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.
How far away are the Red Sox from contending?
|
Post by scottysmalls on Nov 20, 2022 12:34:16 GMT -5
If all the team does at this point is resign Xander and add some middling talent with the money available they could compete next year. We know this because that team did compete all the way back in.. 2021.
It’s not a guarantee that they will, but my broader point is if they spend the $80m we expect them to the team will certainly be capable of competing. They will not be favorites and things will break as the Fates will it, but they will have the capability.
|
|
|
Post by wOBA Fett on Nov 20, 2022 17:20:53 GMT -5
If all the team does at this point is resign Xander and add some middling talent with the money available they could compete next year. We know this because that team did compete all the way back in.. 2021. It’s not a guarantee that they will, but my broader point is if they spend the $80m we expect them to the team will certainly be capable of competing. They will not be favorites and things will break as the Fates will it, but they will have the capability. Is having a hapless playoff contender worth it when this is your realistic best case scenario?
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 20, 2022 17:27:49 GMT -5
If all the team does at this point is resign Xander and add some middling talent with the money available they could compete next year. We know this because that team did compete all the way back in.. 2021. It’s not a guarantee that they will, but my broader point is if they spend the $80m we expect them to the team will certainly be capable of competing. They will not be favorites and things will break as the Fates will it, but they will have the capability. Is having a hapless playoff contender worth it when this is your realistic best case scenario? Yes. Your goal Every year has to be to make the playoffs. In a league where 12 teams make the playoffs. And about 12 teams are uncometative . Now I’m not saying push in all The chips. You don’t do that until your set up. But for a big market $220M$ payrole team to not be competitive is not an option
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Nov 21, 2022 16:32:16 GMT -5
If all the team does at this point is resign Xander and add some middling talent with the money available they could compete next year. We know this because that team did compete all the way back in.. 2021. It’s not a guarantee that they will, but my broader point is if they spend the $80m we expect them to the team will certainly be capable of competing. They will not be favorites and things will break as the Fates will it, but they will have the capability. Is having a hapless playoff contender worth it when this is your realistic best case scenario? What would make them hapless? The 2021 team was one or two breaks away from making and possibly winning the World Series, they need to do very little to have essentially that exact same team in place. If they spend all the money they will be in an even stronger place.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Nov 23, 2022 13:25:36 GMT -5
Not sure where to put this but Dan Szymborski published how ZiPS is projecting the standings right now before any moves have been made. I would imagine this does not include the Rodriguez signing that was just announced: blogs.fangraphs.com/the-absurdly-preliminary-2023-zips-projected-standings/Not at all surprised about this. This division is up for grabs. Interesting tidbit: "Not having Xander Bogaerts hurts the Red Sox quite a bit, but ZiPS already liked Boston better than their 2022 record and a few of the guys on the edge of the roster (Ceddanne Rafaela, Enmanuel Valdez) have fairly solid projections."
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 23, 2022 13:33:17 GMT -5
82 wins before free agency is quite bullish
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,687
|
Post by gerry on Nov 23, 2022 14:56:03 GMT -5
Bullish but not BS at all. In â22 they obviously missed the offense of not only Schwarber and Renfroe but also JDM, Storey and Kiké. Awful For â23 an IF of Casas, a healthy Storey, Devers, Bogaerts and itâs automatically better team than â21, among the best in MLB; and has at minimum Arroyo, Hosmer and some solid depth in the wings Instead of a â22 churning through outfielders, just add a solid RF bat to Verdugo, a healthy Kiké and Refsnyder and itâs automatically a better team. Haniger, Nimmo, It doesnt really matter as long as they replace Renfroeâs bat. In â22 the Rotation had 4 starters on the IL at the same time and relied on prospects to fill the void. An anomaly even for an injury prone staff. We can spend the off-season carping about a repeat of those injuries or we can anticipate, or even expect, that a recovered Sale, Paxton, Eovaldi, Whitlock will contribute several hundred above average innings; a good start. Add a solid SP like Senga or whomever with Bello, Pivetta and easily a half dozen more from Crawford and Winck to Murphy and Mata, hopefully Hill, and thatâs a well above average rotation with real depth, even assuming fairly normal injury issues. A pen that starts with Houck, Schreiber, Kelly, Barnes, Hill has a solid foundation. There are literally a dozen good ways to build it out and am looking forward to how itâs done. I remain mildly bullish and optimistic about this â23 Sox team, especially considering the $$ available and FO sense or urgency.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Nov 23, 2022 14:58:43 GMT -5
I believe they can contend this season. I anticipating a big year from our prospects. I like our minor league coaches. I wish BB would get some more for his team.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 23, 2022 15:05:12 GMT -5
82 wins before free agency is quite bullish If we're going to go that route, based on the other projections that "bullish" call still has the Sox finishing out of the playoffs again.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Nov 23, 2022 16:01:45 GMT -5
82 wins before free agency is quite bullish If we're going to go that route, based on the other projections that "bullish" call still has the Sox finishing out of the playoffs again. Right but that's with the current roster under contract. Do you think it's unreasonable to think they can "buy" another 10+ wins in FA with their money? On the flipside theoretically if they didnt add anyone else 82 wins with this roster as is does seem rather bullish to me tho. I think it'd be closer to 72 wins than 82 as is so I guess I'm not sure what my overall point is.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 23, 2022 17:14:51 GMT -5
If we're going to go that route, based on the other projections that "bullish" call still has the Sox finishing out of the playoffs again. Right but that's with the current roster under contract. Do you think it's unreasonable to think they can "buy" another 10+ wins in FA with their money? On the flipside theoretically if they didnt add anyone else 82 wins with this roster as is does seem rather bullish to me tho. I think it'd be closer to 72 wins than 82 as is so I guess I'm not sure what my overall point is. It's 82 wins in a world where no free agents have signed. E.g., the Yankees are without Judge and haven't signed a replacement for him; the Dodgers are Turnerless and without replacements; Verlander and DeGrom are out of the league; etc. The Red Sox' competition would be weaker.
