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 Chris Hatfield on Oct 23, 2017 14:05:03 GMT -5
They're paying him but Rusney does not count against the tax, correct? He does not, but I think Eric might be assuming they're going to protect him from Rule 5, as that's been his projection for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 23, 2017 15:46:28 GMT -5
They're paying him but Rusney does not count against the tax, correct? He does not, but I think Eric might be assuming they're going to protect him from Rule 5, as that's been his projection for a while. OK, thanks. If he’s not protected and is selected in Rule 5 draft are the Sox on the hook for the $ beyond the MLB minimum?
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 23, 2017 15:59:52 GMT -5
He does not, but I think Eric might be assuming they're going to protect him from Rule 5, as that's been his projection for a while. OK, thanks. If he’s not protected and is selected in Rule 5 draft are the Sox on the hook for the $ beyond the MLB minimum? I think if he's taken in the Rule 5, he goes lock, stock and barrel. Caveat Emptor!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 23, 2017 16:18:03 GMT -5
Yeah if he's taken in Rule 5, the Red Sox don't pay anything. Not sure why they would - he'd be on another team.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 23, 2017 17:57:12 GMT -5
Yeah if he's taken in Rule 5, the Red Sox don't pay anything. Not sure why they would - he'd be on another team. Well then, if he’s not a tradable asset at full salary - or partial if he’s included in a deal for a coveted player - then there is no reason to add to the 40 man or protect. If he’s worth the money he should be there already.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 23, 2017 21:21:15 GMT -5
I believe he's a tradable asset at full salary and should (and hopefully will) be added to the 40-man when the time comes.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Oct 23, 2017 21:27:22 GMT -5
Only way I think Castillo ends up on the team is if they've already determined that they're already going beyond the $237M mark. If the option is him or a player at a more necessary position, the option certainly isn't him
But I'm of the mind that they're most likely to go over 237 this year, and at that point, it would make zero sense to not have him on the 40, probably the 25, so you can at least see if you actually have anything there
|
|
|
1B in 2018
Oct 23, 2017 21:41:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by larrycook on Oct 23, 2017 21:41:27 GMT -5
Castillo is the previous regimes mistake. If they could move him for a bucket of used baseballs they would.
Brentz seems to offer more for much less.
I think Santana can help solve our 1st base problem.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 25, 2017 2:58:49 GMT -5
What would it take to get someone like C.J. Cron...? Nothing? I think the Angels are likely to non-tender him. In fact, they're the only team in MLB that seems likely to be looking to upgrade what they already have. He's averaged 1.0 WAR the last 3 years, and 1.7 WAR / 650 PA weighted 5-4-3. His career high OBP was .325. You don't pay a guy to be below average when there are better players looking for jobs. He's not even useful as a platoon player, because he has a reverse split.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Oct 26, 2017 8:08:15 GMT -5
I see Dave doing several things here. He may be up against the 237 salary number, but needs a power hitter in the middle of the lineup. Most opinions have him is going after J D M. I think he stays in Arizona, but that is just a guess/ feeling. I can see him keeping Moreland, at a reasonable 2 yr number., 5/7. I can see Porcello gone. Pay half his salary and see what you can get in return. The main idea is to lose salary. I can see Hanley getting dumped . Paying half the salary and getting back whatever. I also think that you will see Dave look at start exploring trades for XB and JBJ. See what he can get back. Not giving them away. I think Dave is looking at not just this coming year's salary but the start of long term control of managing the cap. 1st base is just a start. The power hitter needs HAS to fit into the LONG TERM salary structure. This is completely wrong. The Sox have ridiculous revenues. They got under the luxury tax limit this year to avoid the extra penalty (an extra 20% of the overage, 50% versus 30%) for going over it three years in a row. Now that they've done that and are back to a 20% surcharge, they'll spend without reservations in the short term, then try to get just under the limit again (at least $206M) in 2020. The Yankees, which have way more ridiculous revenues, are going under the limit next year for the same reason. I thought about answering this statement Eric, and at first was going to ignore your poor choice of words. You choose to ignore my opinion. You along with the rest of us have little idea what Dave and the front office are going to do this winter. So my opinion is just as valid as yours. The sox revenues are controlled /influenced by the number of people they put into the seats, The advertisers