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 philsbosoxfan on Dec 10, 2018 23:29:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2018 0:03:03 GMT -5
Also said in the midst of the reliever discussion (apparently, my assumption based on tweet timing): Alex Speier @alexspeier Dombrowski: Sox open to trading any of their 3 catchers. ‘It’s hard to carry all 3 on the big league club, but we’re also not just going to give them away.’ . . . One avenue might be to trade one of the three catchers for a cost controlled reliever. I really hope they move Vazquez over Swihart. Idk if that’ll happen, or if Swihart still has some cache with his pedigree that might make him a good trade candidate over Vazquez, but I’m pretty convinced Swihart can be an average-or-better regular defensive C, and i think his offensive upside is still FAR greater. He’d also be cheaper (not much, but it does matter), and have similar control time, as well as being a year and a half younger. Swihart has 1.6 fWAR vs 1.3 fWAR for Vazquez, despite playing 60% as much (essentially 600 PA vs 1000), which would also suggest via the Ted Williams hypothesis that we pretty much know what Vazquez is as a hitter, but that Swihart (and all of the injury time probably magnified this) has plenty of development left as a hitter. With Leon on board, the Sox have a terrific game-caller and defensive specialist. Add tutor to those duties. I’d much prefer Swihart’s upside over Vazquez’s more-defines mediocrity. They went to the WS with awful catching last year, I can’t imagine the downside risk to Swihart catching the bulk of games could really be much worse, and there’s a real (good, maybe even significantly so) chance he’s markedly better. If 3/10 or whatever Vazquez has left is a starter for a trade for a cost-controlled young 7th inning pitcher, I’m all for it.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,946
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2018 1:59:15 GMT -5
It's worth pointing out that he didn't merge his curve and slider into a slurve. He just started throwing the curveball 2-3 mph faster.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 11, 2018 3:42:13 GMT -5
It's worth pointing out that he didn't merge his curve and slider into a slurve. He just started throwing the curveball 2-3 mph faster. That's not what he said: But Kelly has been allowed to tell his story in person, a tale which included making some significant changes just before the conclusion of the regular season. In somewhat of a twist, the general managers are getting the explanation directly from the player.
There was the different way he came set on the mound, helping avoid tipping his pitches. The recognition that his top-half was overcompensating, with a lead foot coming down on the mound a completely different place. And, of course, the morphing of his curveball and slider into one pitch, a slurve. ("I thought I couldn't throw that pitch because it looks loopy," he explained.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,946
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2018 4:14:45 GMT -5
It's worth pointing out that he didn't merge his curve and slider into a slurve. He just started throwing the curveball 2-3 mph faster. That's not what he said: But Kelly has been allowed to tell his story in person, a tale which included making some significant changes just before the conclusion of the regular season. In somewhat of a twist, the general managers are getting the explanation directly from the player.
There was the different way he came set on the mound, helping avoid tipping his pitches. The recognition that his top-half was overcompensating, with a lead foot coming down on the mound a completely different place. And, of course, the morphing of his curveball and slider into one pitch, a slurve. ("I thought I couldn't throw that pitch because it looks loopy," he explained.)I know that. But the data isn't the slightest bit ambiguous. The new pitch has the exact same break as his old curve. Maybe he combined the curveball grip and release with the slider arm speed (and maybe release point, too), but that doesn't make it a slurve. It just makes it a harder curveball.
And as the merging of the pitches had been reported by others, it's possible that Bradford asked him about it and Kelly didn't feel a need to explain that it wasn't quite that way. If he's throwing it when he used to throw his slider, then the "it looks loopy" comment makes sense, because it's at the speed of his slider but with much more of an obvious break.
I think that's it. He junked his old slower curve, which had been an ineffective pitch, and started throwing his "slider" with his curveball grip, but really hard like a slider, and in the situations where he would throw a slider. That is a merging of the pitches ... and yet it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2018 8:49:55 GMT -5
What I read between the lines is that Bannister should be getting a nice Christmas gift from Kelly..
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2018 10:47:22 GMT -5
What I read between the lines is that Bannister should be getting a nice Christmas gift from Kelly.. Maybe a staircase?
