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 umassgrad2005 on Nov 1, 2016 12:54:25 GMT -5
Chances are low that Sox would spend something like 30 million a year on two closers. I just think that would be smarter than giving something like 5 years 125-150 million on EE starting on his age 34 season. DD is old school, but that is most likely going to be a bad contract. For me if I'm paying aging sluggers I prefer guys that are better overall hitters, guys with higher averages. I'd be shocked if EE gets 125-150 million. There's not a lot of teams that can afford to throw money at a future DH. So basically, every NL team is eliminated from the EE sweepstakes. I think EE ends up right around 5 years and 105 million. I don't see much competition driving his price past that. Every team is going to be after Chapman. Not a lot of teams will be after EE. Outside of Boston, New York, Toronto, and maybe Texas, I can't think of a team that'll be serious in the EE sweepstakes. Because of this, I can see EE getting even less than what he's asking for on the market. The only turd in the punch bowl that could be a major deterrent in getting EE is the Yankees but even they could pass at a chance at getting him because they're focused on getting "younger." I see the Yankees going all out for Chapman at ridiculous money that people here won't comprehend because of the age and everything you mentioned. They need a closer because Betances wasn't so great in that role last year. In conclusion, the Sox might be bidding against themselves when it comes to EE and that's a great position to be in for a buyer. Sure you have to pay top dollar but maybe the Sox can get him at 4 years instead of 5 or get him at 90 million instead of the 120 he's asking for. I think you should get ready to be shocked. This is the guy you think Sox are going to sign and you seem to know little about him. He plays 1B, he's not just a DH, so a lot more teams are going to be in on him than you think. A lot of teams crave power and he's the elite guy on the market for power. I say low end he's getting 4 years and 100 million. I also think Toronto wants him back badly. By all reports he likes his current team and if he takes a slightly below market deal I would bet it's to stay in Toronto. As to Chapman, sure everyone is going to be after him. No draft pick for signing him is huge for smart teams. I still give Chapman 100 million before I give it to EE.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 1, 2016 13:00:46 GMT -5
SSSS warning ... but how good was Joe Kelly in September? I've got 240 pitchers who faced 60 or more hitters in the second half. I ranked Kelly among them in various stats, and he was impressive (29th in SIERA, etc.). But that included three mediocre to bad outings in July. So here's where his September stats would rank ... compared to Chapman in (). SIERA: 5 (6) xFIP- 4 (2) FIP- 8 (1) ERA-: 7 (8) K-BB% 7 (5) Pull% / Oppo%: 9 / 17 (43 / 22) WPA+/G: 36 (48) Kelly did rank 203 in Hard% and 240 in LD%, but 111 in BABIP and 128 in HR/FB (much higher in GS/FB, a stat also responsible for blowing up his leverage-adjusted WPA rate to merely very good). It's very hard to characterize his month without including a well-known expletive. Rule 1 of relief pitching is find your own. You have to pencil him in right now for the Miller relief-ace role, and if he's 85% as good, you're golden.. Also the adage that Spring Training and September stats tend to be, politely, highly diluted, if not sewage. That said, Kelly overall was encouraging out of the pen. Will be interesting to see how they build the back end of things in the off-season, either through trades, free agents or internal/standing pat moves.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 1, 2016 13:01:25 GMT -5
I just don't see the Sox giving up on Kimbrel at this point. I just don't. I don't see how this is even a realistic scenario. The Sox just traded for this guy. Do you think signing Chapman and trading Kimbrel makes the Red Sox better, especially in the postseason? If so, do you think you'd be able to move Kimbrel and get something at least "decent" for him? ? I'm not trading Kimbrel if I sign Chapman. I want Chapman to create a super pen. Trading Kimbrel when his value is low is just not smart. It's like trading Porcello after his bad first year in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 1, 2016 13:25:45 GMT -5
I'd be shocked if EE gets 125-150 million. There's not a lot of teams that can afford to throw money at a future DH. So basically, every NL team is eliminated from the EE sweepstakes. I think EE ends up right around 5 years and 105 million. I don't see much competition driving his price past that. Every team is going to be after Chapman. Not a lot of teams will be after EE. Outside of Boston, New York, Toronto, and maybe Texas, I can't think of a team that'll be serious in the EE sweepstakes. Because of this, I can see EE getting even less than what he's asking for on the market. The only turd in the punch bowl that could be a major deterrent in getting EE is the Yankees but even they could pass at a chance at getting him because they're focused on getting "younger." I see the Yankees going all out for Chapman at ridiculous money that people here won't comprehend because of the age and everything you mentioned. They need a closer because Betances wasn't so great in that role last year. In conclusion, the Sox might be bidding against themselves when it comes to EE