will be willing to pay if the team is creating excitement and the fans are actively following the team. Henry and the gang run the team for a profit every year not for short term windows off set by rebuild years. The sox large revenues allow them to maintain a large salary base, with the assumption they are signing great players for the money. The sox have a very complicated problem. They do not, nor do the dodgers. have enough money to sign all the players they have coming due in the next 3 years. Sale, Drew and Kimbrel are all coming due. Betts, XB, and JBJ are all coming due. There is not enough coming off to offset those projected salaries and we are already at $200 mil. If you add a large $20 mil salary this winter that will further accent the problem. Of the 6 mentioned above lets say dave keeps 3. He will not give the other 3 away for nothing. But, which 3 does he keep. Does getting rid of Porcello now help Dave keep Drew? It might help them get the hitter they need this year . The point being, that the team is run for a profit, especially if Henry is looking at selling in the near future, and managing a $200 mil payroll is key. With all the players coming into big pay days Dave is looking at controlling the salaries long term. How he does it is anyone's guess.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 28, 2017 18:57:57 GMT -5
Can someone put a muzzle on Cafardo? He is trying to get Hosmer here for big dollars and that sounds awful. That's no different than any other year. I routinely cite the opposite of Cafardo's opinion as an extra rationale for any move. I don't know why the Red Sox FO wouldn't have the same regard for him. Having said that, Hosmer at the right price would be a terrific backup plan for failing to sign Martinez. I'd jump at 4/$90 and would probably go as high as 4/$100. We don't know how many teams are smart enough to realize that's all he's worth, but even if that's a universal opinion, I think the Royals match that. On another topic, I just looked at Mitch Moreland's year in detail and there's no evidence that playing with the broken toe did more than a little harm to his numbers. He did go 3/26, BB, HBP in his first week afterwards, but then he went 6/15 with 3 HR, SF. I think it's reasonable to say that the toe may have made it tougher for him to come out of the slump that followed. And that slump differed from his other two slumps in just three ways: it was longer, it was worse, and it was not marked by an increase in GB. There's no smoking gun that says he wouldn't have slumped then if he had been healthy. As a first-time free agent, he was paid in 2017 based on his disappointing walk year rather than his track record. Now that he's bounced back, I don't see that happening again. Coming off a solid year, I could see him fetching a $14 AAV in a competitive market (although it might be a buyer's one). You can pay Bour less and have a better team, which is why I'd pursue that, but I'm not sure there's any need to look further for next year's 1B if that plan doesn't work. He's worth more to us because of his fit to the park, so he should be an easy sign if they need to go that route. He might be so easy to sign that it's the best route.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,675
Member is Online
|
1B in 2018
Oct 28, 2017 19:17:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by gerry on Oct 28, 2017 19:17:12 GMT -5
That's no different than any other year. I routinely cite the opposite of Cafardo's opinion as an extra rationale for any move. I don't know why the Red Sox FO wouldn't have the same regard for him. Having said that, Hosmer at the right price would be a terrific backup plan for failing to sign Martinez. I'd jump at 4/$90 and would probably go as high as 4/$100. We don't know how many teams are smart enough to realize that's all he's worth, but even if that's a universal opinion, I think the Royals match that. On another topic, I just looked at Mitch Moreland's year in detail and there's no evidence that playing with the broken toe did more than a little harm to his numbers. He did go 3/26, BB, HBP in his first week afterwards, but then he went 6/15 with 3 HR, SF. I think it's reasonable to say that the toe may have made it tougher for him to come out of the slump that followed. And that slump differed from his other two slumps in just three ways: it was longer, it was worse, and it was not marked by an increase in GB. There's no smoking gun that says he wouldn't have slumped then if he had been healthy. As a first-time free agent, he was paid in 2017 based on his disappointing walk year rather than his track record. Now that he's bounced back, I don't see that happening again. Coming off a solid year, I could see him fetching a $14 AAV in a competitive market (although it might be a buyer's one). You can pay Bour less and have a better team, which is why I'd pursue that, but I'm not sure there's any need to look further for next year's 1B if that plan doesn't work. He's worth more to us because of his fit to the park, so he should be an easy sign if they need to go that route. He might be so easy to sign that it's the best route. Now I'm confused. (What's new). Trying to justify re-signing MM, I just finished a long look of Bour and, as you said earlier, I finally figured out he could be huge in Boston, and his glove should be fine at 1B. Your idea of saving money for the fish is smart (Bour + Taz for Travis, etc.). Bour + Martinez would transform that lineup. I remain a fan of MM, but you are on target on Bour.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 29, 2017 1:17:27 GMT -5
