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.
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 9, 2017 17:40:45 GMT -5
Saying chavis will get to Boston in mid 2018, is conditional on two things:
1.) good health. I put a lot of stock in his injuries causing bad results the last two years. I saw him a lot at Greenville when he healthy and after he got back from injury, where he was clearly not 100%, and it showed in his swing.
2.) will he continue to hit? Next April does he get off to a bad start because of the cold damp weather. Will that affect him mentally? I think he has a nice swing, good eye and nice plan at the plate. But he's not had to hit in cold and damp April northeast weather.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 9, 2017 17:41:13 GMT -5
On the "Okimey" post I pointed out Steve Garvey who is 5' 10" won four consecutive Gold Gloves. Garvey to my eye also does not look like he has a long sleeve length on his dress shirts. Here's a thought. First basemen tend to be tall because it is considered the position for lumbering guys who can't play anywhere else. That sort of player tends to be tall. Is height a substantial advantage? It seems to me the height of the first baseman is a thrown ball to glove measure not a batsman to first measure. With a thrown baseball traveling to the first baseman at 85-90 mph what is the amount of time saved by the glove being six inches closer to the throw? As far as reach on errant throws. Is height absolutely an advantage? Would not reaction time and quickness make up for lack of height. The only thing which can answer the question as to whether or not Chavis can play 1B is seeing him there. He certainly is not going to be playing 3B for the Red Sox baring disaster. I mean the further away you can hold the glove from the 1B bag and still be touching it with your foot, the more outs you are able to make. If you cannot reach a ball, you cannot field it and get the out. There's a pretty strict limit there.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 9, 2017 17:54:13 GMT -5
On the "Okimey" post I pointed out Steve Garvey who is 5' 10" won four consecutive Gold Gloves. Garvey to my eye also does not look like he has a long sleeve length on his dress shirts. Here's a thought. First basemen tend to be tall because it is considered the position for lumbering guys who can't play anywhere else. That sort of player tends to be tall. Is height a substantial advantage? It seems to me the height of the first baseman is a thrown ball to glove measure not a batsman to first measure. With a thrown baseball traveling to the first baseman at 85-90 mph what is the amount of time saved by the glove being six inches closer to the throw? As far as reach on errant throws. Is height absolutely an advantage? Would not reaction time and quickness make up for lack of height. The only thing which can answer the question as to whether or not Chavis can play 1B is seeing him there. He certainly is not going to be playing 3B for the Red Sox baring disaster. I mean the further away you can hold the glove from the 1B bag and still be touching it with your foot, the more outs you are able to make. If you cannot reach a ball, you cannot field it and get the out. There's a pretty strict limit there. Steve Garvey 5' 10".
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 9, 2017 17:59:27 GMT -5
If Chavis is going to be a seven-time or 10-time all-star, then yes, they can deal with him being short for the position. I do not think Chavis is going to be a seven-time or 10-time all-star. I also think it's worth noting that Allen and Garvey, the two first basemen on that list, came up at different positions and moved there. Anyone subscribe to the BRef play index? I'd love to find out how many guys under 6 feet have played first base for a given number of games. He does not have to be a one time all-star. All he needs to be is the best option. I assume most agree he is blocked at 3B. One bad thing about 1B is it devalues his arm, his only plus defensive tool.