and that's a great position to be in for a buyer. Sure you have to pay top dollar but maybe the Sox can get him at 4 years instead of 5 or get him at 90 million instead of the 120 he's asking for. I think you should get ready to be shocked. This is the guy you think Sox are going to sign and you seem to know little about him. He plays 1B, he's not just a DH, so a lot more teams are going to be in on him than you think. A lot of teams crave power and he's the elite guy on the market for power. I say low end he's getting 4 years and 100 million. I also think Toronto wants him back badly. By all reports he likes his current team and if he takes a slightly below market deal I would bet it's to stay in Toronto. As to Chapman, sure everyone is going to be after him. No draft pick for signing him is huge for smart teams. I still give Chapman 100 million before I give it to EE. I do know about Encarnacion. I also know that he's a very poor defender at first RIGHT NOW. Signing him to a 4-5 year deal should be a no go in terms of a NL team's thinking. He's a future full time DH maybe even 2 years from now.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 1, 2016 13:29:12 GMT -5
I know no one here cares about the save stat but it will be very hard pressed to move one of Kimbrel or Chapman off the closer position. These guys care about saves, especially Kimbrel and the fact that he has just as much saves as any other pitcher at his age in the history of baseball.
They are both closers, I don't see either being moved off that role which is why I think Chapman is unrealistic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 15:35:00 GMT -5
I know no one here cares about the save stat but it will be very hard pressed to move one of Kimbrel or Chapman off the closer position. These guys care about saves, especially Kimbrel and the fact that he has just as much saves as any other pitcher at his age in the history of baseball. They are both closers, I don't see either being moved off that role which is why I think Chapman is unrealistic. Agree. There's that old adage in football, "If you have two quarterbacks, you really don't have any." The same could apply for closers. I don't see Kimbrell or Chapman being happy about taking a back seat to the other. That, plus Chapman's character concerns...I hope Dombrowski stays far away.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 1, 2016 18:21:38 GMT -5
I think you should get ready to be shocked. This is the guy you think Sox are going to sign and you seem to know little about him. He plays 1B, he's not just a DH, so a lot more teams are going to be in on him than you think. A lot of teams crave power and he's the elite guy on the market for power. I say low end he's getting 4 years and 100 million. I also think Toronto wants him back badly. By all reports he likes his current team and if he takes a slightly below market deal I would bet it's to stay in Toronto. As to Chapman, sure everyone is going to be after him. No draft pick for signing him is huge for smart teams. I still give Chapman 100 million before I give it to EE. I do know about Encarnacion. I also know that he's a very poor defender at first RIGHT NOW. Signing him to a 4-5 year deal should be a no go in terms of a NL team's thinking. He's a future full time DH maybe even 2 years from now. The last two seasons in almost a full season worth of games his DRS at first is zero. So he's been average for the last two years. Where do you get he's a very poor defender at 1B right now? You keep making up stuff to fit your argument and numbers just don't back it up. Looking at his DRS numbers he's improving at 1B not getting worse. With his bat a ton of NL teams would easily put up with his D to get his bat in the lineup.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 1, 2016 19:11:28 GMT -5
I know no one here cares about the save stat but it will be very hard pressed to move one of Kimbrel or Chapman off the closer position. These guys care about saves, especially Kimbrel and the fact that he has just as much saves as any other pitcher at his age in the history of baseball. They are both closers, I don't see either being moved off that role which is why I think Chapman is unrealistic. You really think Chapman would care about saves with a $100+ million contract? Usually relief pitchers cared about saves mainly because of getting paid. Don't think Chapman would have to worry about that much after his next contract.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 1, 2016 19:15:04 GMT -5
I do know about Encarnacion. I also know that he's a very poor defender at first RIGHT NOW. Signing him to a 4-5 year deal should be a no go in terms of a NL team's thinking. He's a future full time DH maybe even 2 years from now. The last two seasons in almost a full season worth of games his DRS at first is zero. So he's been average for the last two years. Where do you get he's a very poor defender at 1B right now? You keep making up stuff to fit your argument and numbers just don't back it up. Looking at his DRS numbers he's improving at 1B not getting worse. With his bat a ton of NL teams would easily put up with his D to get his bat in the lineup. It was about 3/4 of a season total over the last two years, which isn't nearly big enough of a sample size to offset how terrible he was prior to that. And my scouting eyes say he's awful - way worse than Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 1, 2016 19:56:10 GMT -5