I routinely cite the opposite of Cafardo's opinion as an extra rationale for any move. I don't know why the Red Sox FO wouldn't have the same regard for him. Having said that, Hosmer at the right price would be a terrific backup plan for failing to sign Martinez. I'd jump at 4/$90 and would probably go as high as 4/$100. We don't know how many teams are smart enough to realize that's all he's worth, but even if that's a universal opinion, I think the Royals match that. On another topic, I just looked at Mitch Moreland's year in detail and there's no evidence that playing with the broken toe did more than a little harm to his numbers. He did go 3/26, BB, HBP in his first week afterwards, but then he went 6/15 with 3 HR, SF. I think it's reasonable to say that the toe may have made it tougher for him to come out of the slump that followed. And that slump differed from his other two slumps in just three ways: it was longer, it was worse, and it was not marked by an increase in GB. There's no smoking gun that says he wouldn't have slumped then if he had been healthy. As a first-time free agent, he was paid in 2017 based on his disappointing walk year rather than his track record. Now that he's bounced back, I don't see that happening again. Coming off a solid year, I could see him fetching a $14 AAV in a competitive market (although it might be a buyer's one). You can pay Bour less and have a better team, which is why I'd pursue that, but I'm not sure there's any need to look further for next year's 1B if that plan doesn't work. He's worth more to us because of his fit to the park, so he should be an easy sign if they need to go that route. He might be so easy to sign that it's the best route. Now I'm confused. (What's new). Trying to justify re-signing MM, I just finished a long look of Bour and, as you said earlier, I finally figured out he could be huge in Boston, and his glove should be fine at 1B. Your idea of saving money for the fish is smart (Bour + Taz for Travis, etc.). Bour + Martinez would transform that lineup. I remain a fan of MM, but you are on target on Bour. You need a backup plan in case the Marlins don't need to move Bour, which would be the case if they bundle Tazawa as a salary dump in a trade of Prado, Ozuna, or Gordon. Ozuna especially will bring a high prospect price and the team that trades for him might well take on Tazawa's salary to give up less talent. All I'm saying is that Moreland is so likely to be the next-best option, and hence your plan B, that I probably won't look into the alternatives in any detail.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 29, 2017 12:58:50 GMT -5
This is completely wrong. The Sox have ridiculous revenues. They got under the luxury tax limit this year to avoid the extra penalty (an extra 20% of the overage, 50% versus 30%) for going over it three years in a row. Now that they've done that and are back to a 20% surcharge, they'll spend without reservations in the short term, then try to get just under the limit again (at least $206M) in 2020. The Yankees, which have way more ridiculous revenues, are going under the limit next year for the same reason. I thought about answering this statement Eric, and at first was going to ignore your poor choice of words. You choose to ignore my opinion. You along with the rest of us have little idea what Dave and the front office are going to do this winter. So my opinion is just as valid as yours. The sox revenues are controlled /influenced by the number of people they put into the seats, The advertisers will be willing to pay if the team is creating excitement and the fans are actively following the team. Henry and the gang run the team for a profit every year not for short term windows off set by rebuild years. The sox large revenues allow them to maintain a large salary base, with the assumption they are signing great players for the money. The sox have a very complicated problem. They do not, nor do the dodgers. have enough money to sign all the players they have coming due in the next 3 years. Sale, Drew and Kimbrel are all coming due. Betts, XB, and JBJ are all coming due. There is not enough coming off to offset those projected salaries and we are already at $200 mil. If you add a large $20 mil salary this winter that will further accent the problem. Of the 6 mentioned above lets say dave keeps 3. He will not give the other 3 away for nothing. But, which 3 does he keep. Does getting rid of Porcello now help Dave keep Drew? It might help them get the hitter they need this year . The point being, that the team is run for a profit, especially if Henry is looking at selling in the near future, and managing a $200 mil payroll is