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 11, 2018 10:50:54 GMT -5
What I read between the lines is that Bannister should be getting a nice Christmas gift from Kelly.. Maybe a staircase?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 11, 2018 13:30:58 GMT -5
I really hope they move Vazquez over Swihart. Idk if that’ll happen, or if Swihart still has some cache with his pedigree that might make him a good trade candidate over Vazquez, but I’m pretty convinced Swihart can be an average-or-better regular defensive C, and i think his offensive upside is still FAR greater. He’d also be cheaper (not much, but it does matter), and have similar control time, as well as being a year and a half younger. Swihart has 1.6 fWAR vs 1.3 fWAR for Vazquez, despite playing 60% as much (essentially 600 PA vs 1000), which would also suggest via the Ted Williams hypothesis that we pretty much know what Vazquez is as a hitter, but that Swihart (and all of the injury time probably magnified this) has plenty of development left as a hitter. With Leon on board, the Sox have a terrific game-caller and defensive specialist. Add tutor to those duties. I’d much prefer Swihart’s upside over Vazquez’s more-defines mediocrity. They went to the WS with awful catching last year, I can’t imagine the downside risk to Swihart catching the bulk of games could really be much worse, and there’s a real (good, maybe even significantly so) chance he’s markedly better. If 3/10 or whatever Vazquez has left is a starter for a trade for a cost-controlled young 7th inning pitcher, I’m all for it. I don't think the MLB playing time is a fair comparison of their remaining upside. In 2017 Swihart struggled mightily in just over 200 PA's in AAA coming off his injury, yet those numbers aren't a part of this discussion because he didn't earn an extended MLB opportunity. Coming off his major injury Vazquez was productive in AAA, so he earned the chance to struggle mightily over nearly 200 PA's in the MLB. In this case we're either rewarding Swihart for being so bad in AAA that he couldn't earn a promotion, or punishing Vazquez for being good enough in AAA to earn MLB playing time. If we gave Vazquez a break on that year while including Swihart's 2017 AAA sample the equation would flip in the opposite direction. Both players have shown flashes of being a league average-ish hitter, but both players best stretches (Swihart's 2015 and Vazquez's 2017) were equally aided by unsustainable BABIP luck. Steamer has them as similar hitters for 2019 with Vazquez having a slightly better line, and for some reason it looks like ZIPS skipped Swihart (EDIT: they added Swihart and he's well behind Vazquez, and for insult behind Leon as well). I can't imagine a team in clear win now mode would enter 2019 with just Swihart and Leon at the position, especially with no viable MLB-ready catching depth on the farm. Personally I'd move Leon and try to make Swihart the regular backup, and if he earns more opportunities they can ride the hot hand. If I had to bet on who the club would deal it'd be Swihart, they just didn't give him enough of an opportunity last year to all of a sudden give him such a huge role for 2019 (unless they acquired a legit starting catcher rather than only Leon ahead of him). Last we saw this team they barely used Swihart while they basically treated Vazquez like a regular catcher, and I don't think an offseason program is going to change that. I'd like to make it clear I'm rooting for Swihart, but his tools (or at least his pre-injury tools) can't be confused with his performance/production, and it's been a while since he produced at any level like a solid average hitter or better. If he was the clearly better present hitter I think they'd consider waiting on him to develop, but he's not a lock to hit better than Vazquez next year and he's clearly inferior defensively at this point. 2019 isn't the year to let a guy grow behind the plate, and this isn't the pitching staff that will tolerate growing pains.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2018 14:09:39 GMT -5
I really hope they move Vazquez over Swihart. Idk if that’ll happen, or if Swihart still has some cache with his pedigree that might make him a good trade candidate over Vazquez, but I’m pretty convinced Swihart can be an average-or-better regular defensive C, and i think his offensive upside is still FAR greater. He’d also be cheaper (not much, but it does matter), and have similar control time, as well as being a year and a half younger. Swihart has 1.6 fWAR vs 1.3 fWAR for Vazquez, despite playing 60% as much (essentially 600 PA vs 1000), which would also suggest via the Ted Williams hypothesis that we pretty much know what Vazquez is as a hitter, but that Swihart (and all of the injury time probably magnified this) has