I know no one here cares about the save stat but it will be very hard pressed to move one of Kimbrel or Chapman off the closer position. These guys care about saves, especially Kimbrel and the fact that he has just as much saves as any other pitcher at his age in the history of baseball. They are both closers, I don't see either being moved off that role which is why I think Chapman is unrealistic. You really think Chapman would care about saves with a $100+ million contract? Usually relief pitchers cared about saves mainly because of getting paid. Don't think Chapman would have to worry about that much after his next contract. Yes I do, especially if he's asking for the usual opt out in his contract like all the rest of the big free agents are doing.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 1, 2016 20:27:37 GMT -5
The last two seasons in almost a full season worth of games his DRS at first is zero. So he's been average for the last two years. Where do you get he's a very poor defender at 1B right now? You keep making up stuff to fit your argument and numbers just don't back it up. Looking at his DRS numbers he's improving at 1B not getting worse. With his bat a ton of NL teams would easily put up with his D to get his bat in the lineup. It was about 3/4 of a season total over the last two years, which isn't nearly big enough of a sample size to offset how terrible he was prior to that. And my scouting eyes say he's awful - way worse than Hanley. Come on most players play about 140 games a year and he played 134 the last two years at first. Unless you really think the average player plays 162 a year. It's closer to a full season than 3/4. So you trust your eyes or advanced stats? Hanley played 133 games at 1B last year and was -5 in DRS. That seems about right, slightly below average. Thing is you got to see all of Hanley games and only a few of EE.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 1, 2016 20:33:05 GMT -5
You really think Chapman would care about saves with a $100+ million contract? Usually relief pitchers cared about saves mainly because of getting paid. Don't think Chapman would have to worry about that much after his next contract. Yes I do, especially if he's asking for the usual opt out in his contract like all the rest of the big free agents are doing. You give him a 100 million he'll do whatever you want. Chapman isn't Kimbrel, he's not on pace to maybe one day be the all time saves leader. I agree Kimbrel would have a problem with not being closer, but not Chapman if he blows away the record for largest contract to a reliever ever. You are going to have to offer the most money though, by a decent margin.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Nov 1, 2016 20:53:55 GMT -5
If you sign Chapman, I see no reason to move Kimbrel. So basically, I see no reason to move him period. Just sign Chapman, even if it gets the 4/72 range. He's a left handed dominant arm that can go multiple innings in the post season. Put him in the pen with Kimbrel and Smith and Kelly and the rest and I love what this team has going. He's the single most impactful player I think they could sign this offseason that correlates to winning a WS. I definitely would trade Kimbrel if sox got Chapman because then I can use the money that was previously Kimbrel and get "more" good players at other positions. This thread doesn't want trade talk so I'll just leave it that I want "more" players whether it major or minor. Kimbrel is wild as a closer so imo he'd also be wild as an 8th inning guy. I expect he'll have a bounce-back year, let someone give us "more players."
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Nov 1, 2016 21:02:07 GMT -5
Do you think signing Chapman and trading Kimbrel makes the Red Sox better, especially in the postseason? If so, do you think you'd be able to move Kimbrel and get something at least "decent" for him? ? I'm not trading Kimbrel if I sign Chapman. I want Chapman to create a super pen. Trading Kimbrel when his value is low is just not smart. It's like trading Porcello after his bad first year in Boston. You're not going to lose much in terms of value by trading him. Kimbrel should bounce back. We went crazy to get him. You can trade him and get good parts just not crazy handful of good parts. Barnes could still wind up being real good. Kelly could be a terrific 8th. Different ways you can find an 8th inning guy. And ofc Smith could come back and sign Koji. The super pen imo might already exist if we upgrade to Chapman even if we trade Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 1, 2016 23:53:04 GMT -5
No reason to trade him if you get Chapman. Just because you can get an ok deal is not a good reason. You would be a lot better off holding onto him and if he bounces back like we both think will happen you can trade him at deadline, for a Kings ransom. That's if other players step up to elite level and that is a long shot. Sure maybe Kelly does or Barnes, but you can't count on that happening. If you think Kimbrel is going to bounce back and you want to trade him and sign Chapman. Then why not just keep Kimbrel? When both are pitching well they are both elite, yes Chapman might be slightly better, but not much. You sign Chapman, so he teams up with Kimbrel to give you an elite bullpen.
Also what Kimbrel makes is not going to get you a lot now a days. So clearing his salary is not something I would worry about. It sure seems like DD has been given the OK by ownership to spend.