key. With all the players coming into big pay days Dave is looking at controlling the salaries long term. How he does it is anyone's guess. Saying that your post was "completely wrong" was completely wrong, and for that I apologize. I think I actually stopped reading just before your last sentence ("The power hitter needs HAS to fit into the LONG TERM salary structure"), which is in fact 100% correct, and something I examined elsewhere. The conclusion was that the committed salaries for 2020 were so low that staying under the cap was not a problem. It will require some tough decisions, yes, but it's basically just filling in a spreadsheet. The thing that I think is all wrong is the idea that they have to cut costs now ("The main idea is to lose salary.") Hanley and Porcello, for instance, are gone by the time the next salary crunch happens, so what would be the point of trading them now, even for full value, and downgrading their roster spots? The one thing they can never do is make a move that will be perceived as a pure cost-cutting measure, without a rationale that makes sense. They have $30M or a bit more to spend this winter and their only actual need is a 1B (the only other "Acquisition" on the 2018 projected roster, the Chris Young bench spot, could be upgraded at MLB minimum by Bryce Brentz, and the only reason he's not listed there is the failure to add him in September, which has been discussed endlessly). So the moves you suggested would absolutely and correctly be seen as making the team worse for the sole purpose of increasing profits. That's been catastrophic in Miami. It's always catastrophic. How would it play in a city with the highest ticket prices in baseball and a highly critical media? You'd see season ticket holders canceling, folks swearing off the team forever, and so on. John Henry would become a poster child for the single thing that many Americans are most pissed off about -- the wealthiest lining their own pockets by ripping off the middle and working class. Even the $237 limit for this year is not that big a deal. Let's say the guy they really want at the deadline will put them at $238. The extra $1M at its high tax rate plus moving down in the draft will be worth it, if that guy is the difference between losing in the DS and winning the WS, and probably even if he merely gets you an extra round. They'll plan to stay under it, but there are certainly scenarios where they go over. In 2019, Hanley's $22M comes off the books and they need to resign or replace Kimbrel and Pomeranz and pay all the arbitration increases. In 2020, Sandoval comes off the books and they need to replace or resign Sale, Porcello, and Bogaerts and again pay all the young talent, except maybe JBJ as that's his walk year. A lot is resting on Groome and Mata being good enough to fill two rotation spots by 2020, and it's unclear how they'll fill SS and the 3rd OF spot, which makes Chatham and Brannen the other guys we'd really like to see do well. The two win-now moves, Price and Sale, may make them a disappointment in 2020 and beyond, with neither the prospects nor the salary room to move from the 88-win sort of talent level upwards towards 100. But (as others have pointed out) the worst thing you can do is to start to shed salary now in anticipation of that. You have a loaded roster now, so you keep the pedal to the floor until the bills start coming due.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 6, 2017 17:18:45 GMT -5
Of the 1B options out there, Hosmer, Santana, Morrison, Moreland, Duda and Bour, I think Hosmer is the best player of the bunch, but will be way over priced IMO. Someone mentioned 4/64 as a comfortable deal and, yes, I'd agree, but I think he gets at least 5/90. Hosmer, at that price, should not need to be platooned, but he cannot hit lefties that well.
Santana is probably the best defender and by far the best at getting on base, but he will most likely get close to 20 mil over 3/4 years and he does not hit right handed pitching well....
Morrison's numbers are inflated by this past year... when there was a juiced ball no less. He does not have much of a platoon split and is a below average defender. Based off his 38 HRs this past year, he will most likely be slightly over paid with someone hoping he can contribute 30 plus HRs again.
Moreland is probably the 2nd best defender(maybe #1), but I'd place him as the worst hitter of this group. He draws no walks and his HR numbers are the lowest, aside from Hosmer. He will probably be the most cost effective.
Duda will probably be about as cost effective as Moreland, but is not as good defensively. He is a more powerful hitter though... he along with Santana average the most 2Bs/HRs over 162 games. He is the worst hitter of the group vs lefties, but with Hanley to platoon that can be masked.
Bour is probably a better version of Duda is all respects... Duda hits more doubles. Against RHP, Bour hits close to Hosmer, which is way better tham the rest. He is the only one to slug over .500 vs RHP over 162 game average.
IMO, depending if Miami even wants to trade Bour, and if so, what they ask for, will determine if he is the best option.