plenty of development left as a hitter. With Leon on board, the Sox have a terrific game-caller and defensive specialist. Add tutor to those duties. I’d much prefer Swihart’s upside over Vazquez’s more-defines mediocrity. They went to the WS with awful catching last year, I can’t imagine the downside risk to Swihart catching the bulk of games could really be much worse, and there’s a real (good, maybe even significantly so) chance he’s markedly better. If 3/10 or whatever Vazquez has left is a starter for a trade for a cost-controlled young 7th inning pitcher, I’m all for it. I don't think the MLB playing time is a fair comparison of their remaining upside. In 2017 Swihart struggled mightily in just over 200 PA's in AAA coming off his injury, yet those numbers aren't a part of this discussion because he didn't earn an extended MLB opportunity. Coming off his major injury Vazquez was productive in AAA, so he earned the chance to struggle mightily over nearly 200 PA's in the MLB. In this case we're either rewarding Swihart for being so bad in AAA that he couldn't earn a promotion, or punishing Vazquez for being good enough in AAA to earn MLB playing time. If we gave Vazquez a break on that year while including Swihart's 2017 AAA sample the equation would flip in the opposite direction. Both players have shown flashes of being a league average-ish hitter, but both players best stretches (Swihart's 2015 and Vazquez's 2017) were equally aided by unsustainable BABIP luck. Steamer has them as similar hitters for 2019 with Vazquez having a slightly better line, and for some reason it looks like ZIPS skipped Swihart (EDIT: they added Swihart and he's well behind Vazquez, and for insult behind Leon as well). I can't imagine a team in clear win now mode would enter 2019 with just Swihart and Leon at the position, especially with no viable MLB-ready catching depth on the farm. Personally I'd move Leon and try to make Swihart the regular backup, and if he earns more opportunities they can ride the hot hand. If I had to bet on who the club would deal it'd be Swihart, they just didn't give him enough of an opportunity last year to all of a sudden give him such a huge role for 2019 (unless they acquired a legit starting catcher rather than only Leon ahead of him). Last we saw this team they barely used Swihart while they basically treated Vazquez like a regular catcher, and I don't think an offseason program is going to change that. I'd like to make it clear I'm rooting for Swihart, but his tools (or at least his pre-injury tools) can't be confused with his performance/production, and it's been a while since he produced at any level like a solid average hitter or better. If he was the clearly better present hitter I think they'd consider waiting on him to develop, but he's not a lock to hit better than Vazquez next year and he's clearly inferior defensively at this point. 2019 isn't the year to let a guy grow behind the plate, and this isn't the pitching staff that will tolerate growing pains. I agree 100% move Leon. About 2017 and Swihart, he had ankle surgery end of 2016, hurt the ankle again in 2017 and it bothered him all year. He couldn't even catch full-time because of it. So using those numbers when he was hurt and Vazquez was 100% healthy makes no sense. He didn't just suck for no reason he wasn't close to 100%. www.bostonherald.com/2017/08/10/still-hurting-blake-swihart-no-longer-a-full-time-catcher/
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Dec 11, 2018 14:41:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 11, 2018 15:42:32 GMT -5
Well, apparently Sox are trying to make trades to open salary for bullpen help and they are willing to listen on Xander, Bradley and Porcello per Bob nightengale
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,930
|
Post by nomar on Dec 11, 2018 15:50:45 GMT -5
Well, apparently Sox are trying to make trades to open salary for bullpen help and they are willing to listen on Xander, Bradley and Porcello per Bob nightengale Whenever you can give up a 5 WAR shortstop for salary relief to sign relievers, you have to take that opportunity. Nightengale’s report checks out.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,946
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2018 16:14:02 GMT -5
The big picture.
They're in a unique position in that they can spend like they invented money this year and already expect to be extraordinarily good, while the desire to get under the cap in 2020 as key guys hit free agency means that that want to avoid long-term commitments, and yet they're more likely to be on the cusp of finishing first.
With the current roster, Heath Hembree is the 3rd best guy in the pen. I'm 100% comfortable with him as the 5th guy, but he's a stretch as the 4th guy, and no way can he be your #3.