So the question is: will the Red Sox add more than the average team through free agency? If so then they should improve on that 82 win projection. (And the answer is pretty obviously yes, given that very few times are in line to add another $80 million to the payroll.)
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 23, 2022 18:26:58 GMT -5
Right but that's with the current roster under contract. Do you think it's unreasonable to think they can "buy" another 10+ wins in FA with their money? On the flipside theoretically if they didnt add anyone else 82 wins with this roster as is does seem rather bullish to me tho. I think it'd be closer to 72 wins than 82 as is so I guess I'm not sure what my overall point is. It's 82 wins in a world where no free agents have signed. E.g., the Yankees are without Judge and haven't signed a replacement for him; the Dodgers are Turnerless and without replacements; Verlander and DeGrom are out of the league; etc. The Red Sox' competition would be weaker.
So the question is: will the Red Sox add more than the average team through free agency? If so then they should improve on that 82 win projection. (And the answer is pretty obviously yes, given that very few times are in line to add another $80 million to the payroll.)
But if you subtract FAs, how many teams have more holes? The Sox are down 3 starters (Wacha, Evo, Hill), a DH, and a SS. And they already had a hole in RF. So much of that money is earmarked to getting back to what they had. I mean, say they resign Evo and X… that is half the money there, at least. I keep hearing this $80 mill tossed around like a panacea, but it seems deceptive. How much do they have that puts them *over* what they were last year? (Is it $74 million after Paxton and Joely? No less that $40 for Evo/X? So then $34? Is that the difference maker?).
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Nov 23, 2022 18:39:05 GMT -5
It's 82 wins in a world where no free agents have signed. E.g., the Yankees are without Judge and haven't signed a replacement for him; the Dodgers are Turnerless and without replacements; Verlander and DeGrom are out of the league; etc. The Red Sox' competition would be weaker.
So the question is: will the Red Sox add more than the average team through free agency? If so then they should improve on that 82 win projection. (And the answer is pretty obviously yes, given that very few times are in line to add another $80 million to the payroll.)
But if you subtract FAs, how many teams have more holes? The Sox are down 3 starters (Wacha, Evo, Hill), a DH, and a SS. And they already had a hole in RF. So much of that money is earmarked to getting back to what they had. I mean, say they resign Evo and X… that is half the money there, at least. I keep hearing this $80 mill tossed around like a panacea, but it seems deceptive. How much do they have that puts them *over* what they were last year? (Is it $74 million after Paxton and Joely? No less that $40 for Evo/X? So then $34? Is that the difference maker?). I know it sounds crazy to expect anything from sale and even more so Paxton but sale is much more talented than wacha and Paxton in the past more talented than hill. Assuming health which is no small task with those two but if healthy at all I don't think it's crazy to assume sale and Paxton provide better value than what wacha/hill combo did. I know it's not ideal counting on either of them and in the case of Paxton I don't count on him for anything. That being said I do think they bring back eovaldi or sign a guy like taijuan walker or someone in that 2nd/3rd tier of sp to replace eovaldi and bring back hill so once again call me crazy I think SP will be okay overall. I think the lineup is a bigger issue at least on paper.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 23, 2022 18:57:51 GMT -5
It's 82 wins in a world where no free agents have signed. E.g., the Yankees are without Judge and haven't signed a replacement for him; the Dodgers are Turnerless and without replacements; Verlander and DeGrom are out of the league; etc. The Red Sox' competition would be weaker.
So the question is: will the Red Sox add more than the average team through free agency? If so then they should improve on that 82 win projection. (And the answer is pretty obviously yes, given that very few times are in line to add another $80 million to the payroll.)