I feel like Duda, platooning with Ramirez is the most bang for the buck.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Nov 6, 2017 17:49:16 GMT -5
Of the 1B options out there, Hosmer, Santana, Morrison, Moreland, Duda and Bour, I think Hosmer is the best player of the bunch, but will be way over priced IMO. Someone mentioned 4/64 as a comfortable deal and, yes, I'd agree, but I think he gets at least 5/90. Hosmer, at that price, should not need to be platooned, but he cannot hit lefties that well. Santana is probably the best defender and by far the best at getting on base, but he will most likely get close to 20 mil over 3/4 years and he does not hit right handed pitching well.... Morrison's numbers are inflated by this past year... when there was a juiced ball no less. He does not have much of a platoon split and is a below average defender. Based off his 38 HRs this past year, he will most likely be slightly over paid with someone hoping he can contribute 30 plus HRs again. Moreland is probably the 2nd best defender(maybe #1), but I'd place him as the worst hitter of this group. He draws no walks and his HR numbers are the lowest, aside from Hosmer. He will probably be the most cost effective. Duda will probably be about as cost effective as Moreland, but is not as good defensively. He is a more powerful hitter though... he along with Santana average the most 2Bs/HRs over 162 games. He is the worst hitter of the group vs lefties, but with Hanley to platoon that can be masked. Bour is probably a better version of Duda is all respects... Duda hits more doubles. Against RHP, Bour hits close to Hosmer, which is way better tham the rest. He is the only one to slug over .500 vs RHP over 162 game average. IMO, depending if Miami even wants to trade Bour, and if so, what they ask for, will determine if he is the best option. I feel like Duda, platooning with Ramirez is the most bang for the buck. You mean Left-handed pitching, correct? In his last 2 years he has hit rh pitching well.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 6, 2017 18:40:10 GMT -5
Alonso should be on he list as well. Thinking out loud a second on Hosmer. We've heard Cora talk about a new hitting philosophy and getting more balls in the air. We know Hosmer has played in an organization that's played more of an NL brand I wonder if scouts and front offices see any tweak in there that could lead to a break out? There's a lot to like about him but i don't know about a 5 year deal. Especially since it's not a given Devers stays at 3B.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 6, 2017 19:09:44 GMT -5
Correct SoxJim, I meant LHP for Santana.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Nov 7, 2017 19:01:48 GMT -5
I thought about answering this statement Eric, and at first was going to ignore your poor choice of words. You choose to ignore my opinion. You along with the rest of us have little idea what Dave and the front office are going to do this winter. So my opinion is just as valid as yours. The sox revenues are controlled /influenced by the number of people they put into the seats, The advertisers will be willing to pay if the team is creating excitement and the fans are actively following the team. Henry and the gang run the team for a profit every year not for short term windows off set by rebuild years. The sox large revenues allow them to maintain a large salary base, with the assumption they are signing great players for the money. The sox have a very complicated problem. They do not, nor do the dodgers. have enough money to sign all the players they have coming due in the next 3 years. Sale, Drew and Kimbrel are all coming due. Betts, XB, and JBJ are all coming due. There is not enough coming off to offset those projected salaries and we are already at $200 mil. If you add a large $20 mil salary this winter that will further accent the problem. Of the 6 mentioned above lets say dave keeps 3. He will not give the other 3 away for nothing. But, which 3 does he keep. Does getting rid of Porcello now help Dave keep Drew? It might help them get the hitter they need this year . The point being, that the team is run for a profit, especially if Henry is looking at selling in the near future, and managing a $200 mil payroll is key. With all the players coming into big pay days Dave is looking at controlling the salaries long term. How he does it is anyone's guess. Saying that your post was "completely wrong" was completely wrong, and for that I apologize. I think I actually stopped reading just before your last sentence ("The power hitter needs HAS to fit into the LONG TERM salary structure"), which is in fact 100% correct, and something I examined elsewhere. The conclusion was that the committed salaries for 2020 were so low that staying under the cap was not a problem. It will require some tough decisions, yes, but it's basically just filling in a spreadsheet. The thing that I think is all wrong is the idea that they have to cut costs now ("The main idea is to lose salary.") Hanley and Porcello, for instance, are gone by the time the next salary crunch happens, so what would be the point of trading them now, even for full value, and downgrading their roster spots? The one thing they can never do is make a move that will be perceived as a pure cost-cutting measure, without a rationale that makes sense. They have $30M or a bit more to spend this winter and their only actual need is a 1B (the only other "Acquisition" on the 2018 projected roster, the Chris Young bench spot, could be upgraded at MLB minimum by Bryce Brentz, and the only reason he's not listed there is the failure to add him in September, which has been discussed endlessly). So the moves you suggested would absolutely and correctly be seen as making the team worse for the sole purpose of increasing profits. That's been catastrophic in Miami. It's always catastrophic. How would it play in a city with the highest ticket prices in baseball and a highly critical media? You'd see season ticket holders canceling, folks swearing off the team forever, and so on. John Henry would become a poster child for the single thing that many Americans are most pissed off about -- the wealthiest