them. Even if they exist, it would be pretty obvious that he'd fall short of the required history. He apparently had a mechanical flaw when we got him from the Orioles, which we fixed immediately and effortlessly. And he struggled with his mechanics when he was trying to pitch with a knee brace. If that constitutes "consistently ... throughout his career," can I somehow apply that logic to my best year financially, and then call my bank? As an aside, I do sometimes cite my track record of projections and evaluations in some detail. Of players on the current roster, I was pretty much dead right on big debates about Wright, Porcello, Bradley, Ramirez, and (the previous winter) Shaw, partly right about Buchholz (correct that he'd eventually have a stretch of great pitching, wrong about the total value for the season), OK about Kelly (who looks like a relief ace rather than a #3 starter or worthless washout, which was the debate), right about key aspects of Owens (that his lack of fastball command would have no effect in MLB on the effectiveness of his changeup, and that his FB when commanded would play up beyond its measured velocity, a la Koji), right about E-Rod's upside once he got past the injury, right about Ortiz having an epic final season after just two games of data. The jury's still put on Vazquez and Pomeranz. That's a pretty good track record. I mean, Nick Cafardo thought Wright might not make the 25-man and that the hope for Porcello was that he could be a #4, and a lot of people here agreed with him.
|
|
|