|
|
|
Post by aboynamedkimandrew on Aug 9, 2017 18:16:05 GMT -5
Garvey at 5' 10" might be an outlier, but there are many well regarded defensive first basemen that fit into the only slightly larger 6'0" to 6'1" range (Hernandez, Mattingly, Palmeiro, Youkilis, Mientkiewicz, etc.). I think the bigger issues for Chavis or any first baseman are sound decision-making, footwork to make plays around the bag and the ability to dig balls out of the dirt. Those are important everyday while a few inches of extra reach probably make a difference on a handful of plays per year. If he can do those things, and we don't know that he can, I wouldn't let raw height hold him back.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Aug 9, 2017 19:16:37 GMT -5
Another HR for Chavis.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 9, 2017 19:56:32 GMT -5
If Chavis is going to be a seven-time or 10-time all-star, then yes, they can deal with him being short for the position. I do not think Chavis is going to be a seven-time or 10-time all-star. I also think it's worth noting that Allen and Garvey, the two first basemen on that list, came up at different positions and moved there. Anyone subscribe to the BRef play index? I'd love to find out how many guys under 6 feet have played first base for a given number of games. Carl Yastrzemski (5-11) played 700 games there. Yes. He also moved there.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Aug 9, 2017 20:18:15 GMT -5
Steve Harvey was a 5' 10" first baseman. Barnwell was also bArely 6 feet.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 9, 2017 21:09:11 GMT -5
Steve Harvey was a 5' 10" first baseman. Barnwell was also bArely 6 feet. There are reach advantages with height which might come into play at many positions. A fielder who is taller can reach balls a shorter player might not be able to reach. Certainly there are more situations at first where reach is a factor because a foot must stay on the bag while receiving a throw. Still I think the height factor is overrated and the primary reason you see tall first basemen is they tend to be unsuited for any other position. When you see the words "1B only profile" it's not a compliment. And it does not mean the player is tall.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 9, 2017 21:36:08 GMT -5
If Chavis is going to be a seven-time or 10-time all-star, then yes, they can deal with him being short for the position. I do not think Chavis is going to be a seven-time or 10-time all-star. I also think it's worth noting that Allen and Garvey, the two first basemen on that list, came up at different positions and moved there. Anyone subscribe to the BRef play index? I'd love to find out how many guys under 6 feet have played first base for a given number of games. Carl Yastrzemski (5-11) played 700 games there. Yes. He also moved there. I forgot how much he played there. Looking up his stats I see he played 140 games at 1B in 1975 with a .996 fielding percentage. And then in 1977 he won a Gold Glove in left field.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 10, 2017 3:10:39 GMT -5
I don't know why there's so much first base talk with Chavis. Yes there's a immediate need there, but I see the Sox spending money at first base or I see them making a trade at that position in the future.
The Sox should be trying to transition Chavis to second base. Pedrioa's knees are a major long term risk going forward and Dombrowski has even acknowledged this when Pedrioa hit the DL. Pedrioa's knees are taking away his durability, power, and maybe his range too. Pedrioa is going to need to DH a lot in the future and he's going to need a lot of rest too.
Sticking Chavis at second base can help Pedrioa in the future (transition him to a part time role or DH role) and would be beneficial to the Sox depth at the position with Pedrioa being a huge question mark long term at second base.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 10, 2017 4:23:31 GMT -5
I don't know why there's so much first base talk with Chavis. Yes there's a immediate need there, but I see the Sox spending money at first base or I see them making a trade at that position in the future. The Sox should be trying to transition Chavis to second base. Pedrioa's knees are a major long term risk going forward and Dombrowski has even acknowledged this when Pedrioa hit the DL. Pedrioa's knees are taking away his durability, power, and maybe his range too. Pedrioa is going to need to DH a lot in the future and he's going to need a lot of rest too. Sticking Chavis at second base can help Pedrioa in the future (transition him to a part time role or DH role) and would be beneficial to the Sox depth at the position with Pedrioa being a huge question mark long term at second base. A very valid point. Like all of this. I have wondered since last fall how much pedy still has in the tank. He plays so very hard all the time, time has to take it's toll.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Aug 10, 2017 4:59:23 GMT -5
What are Chavis' issues defensively? Arm? Footwork? Agility?
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 10, 2017 5:27:29 GMT -5
I don't know why there's so much first base talk with Chavis. Yes there's a immediate need there, but I see the Sox spending money at first base or I see them making a trade at that position in the future. The Sox should be trying to transition Chavis to second base. Pedrioa's knees are a major long term risk going forward and Dombrowski has even acknowledged this when Pedrioa hit the DL. Pedrioa's knees are taking away his durability, power, and maybe his range too. Pedrioa is going to need to DH a lot in the future and he's going to need a lot of rest too. Sticking Chavis at second base can help Pedrioa in the future (transition him to a part time role or DH role) and would be beneficial to the Sox depth at the position with Pedrioa being a huge question mark long term at second base. A very valid point. Like all of this. I have wondered since last fall how much pedy still has in the tank. He plays so very hard all the time, time has to take it's toll. Who could have predicts Pedroia physical limitations and increasing injuries? Myself and a few others several years ago. Chavis is very likely not going to second.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 10, 2017 5:50:13 GMT -5
A very valid point. Like all of this. I have wondered since last fall how much pedy still has in the tank. He plays so very hard all the time, time has to take it's toll. Who could have predicts Pedroia physical limitations and increasing injuries? Myself and a few others several years ago. Chavis is very likely not going to second. -Chavis is actually a really good candidate to move to second base. -Predicting that a player in his 30's will get injured isn't all that impressive. -Pedrioa isn't actually limited on the field when he does play [he just needs more time off, aka a good utility man backing him up (Eduardo Nunez for example)].