So they do need to sign at least one guy who can regularly pitch in the 7th and later. The first question is whether they should pursue a first-tier guy like Robertson or a second-tier guy like Kelly. And it's hard for me to see why it wouldn't be one of those two guys; Robertson's one of the best first-tier guys, Kelly's one of the best second-tier guys, and both have reasons they want to play here. Interest in Ottavino seems clearly a backup to Robertson, and it seems clear that they're willing to spend for one of them unless the bidding for both gets out of hand..
So here are your strategies.
1) Sign Robertson / Ottavino (with Kelly as the fallback if both are too pricey) to a long-term deal, and someone else potentially really good, like Andrew Miller, to a 1-year deal. This is the best strategy but it's hugely unclear that it's viable.
Note that Joe Kelly would be a candidate for a 1-year deal; if he pitches like he did in October all year long, he'll make lots more money a year from now, and I bet that he's confident that he can do just that. However, it does have to be an overpay.
2) Sign Robertson / Ottavino / Kelly and call it quits. Hembree would be seeing a lot of action in the 7th and later, as the 4th best guy in the pan, so you want to find a better internal option. Thornburg and Brewer would be the immediate options, Lakins would be in the mix by mid-season, Feltman probably a bit later, and Hernandez in September. They might well go this route if their spreadsheet tells them that two long-terms contracts makes no sense and they can't swing a one-year deal with anyone.
3) Sign Robertson or Ottavino and Kelly. This is what they do if their spreadsheet gives the opposite result: that they can afford a multi-year deal for both and not screw up the 2020 team further by adding Kelly's salary.
Let's do some Joe Kelly math. The odds are what he thinks might happen after pitching in 2019.
He makes himself as valuable as Robertson and Ottavino, and can sign a 3 year deal at $13M. 25% chance.
He nearly keeps his present value (call it 3 years at $7.5M). 50%.
He backslides to 2/6$, with $4M in his 3rd year. 20%.
Career-ending struggles. 5%.
His expected 3-year earnings after taking a 1-year deal are (39 * .25 + 22.5 * .5 + 16 * .2) = $24.2M. Essentially what his best offer is expected to be. IOW, the chance that he'll prove he's as good as he seemed to be in October offsets, even in a conservative scenario, the chance that he declines.
With that math, all you have to do is top whatever his AAV is, and it makes sense for him both psychologically and financially.
I think that's doable and would make all parties happy, especially if we add some options.
Edit: Josh Donaldson was projected at 3 years at $18 - 19.5M AAV and signed for 1/$23M. A comparable deal for Kelly would be about 1/ $9.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2018 16:40:07 GMT -5
Well, apparently Sox are trying to make trades to open salary for bullpen help and they are willing to listen on Xander, Bradley and Porcello per Bob nightengale Whenever you can give up a 5 WAR shortstop for salary relief to sign relievers, you have to take that opportunity. Nightengale’s report checks out. Yeah that's just really hard to believe. Definitely want to create gigantic holes in the roster just to sign more relief pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2018 16:41:58 GMT -5
I'm all for wishful thinking, but if the options are one year 9 million and 3 years like 25 million it seems rather easy what you pick. It's not the one year deal. If Kelly takes one year 9 million he needs a new agent.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,946
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2018 16:54:46 GMT -5
I'm all for wishful thinking, but if the options are one year 9 million and 3 years like 25 million it seems rather easy what you pick. It's not the one year deal. If Kelly takes one year 9 million he needs a new agent. Josh Donaldson, who just opted for $23M instead of $58M projected*, says hi.
$9.5M instead of $24M would be the exact same ratio.
It's not like after the one year, they force you to retire.
* $58M is the mean FG crowdsource. Andrew McCutchen just signed for $50M versus $43.2M. But if Donaldson go offers that were inflated as much, it just meant that he took less of a bonus to sign for just 1 year.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2018 16:58:53 GMT -5
Well, apparently Sox are trying to make trades to open salary for bullpen help and they are willing to listen on Xander, Bradley and Porcello per Bob nightengale Whenever you can give up a 5 WAR shortstop for salary relief to sign relievers, you have to take that opportunity. Nightengale’s report checks out. I saw no mention for Xander or Bradley, but Porcello's name seems to be more floated around.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2018 17:07:11 GMT -5
Imagine how much easier this would be if they took the money they used to sign Eovaldi and spent it on 2 relief pitchers instead. Then they wouldn't need to trade anyone. This is the dumbest rumor I've ever heard and I don't believe that any of the 3 will be traded for a second.