lining their own pockets by ripping off the middle and working class. Even the $237 limit for this year is not that big a deal. Let's say the guy they really want at the deadline will put them at $238. The extra $1M at its high tax rate plus moving down in the draft will be worth it, if that guy is the difference between losing in the DS and winning the WS, and probably even if he merely gets you an extra round. They'll plan to stay under it, but there are certainly scenarios where they go over. In 2019, Hanley's $22M comes off the books and they need to resign or replace Kimbrel and Pomeranz and pay all the arbitration increases. In 2020, Sandoval comes off the books and they need to replace or resign Sale, Porcello, and Bogaerts and again pay all the young talent, except maybe JBJ as that's his walk year. A lot is resting on Groome and Mata being good enough to fill two rotation spots by 2020, and it's unclear how they'll fill SS and the 3rd OF spot, which makes Chatham and Brannen the other guys we'd really like to see do well. The two win-now moves, Price and Sale, may make them a disappointment in 2020 and beyond, with neither the prospects nor the salary room to move from the 88-win sort of talent level upwards towards 100. But (as others have pointed out) the worst thing you can do is to start to shed salary now in anticipation of that. You have a loaded roster now, so you keep the pedal to the floor until the bills start coming due. I am not looking at increasing profits. I am looking more at managing a $200 mil payroll. You listed 5 guys who will look for big pay days and did not mention Betts. Getting rid of Hanley for something is not going to be looked at as ripoff of the fan base. I am not talking about dumping porcello's salary either. I am saying that example , the cubs are looking at trading Russell to make room for the other ss. They MAY consider trading Russell for porcello. Sox need an ss and the cubs need a starter. How much money the sox pay will be the key. It opens up money to sign Martinez. Your 5 guys plus Betts will have to have decisions made on. Dave and John are not going to let those guys walk for nothing. If Dave decides this winter that he can not sign both kimbrel and Drew he may look to trade them for something good/ great. Houston is looking for more relief pitching maybe they trade something for kimbrel. Just making up another possible example. The moves would be based on trying to maintain a quality core group to get to the WS. Dave knows he can not sign them all. It would have nothing to do with increasing profits. IF you were to get a Russell to play short then you do not need to try and sign XB. Move him and get something in return that you need . I am saying porcello and hanley are the first 2 to get into the decision process. Hanley is not a loss. Drew signing for porcello's money may be an option. Adding a JM type salary makes the puzzle of the salaries more complicated. Dave and Henry are not looking at shedding salaries they are looking at getting max value for their assets and maintaining a solid core while staying in a range for total salaries. Above all, they want to keep people in the seats. That's why they gave up a large chunk of the farm system to get a 1st place team. If they have a chance to move up the salary ladder short term to win the WS I am certain they will do it. I hope that clarifies my position a little better.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 7, 2017 19:49:14 GMT -5
Ryan24,
I really don't see how you move Ramirez without it being just a salary dump. Even if you pay 75% of his salary you still won't get anything of any real value back. The Porcello idea is interesting, but it seems like wishful thinking after the season Porcello just had. Even if you pay some salary. Not a good idea overall to move guys coming off down years and both of those guys just had down years.
I just don't agree that we should move Kimbrel and Pomeranz if we can't or won't resign them. We traded the future to win now. Trading those guys won't make you better in 2018 most likely. I really think some players will just walk away because the value to the team currently trying to win it all is too great to trade them. Overall your idea might be the right thing to do. Weaken the current team to help in the future. That's just not what DD was brought in to do though. He was brought in to create a championship team. I would bet a couple of those are traded, but it won't be either we sign you or we trade you. Right now they sure seem to be win a title and we will figure the rest out down the line. If you believe our Owner wants to sell in the near future, nothing will increase the value like another title. A teams value is based off revenue among other things. Nothing increases revenue like winning a title. If you really believe the owner wants to sell then the going all in and worry about the future later makes a ton of sense. How good your farm system is has almost nothing to do with a teams current value.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 14, 2017 11:00:57 GMT -5
It's a seller's market for 1B. I count seven teams in need and five good free agent candidates.
Kansas City and Cleveland reportedly want to re-sign Hosmer and Santana badly.That's very likely for Cleveland, less so for KC.
I think the Mariners are likely to re-sign Alonso, whom they traded for when he had apparently turned back into a pumpkin, and who broke out of his slump within a couple of days of arriving there. He went on to put up better numbers with them than overall. It sure seems as if they knew something about his swing, and they're going to be more confident than anyone else that his breakout is for real.
This leaves Logan Morrison and Mitch Moreland as the only remaining good candidates. And the Red Sox and Rays have nobody. The Rangers have only rookie Ronald Guzman, who's a Travis-level prospect, and the Angels have C.J. Cron, who has established himself as a subpar guy.
The Rays are obviously not players for either Morrison or Moreland. They could re-sign Lucas Duda and hope he bounces back to his 2015 form, or trade for Indians prospect Bobby Bradley, or be creative in some other way.