But if you subtract FAs, how many teams have more holes? The Sox are down 3 starters (Wacha, Evo, Hill), a DH, and a SS. And they already had a hole in RF. So much of that money is earmarked to getting back to what they had. I mean, say they resign Evo and X… that is half the money there, at least. I keep hearing this $80 mill tossed around like a panacea, but it seems deceptive. How much do they have that puts them *over* what they were last year? (Is it $74 million after Paxton and Joely? No less that $40 for Evo/X? So then $34? Is that the difference maker?). I dunno; guess you'll have to take it up with the algorithms. One thing I can tell you is that according to the fangraphs numbers that 82 win projection is based on, the Red Sox currently - again, with lots of talented pitchers teamless - project for the 5th best starting rotation in the AL. Yes, they are down Eovaldi, Wacha, Hill; but they are up Sale, Paxton, and a full year of Whitlock and Bello.
I feel like you're kind of tying yourself in knots trying to figure out if they can "replace" their "losses" through free agency. The question for the starting rotation doesn't have to be so complicated: last season's starters had a 4.49 ERA; can they improve on that with a rotation of Sale/Paxton/Whitlock/Bello/Pivetta plus whatever free agents they add?
They have I believe ~$77 million left to spend after Paxton and Joely. Should be enough for Eovaldi, Hill, Bogaerts, and about $30 million left over for RF/DH or whatever else they want to spend it on (catcher? more bullpen?).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 23, 2022 19:03:41 GMT -5
But if you subtract FAs, how many teams have more holes? The Sox are down 3 starters (Wacha, Evo, Hill), a DH, and a SS. And they already had a hole in RF. So much of that money is earmarked to getting back to what they had. I mean, say they resign Evo and X… that is half the money there, at least. I keep hearing this $80 mill tossed around like a panacea, but it seems deceptive. How much do they have that puts them *over* what they were last year? (Is it $74 million after Paxton and Joely? No less that $40 for Evo/X? So then $34? Is that the difference maker?). I dunno; guess you'll have to take it up with the algorithms. One thing I can tell you is that according to the fangraphs numbers that 82 win projection is based on, the Red Sox currently - again, with lots of talented pitchers teamless - project for the 5th best starting rotation in the AL. Yes, they are down Eovaldi, Wacha, Hill; but they are up Sale, Paxton, and a full year of Whitlock and Bello.
I feel like you're kind of tying yourself in knots trying to figure out if they can "replace" their "losses" through free agency. The question for the starting rotation doesn't have to be so complicated: last season's starters had a 4.49 ERA; can they improve on that with a rotation of Sale/Paxton/Whitlock/Bello/Pivetta plus whatever free agents they add?
They have I believe ~$77 million left to spend after Paxton and Joely. Should be enough for Eovaldi, Hill, Bogaerts, and about $30 million left over for RF/DH or whatever else they want to spend it on (catcher? more bullpen?).
I’m not sure: do you think you can get X and Eovaldi ~$20 mill apiece? My guess is you are left with $20-25 million after those three. And I guess I don’t see a huge upgrade in OF and DH with that. Yeah, if there is a lot of internal improvement, they’ll be better at pitching. I’m not arguing to resign Wacha after what may be a peak year. But they do need someone at around 3+ WAR to slot in for him. Shoold be Sale. Should be. Add: my main point is that next season comes down far more to internal improvements than this “$90 million,” which is not really nearly that much. Whether those internal improvements are enough is a different argument… but I don’t think FA is going to be a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Nov 23, 2022 19:05:02 GMT -5
But if you subtract FAs, how many teams have more holes? The Sox are down 3 starters (Wacha, Evo, Hill), a DH, and a SS. And they already had a hole in RF. So much of that money is earmarked to getting back to what they had. I mean, say they resign Evo and X… that is half the money there, at least. I keep hearing this $80 mill tossed around like a panacea, but it seems deceptive. How much do they have that puts them *over* what they were last year? (Is it $74 million after Paxton and Joely? No less that $40 for Evo/X? So then $34? Is that the difference maker?). I dunno; guess you'll have to take it up with the algorithms. One thing I can tell you is that according to the fangraphs numbers that 82 win projection is based on, the Red Sox currently - again, with lots of talented pitchers teamless - project for the 5th best starting rotation in the AL. Yes, they are down Eovaldi, Wacha, Hill; but they are up Sale, Paxton, and a full year of Whitlock and Bello.
I feel like you're kind of tying yourself in knots trying to figure out if they can "replace" their "losses" through free agency. The question for the starting rotation doesn't have to be so complicated: last season's starters had a 4.49 ERA; can they improve on that with a rotation of Sale/Paxton/Whitlock/Bello/Pivetta plus whatever free agents they add?
They have I believe ~$77 million left to spend after Paxton and Joely. Should be enough for Eovaldi, Hill, Bogaerts, and about $30 million left over for RF/DH or whatever else they want to spend it on (catcher? more bullpen?).
I believe Paxton's number is factored into the $83 they had so it's like $81.6 after Joely. I also disagree with Manfred's notion that simply spending the $80M is what will make them better - no one is arguing that. The people expecting them to be better (including Syzmbroski's projections) factor in regressions to the mean in terms of injury, clutch, bullpen performance, and added value from players like Casas and Bello.
|
|
|