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 6:01:45 GMT -5
Pedroia at 37/38 years old is still probably a better defensive 2B than Chavis ever will be. If he has a future with this team, it's hard for me to picture him as anything but a DH. I could see 100 games at DH, 15 at 2B, 15 at 3B, 15 in OF...something along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 10, 2017 6:09:53 GMT -5
Pedroia at 37/38 years old is still probably a better defensive 2B than Chavis ever will be. If he has a future with this team, it's hard for me to picture him as anything but a DH. I could see 100 games at DH, 15 at 2B, 15 at 3B, 15 in OF...something along those lines. That's a fair point.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 10, 2017 6:44:09 GMT -5
Steve Harvey was a 5' 10" first baseman. Barnwell was also bArely 6 feet. Who? Just kidding. So far, the only examples are Hall of Famers.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 10, 2017 8:04:07 GMT -5
Steve Harvey was a 5' 10" first baseman. Barnwell was also bArely 6 feet. Who? Just kidding. So far, the only examples are Hall of Famers. Ripper Collins was 5-9. Joe Harris was 5-9. Matt stairs played first at 5-9.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Aug 10, 2017 8:12:52 GMT -5
Steve Harvey was a 5' 10" first baseman. Barnwell was also bArely 6 feet. Who? Just kidding. So far, the only examples are Hall of Famers. Haha...I can blame auto correct on Barnwell, but I have no excuse for writing Steve Harvey (vs. Garvey). Lol. If Chavis continues to hit the Red Sox will find a spot for him.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 10, 2017 8:17:41 GMT -5
What are Chavis' issues defensively? Arm? Footwork? Agility? Here's the report which was updated not too long ago. www.soxprospects.com/players/chavis-michael.htm"Arm: Plus arm, able to make all the throws from third base including deep against the foul line. Field: Not the most fluid defender. Footwork is choppy and lets the ball play him at times. Hands work and has solid range. Has the raw tools to be at least an average defender at third base, but could have to move to the corner outfield eventually. Played shortstop after signing, but was moved off the position for good to third base soon thereafter." This report reads to me as if he has the tools to be a good defender. I assume "hands work" means he has good hands to go along with a plus arm and at least average range. The deficiencies (choppy footwork an d letting the ball play him) sound like things which can be corrected by a good infield coach. If he could be developed into a second baseman that would be even better than him being able to play 1B.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 10, 2017 9:05:10 GMT -5
If the Sox see Chavis as a trade chip his value is greater anywhere other than 1B.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 10, 2017 9:17:28 GMT -5
If Chavis is going to be a seven-time or 10-time all-star, then yes, they can deal with him being short for the position. I do not think Chavis is going to be a seven-time or 10-time all-star. I also think it's worth noting that Allen and Garvey, the two first basemen on that list, came up at different positions and moved there. Anyone subscribe to the BRef play index? I'd love to find out how many guys under 6 feet have played first base for a given number of games. Carl Yastrzemski (5-11) played 700 games there. Yes. He also moved there. In the words of the old Big Show (Boston sports radio, not the wrestler) phrase: You're makin' my point. Anyway, on Chavis's D: news.soxprospects.com/2017/07/scouting-scratch-michael-chavis.html
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 10, 2017 12:48:26 GMT -5
Who could have predicts Pedroia physical limitations and increasing injuries? Myself and a few others several years ago. Chavis is very likely not going to second. -Chavis is actually a really good candidate to move to second base. -Predicting that a player in his 30's will get injured isn't all that impressive.-Pedrioa isn't actually limited on the field when he does play [he just needs more time off, aka a good utility man backing him up (Eduardo Nunez for example)]. You appear to have a very 'selective' memory as you said the opposite a mere seven month ago. You clearly talked out of both sides of your mouth and that is why I have issues with you. Either be consistent or admit Mea Culpa. See the post below with your responses in red. pedrofanforever45 Avatar Jan 17, 2017 at 4:23am pedrofanforever45 said: jodyreidnichols Avatar Jan 16, 2017 at 6:14pm jodyreidnichols said: He's actually had surgery nearly every year of his career, mostly off-season. I predicted several years ago that he's likely to be more injury prone because he plays all out diving for balls when the team is up ten in the ninth and he was on the wrong side of 30. By 34 YO decline is normal no way around it, you must have grown up in the steroid era to believe otherwise. I also said he'd likely have 1 more good year in him and I fear we just saw it. I wanted to trade him a few years ago for Kole Calhoun and relief pitching. Kole is a similar hitter to Pedroia plays very good D in right and we'd have had Betts at second. But he was "healthy" last year and that gives me hope.