If the Sox sign J.D. Martinez (and let's assume they do), and can't trade for Justin Bour (and I think the odds are against it), then who do you like better, Moreland or Morrison? I count 7 HRs that Morrison hit last year that are not HRs in Fenway, so he's losing 3 or 4 if he comes here. He's a pull hitter and a general bad fit for the park. He's a weaker defender than Moreland, and will lose more value if they unjuice the ball at all. And, oh yeah, he almost certainly pushes the tax figure past $237M.
The smart thing to do is to jump on Moreland as soon as you sign JDM. I wouldn't even wait on a Bour trade unless early talks showed the Marlins very interested in using him to dump most of Tazawa's salary (which could happen if they decide to eat some Stanton salary to get a better prospect return). He has hugely more value to the Sox than anyone else, because of his fit for the park. Leave the Rangers and Angels to fight over Morrison or to try to outbid the Royals for Hosmer.
---
Now, if they do sign Moreland, I want him to hit 3rd all year vs. RHP, even though he might be a weaker hitter vs. RHP than Benintendi or Devers. Here are his (weighted) career splits by base/out situation type:
.257 / .322 / .457 Challenge situations (1B occupied with less than 2 outs, except for 1 out and men on 1st and second) .257 / .319 / .451 Neutral situations .211 / .265 / .340 Pitch-around situations (RISP and 1B open)
The EqAs are .276, .273, .222. He's been awful his whole career with RISP and 1B open (and note that if you ran these figures just against RHP, the splits are probably bigger, because LHP will never pitch around him). Those are high-leverage situations, and if the next guy up is Pedroia, Bogaerts,or Vazquez, they will pitch around him and he'll give you very little. But if the next guy up is J.D. Martinez? They'll come after him with glee.
He had just 90 pitch-around PA last year, but the protection would have added 5 runs to his value. It's still 4 runs in a full platoon, and it might be 5 if you ran the numbers by handedness. That's more value than you'd lose by swapping him with a guy you think is better overall.
Meanwhile, in their baby samples (106 and 40 PA respectively), Benintendi and Devers have adored pitch-around situations (Benny is .281, .277, .320 and Devers is .283, .276, .338). They may gain value if you keep them 5th and 7th.
Finally, if all goes according to plan, this will be my last post for a good long while, except for quick responses to roster moves (see the explanation to the left!). Thank you all for engaging and thought-provoking discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2017 15:32:42 GMT -5
Now, if they do sign Moreland, I want him to hit 3rd all year vs. RHP, even though he might be a weaker hitter vs. RHP than Benintendi or Devers. Here are his (weighted) career splits by base/out situation type: .257 / .322 / .457 Challenge situations (1B occupied with less than 2 outs, except for 1 out and men on 1st and second) .257 / .319 / .451 Neutral situations .211 / .265 / .340 Pitch-around situations (RISP and 1B open) The EqAs are .276, .273, .222. He's been awful his whole career with RISP and 1B open (and note that if you ran these figures just against RHP, the splits are probably bigger, because LHP will never pitch around him). Those are high-leverage situations, and if the next guy up is Pedroia, Bogaerts,or Vazquez, they will pitch around him and he'll give you very little. But if the next guy up is J.D. Martinez? They'll come after him with glee. He had just 90 pitch-around PA last year, but the protection would have added 5 runs to his value. It's still 4 runs in a full platoon, and it might be 5 if you ran the numbers by handedness. That's more value than you'd lose by swapping him with a guy you think is better overall. Meanwhile, in their baby samples (106 and 40 PA respectively), Benintendi and Devers have adored pitch-around situations (Benny is .281, .277, .320 and Devers is .283, .276, .338). They may gain value if you keep them 5th and 7th. Finally, if all goes according to plan, this will be my last post for a good long while, except for quick responses to roster moves (see the explanation to the left!). Thank you all for engaging and thought-provoking discussion. I'm so excited to see Cora and his willingness to listen to stats like these. For instance, I remember someone saying something about the statistical reason they had Marwin Gonzalez batting 7th where he had the most RBIs on the team.