This team doesn't have many needs. The positions were they could use upgrades are 1B and 3B. Now you have players like Shaw and Pablo that can hold down the fort. We also have elite prospects like Moncada close to ready and good prospects like Sam Travis waiting in the wings.
We could use a bullpen arm, an elite guy and we really don't have anyone waiting in the wings that can be that. Maybe Kopech, but you can't count on him at this point. Hence why I think Chapman is a guy I go after hard.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 2, 2016 2:17:07 GMT -5
Everyone realizes that the Yankees are going to be all over Chapman, right?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 2, 2016 3:01:04 GMT -5
Yes I do, especially if he's asking for the usual opt out in his contract like all the rest of the big free agents are doing. You give him a 100 million he'll do whatever you want. Chapman isn't Kimbrel, he's not on pace to maybe one day be the all time saves leader. I agree Kimbrel would have a problem with not being closer, but not Chapman if he blows away the record for largest contract to a reliever ever. You are going to have to offer the most money though, by a decent margin. I completely disagree, especially if Chapman is given his opt out clause. Closers typically get paid more, hence why he would WANT saves. Ohh and good luck blowing away other team's offers when the Yankees get heavily involved.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 2, 2016 7:53:11 GMT -5
No reason to trade him if you get Chapman. Just because you can get an ok deal is not a good reason. You would be a lot better off holding onto him and if he bounces back like we both think will happen you can trade him at deadline, for a Kings ransom. That's if other players step up to elite level and that is a long shot. Sure maybe Kelly does or Barnes, but you can't count on that happening. If you think Kimbrel is going to bounce back and you want to trade him and sign Chapman. Then why not just keep Kimbrel? When both are pitching well they are both elite, yes Chapman might be slightly better, but not much. You sign Chapman, so he teams up with Kimbrel to give you an elite bullpen. Also what Kimbrel makes is not going to get you a lot now a days. So clearing his salary is not something I would worry about. It sure seems like DD has been given the OK by ownership to spend. This team doesn't have many needs. The positions were they could use upgrades are 1B and 3B. Now you have players like Shaw and Pablo that can hold down the fort. We also have elite prospects like Moncada close to ready and good prospects like Sam Travis waiting in the wings.
We could use a bullpen arm, an elite guy and we really don't have anyone waiting in the wings that can be that. Maybe Kopech, but you can't count on him at this point. Hence why I think Chapman is a guy I go after hard. This is the part that scares me. I'm fairly comfortable with our BP. OF, MI, C, are pretty well set. Shaw & Pablo as our CI, I don't know. I'm sure by the AS break, Travis &/or Moncada will be ready. It's just UNTIL the break that concerns me a bit.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 2, 2016 9:05:48 GMT -5
It was about 3/4 of a season total over the last two years, which isn't nearly big enough of a sample size to offset how terrible he was prior to that. And my scouting eyes say he's awful - way worse than Hanley. Come on most players play about 140 games a year and he played 134 the last two years at first. Unless you really think the average player plays 162 a year. It's closer to a full season than 3/4. So you trust your eyes or advanced stats? Hanley played 133 games at 1B last year and was -5 in DRS. That seems about right, slightly below average. Thing is you got to see all of Hanley games and only a few of EE. Yes, I trust my eyes over less than a full season of advanced defensive stats. Defensive stats stabilize after 2 years and EE was awful before the last two years. Hanley's stats last year match what he looks like.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 2, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
You give him a 100 million he'll do whatever you want. Chapman isn't Kimbrel, he's not on pace to maybe one day be the all time saves leader. I agree Kimbrel would have a problem with not being closer, but not Chapman if he blows away the record for largest contract to a reliever ever. You are going to have to offer the most money though, by a decent margin. I completely disagree, especially if Chapman is given his opt out clause. Closers typically get paid more, hence why he would WANT saves. Ohh and good luck blowing away other team's offers when the Yankees get heavily involved. I think GMs and agents have been paying attention to Andrew Miller and would probably value him a lot more than most closers if he were a free agent now despite only getting 12 saves this year. I think the role of traditional closer is on its way to extinction.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 2, 2016 9:16:06 GMT -5