They didn't start out the offseason with a plan of signing Eovaldi and Pearce and then all of a sudden realize that they spent too much money and have to dump players to sign relief pitchers. Are they all of a sudden going to realize that they need a SS and CF after they traded Xander and JBJ also?
Take DDO's executive of the year award away if that was what happened.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,930
|
Post by nomar on Dec 11, 2018 17:08:19 GMT -5
Whenever you can give up a 5 WAR shortstop for salary relief to sign relievers, you have to take that opportunity. Nightengale’s report checks out. I saw no mention for Xander or Bradley, but Porcello's name seems to be more floated around. Not a fan of getting rid of the best innings eater we have unless the return was a very good prospect, which I doubt will be the case.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2018 17:11:04 GMT -5
I'm all for wishful thinking, but if the options are one year 9 million and 3 years like 25 million it seems rather easy what you pick. It's not the one year deal. If Kelly takes one year 9 million he needs a new agent. Josh Donaldson, who just opted for $23M instead of $58M projected*, says hi.
$9.5M instead of $24M would be the exact same ratio.
It's not like after the one year, they force you to retire.
* $58M is the mean FG crowdsource. Andrew McCutchen just signed for $50M versus $43.2M. But if Donaldson go offers that were inflated as much, it just meant that he took less of a bonus to sign for just 1 year.
For me couple of major difference Donaldson's value is at like an all-time low. Kelly's value might be at an all-time high after the postseason. All Donaldson needs to do is stay healthy and be the player he has always been. Bam he'll get a huge offer. Rather safe bet, betting on himself. Kelly would need to become a new pitcher that isn't a safe bet. The chances he can impressive people more than he did in the postseason are very low. He's never been able to do that over a full season. Guys take pillow contracts and bet on themselves all the time when their value is low, they almost never do it when its high. Nevermind Donaldson has made 60 million in his career he can afford to gamble as with this deal his career earnings are over 80 million. Joe Kelly has made a little over 10 million, this contract is about setting him up for life.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2018 17:24:19 GMT -5
I saw no mention for Xander or Bradley, but Porcello's name seems to be more floated around. Not a fan of getting rid of the best innings eater we have unless the return was a very good prospect, which I doubt will be the case. You have depth in Johnson, Velazquez, Shawaryn, and maybe Wright later in the year to cover these innings. If you're going to sell a player on this team and you need to to clear some space, then Porcello is the guy that makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2018 17:27:55 GMT -5
Not a fan of getting rid of the best innings eater we have unless the return was a very good prospect, which I doubt will be the case. You have depth in Johnson, Velazquez, Shawaryn, and maybe Wright later in the year to cover these innings. If you're going to sell a player on this team and you need to to clear some space, then Porcello is the guy that makes the most sense. If I were going to build a team in the offseason, I wouldn't sign a starting pitcher for $17 million a year and then suddenly realize that I need to dump salary by dumping a starting pitcher with the other teams all realizing that I need to dump salary so I'd get almost nothing back for him.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2018 17:31:41 GMT -5
You have depth in Johnson, Velazquez, Shawaryn, and maybe Wright later in the year to cover these innings. If you're going to sell a player on this team and you need to to clear some space, then Porcello is the guy that makes the most sense. If I were going to build a team in the offseason, I wouldn't sign a starting pitcher for $17 million a year and then suddenly realize that I need to dump salary by dumping a starting pitcher with the other teams all realizing that they need to dump salary so they'll get almost nothing back for him. Maybe they get something back for him?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2018 17:33:29 GMT -5
If I were going to build a team in the offseason, I wouldn't sign a starting pitcher for $17 million a year and then suddenly realize that I need to dump salary by dumping a starting pitcher with the other teams all realizing that they need to dump salary so they'll get almost nothing back for him. Maybe they get something back for him? They would be really dumb to put themselves in that position which is why I don't believe any of it. A trade will only be made if they're blown away with an offer. They are not in a position where they have to reduce salary because they knew damn well what the plan was from the beginning. It would have made way more sense to not sign Eovaldi and instead spend that salary on relief pitchers.
|
|
|