|
|
|
1B in 2018
Nov 14, 2017 20:05:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jdb on Nov 14, 2017 20:05:41 GMT -5
So with the new CBA we would only give up a draft pick and the international pool if we sign a QO guy for over $50 million right? Could we just give Santana a 2 yr deal at a higher AAV? How would they treat a player option that would take it over $50?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Nov 15, 2017 0:38:13 GMT -5
It's a seller's market for 1B. I count seven teams in need and five good free agent candidates. Kansas City and Cleveland reportedly want to re-sign Hosmer and Santana badly.That's very likely for Cleveland, less so for KC. I think the Mariners are likely to re-sign Alonso, whom they traded for when he had apparently turned back into a pumpkin, and who broke out of his slump within a couple of days of arriving there. He went on to put up better numbers with them than overall. It sure seems as if they knew something about his swing, and they're going to be more confident than anyone else that his breakout is for real. This leaves Logan Morrison and Mitch Moreland as the only remaining good candidates. And the Red Sox and Rays have nobody. The Rangers have only rookie Ronald Guzman, who's a Travis-level prospect, and the Angels have C.J. Cron, who has established himself as a subpar guy. The Rays are obviously not players for either Morrison or Moreland. They could re-sign Lucas Duda and hope he bounces back to his 2015 form, or trade for Indians prospect Bobby Bradley, or be creative in some other way. If the Sox sign J.D. Martinez (and let's assume they do), and can't trade for Justin Bour (and I think the odds are against it), then who do you like better, Moreland or Morrison? I count 7 HRs that Morrison hit last year that are not HRs in Fenway, so he's losing 3 or 4 if he comes here. He's a pull hitter and a general bad fit for the park. He's a weaker defender than Moreland, and will lose more value if they unjuice the ball at all. And, oh yeah, he almost certainly pushes the tax figure past $237M. The smart thing to do is to jump on Moreland as soon as you sign JDM. I wouldn't even wait on a Bour trade unless early talks showed the Marlins very interested in using him to dump most of Tazawa's salary (which could happen if they decide to eat some Stanton salary to get a better prospect return). He has hugely more value to the Sox than anyone else, because of his fit for the park. Leave the Rangers and Angels to fight over Morrison or to try to outbid the Royals for Hosmer. --- Now, if they do sign Moreland, I want him to hit 3rd all year vs. RHP, even though he might be a weaker hitter vs. RHP than Benintendi or Devers. Here are his (weighted) career splits by base/out situation type: .257 / .322 / .457 Challenge situations (1B occupied with less than 2 outs, except for 1 out and men on 1st and second) .257 / .319 / .451 Neutral situations .211 / .265 / .340 Pitch-around situations (RISP and 1B open) The EqAs are .276, .273, .222. He's been awful his whole career with RISP and 1B open (and note that if you ran these figures just against RHP, the splits are probably bigger, because LHP will never pitch around him). Those are high-leverage situations, and if the next guy up is Pedroia, Bogaerts,or Vazquez, they will pitch around him and he'll give you very little. But if the next guy up is J.D. Martinez? They'll come after him with glee. He had just 90 pitch-around PA last year, but the protection would have added 5 runs to his value. It's still 4 runs in a full platoon, and it might be 5 if you ran the numbers by handedness. That's more value than you'd lose by swapping him with a guy you think is better overall. Meanwhile, in their baby samples (106 and 40 PA respectively), Benintendi and Devers have adored pitch-around situations (Benny is .281, .277, .320 and Devers is .283, .276, .338). They may gain value if you keep them 5th and 7th. Finally, if all goes according to plan, this will be my last post for a good long while, except for quick responses to roster moves (see the explanation to the left!). Thank you all for engaging and thought-provoking discussion. No thanks to Moreland. The Sox need two bats. For team about to invest over $230m you have way too much risk of literal pumkins the bottom four of the order. Moreland was a WAA of zero. A WAR of .9. He has too much risk of being a pumkin at the plate. To bat him 3rd is even more digging yourself in a hole. The Sox need a 2nd bat. I prefer Neil Walker. WAR is over 2 the past two years. If you can't get Bour have Walker. If you can't afford JDM and Walker then Get Santana and Walker and a lefty reliever over JDM and Moreland. Moreland isn't that good. There is no point looking for mediocrity in the batting order then imo compounding it by batting him 3rd. Sox need two good bats. Moreland is mediocre at best. He didn't look bad because we had so many hitters that were not good.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 15, 2017 3:26:46 GMT -5
So with the new CBA we would only give up a draft pick and the international pool if we sign a QO guy for over $50 million right? Could we just give Santana a 2 yr deal at a higher AAV? How would they treat a player option that would take it over $50? I think it's only based off guaranteed money. Options aren't included, I would think. That's a good question though. I'm sure buyouts are a part of the 50 million dollar equation also because that is guaranteed money.
|
|
|