I completely disagree, especially if Chapman is given his opt out clause. Closers typically get paid more, hence why he would WANT saves. Ohh and good luck blowing away other team's offers when the Yankees get heavily involved. I think GMs and agents have been paying attention to Andrew Miller and would probably value him a lot more than most closers if he were a free agent now despite only getting 12 saves this year. I think the role of traditional closer is on its way to extinction.Saves still make a major difference in how much guys get paid in arbitration. Until that changes every young reliever is going to want to close.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 2, 2016 10:03:39 GMT -5
I think GMs and agents have been paying attention to Andrew Miller and would probably value him a lot more than most closers if he were a free agent now despite only getting 12 saves this year. I think the role of traditional closer is on its way to extinction.Saves still make a major difference in how much guys get paid in arbitration. Until that changes every young reliever is going to want to close. Guess that's true for arbitration, but it obviously needs to catch up. No GM in the league would pay Kimbrel or Francisco Rodriguez more than Miller just because they had more saves.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 2, 2016 10:10:30 GMT -5
Saves still make a major difference in how much guys get paid in arbitration. Until that changes every young reliever is going to want to close. Guess that's true for arbitration, but it obviously needs to catch up. No GM in the league would pay Kimbrel or Francisco Rodriguez more than Miller just because they had more saves. Arbitration is necessarily based on past accomplishments, not projected future value. Trying to make it a fair market measure would be impossible and unmanageable. The problem is that "saves" is one of the accomplishments it considers. Therefore a mediocre closer will make more than an outstanding set-up man, just because of saves. And if someone thinks that a player should do "what is best for the team," try being an outstanding performer at your company who is put on a less lucrative career path than an inferior worker because it's best for the team. You wouldn't like that, and shouldn't either. You'd think, "wow, my company needs to re-evaluate it's salary structure to properly value the skills it claims to want to promote." And so it is with baseball. Kill the save.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 2, 2016 10:36:42 GMT -5
Guess that's true for arbitration, but it obviously needs to catch up. No GM in the league would pay Kimbrel or Francisco Rodriguez more than Miller just because they had more saves. Arbitration is necessarily based on past accomplishments, not projected future value. Trying to make it a fair market measure would be impossible and unmanageable. The problem is that "saves" is one of the accomplishments it considers. Therefore a mediocre closer will make more than an outstanding set-up man, just because of saves. And if someone thinks that a player should do "what is best for the team," try being an outstanding performer at your company who is put on a less lucrative career path than an inferior worker because it's best for the team. You wouldn't like that, and shouldn't either. You'd think, "wow, my company needs to re-evaluate it's salary structure to properly value the skills it claims to want to promote." And so it is with baseball. Kill the save. They could either kill the save or improve relief pitcher WAR and use that instead.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 2, 2016 10:41:24 GMT -5
Guess that's true for arbitration, but it obviously needs to catch up. No GM in the league would pay Kimbrel or Francisco Rodriguez more than Miller just because they had more saves. Arbitration is necessarily based on past accomplishments, not projected future value. Trying to make it a fair market measure would be impossible and unmanageable. The problem is that "saves" is one of the accomplishments it considers. Therefore a mediocre closer will make more than an outstanding set-up man, just because of saves. And if someone thinks that a player should do "what is best for the team," try being an outstanding performer at your company who is put on a less lucrative career path than an inferior worker because it's best for the team. You wouldn't like that, and shouldn't either. You'd think, "wow, my company needs to re-evaluate it's salary structure to properly value the skills it claims to want to promote." And so it is with baseball. Kill the save. Fans and media like the save - it's not going anywhere. I would propose looking at (saves+holds)/(saves+holds+blown saves). This way both setup men and closers are being evaluated by the same criteria. Below is a top 20 list. Name SV HLD BS S+HLD S+HLD% Zach Britton 47 0 0 47 100% Jeremy Jeffress 27 6 1 33 97% Jake Diekman 4 26 1 30 97% Joe Blanton 0 28 1 28 97% Ryan Buchter 1 20 1 21 95% Andrew Miller 12 25 2 37 95% Craig Kimbrel 31 1 2 32 94% Neftali Feliz 2 29 2 31 94% A.J. Ramos 40 2 3 42 93% Will Harris 12 28 3 40 93% Alex Colome 37 1 3 38 93% Kelvin Herrera 12 26 3 38 93% Koji Uehara 7 18 2 25 93% Aroldis Chapman 36 0 3 36 92% Mark Melancon 47 0 4 47 92% Blake Treinen 1 22 2 23 92% Pedro Baez 0 23 2 23 92% Fernando Rodney 25 8 3 33 92% Daniel Hudson 5 17 2 22 92% Cody Allen 32 0 3 32 91% (I'm not worried about players who enter a game when there is a deficit as those are usually unproven or not-so-great relievers, however I feel players who enter tie games and don't blow itshould be rewarded somehow as well. I'm sure one of these days we'll have a stat for just about every situation)
|
|
|