Edit: He actually had surgery on his knee this offseason a few days after the season ended.I don't share your pessimistic view of Pedrioa. The Angels also would never do the trade YOU wanted to do. I just saw Adrian Beltre literally get better into his mid 30's and he plays just like Pedrioa. I don't see how that factors into injury risk. I'm no more worried of Mookie getting injured than I am with Pedrioa than I am with anyone else with this roster. Injuries are such a random variance, there's no way of knowing or trying to predict it. The Sox will be more careful of Pedrioa and will give him DH time and plenty of days off. I know they will monitor him very closely going forward.Mookie also had knee surgery too but I don't see you bringing that up either. This has nothing to do with steriods. I already mentioned that I think he would take a decline defensively with a little less range in the future but I always think his bat will play in Fenway.Like Jimed said, it wouldn't be a big surprise that he would be worth 4-5 WAR the next couple of years of the contract then 2-3 WAR the rest of the way. I bet he ends up being worth at least 75% of the contract when it comes to dollars per WAR. I could care less about that if he wins a championship the next 2-3 years and is a big part of it.It's no coincidence that every time that Pedrioa is playing well in a season, that the Sox make the playoffs that year (2007-2009), (2013), (2016). If I'm a betting man, I'm betting on Pedrioa and the Sox are too. So really that's all that matters to me. Pedrioa is a rock.Well its obvious you have your blinders on. For one your Beltre comparison has no merit other than you want it to. Beltre "improved" because he left the worst stadium for him as a hitter, Seattle. I actually mentioned years before the Sox acquired him that they should trade for him how he'd be a perfect fit at Fenway and successfully argued against about 30 people over on SoSH about that. Pedrioa has had surgery nearly every year (mostly off-season) he's played and his style of play, balls out, and body size does not make that a good recipe from staying away from more injuries ESPECIALLY as he'll turn 34 during this season. You can make any point you want but you cannot refute that. I have a Pedroia signed Helmet I won at a silent auction so it's not like I'm not a fan just a realist, try that on for size.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 10, 2017 13:57:35 GMT -5
To me Chavis should be looked at within the context of the value of HR pop at the major league level and adjust his game accordingly. I think he is really best served as a guy who swings the bat, maybe does pull more than normal, maybe does have a slight upswing in his bat path. All those attribues probably are natural to him anyway and he should just recognize that he is not probably not going to be even a .260 career hitter with that approach but if he puts up 25 bombs a year in today's world with average defense at 3rd, that's a wealthy career. That maximizes his value.
Notice that his defense appears to have improved in AA and his strikeouts are down. I think the guy is maybe swinging more earlier in the count and with his contact skills and bat speed he can pull off some bombs with that approach. He's always projected confidence but it takes achieving results to internalize it. He's making progress. He should be looking for a pitch to drive and go for it. I think he should continue the same approach he has right now, in AA ball, and eventually give him some PT at 2nd and eventually bring him up as utility infielder / DH / RH bat with pop. The infield's equivalent of Chris Young.
|
|
|