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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 9, 2012 22:58:23 GMT -5
Jerry Crasnick @jcrasnick Hearing that Shields, Davis and Myers aren't only names in trade. It's bigger than that, source said. #rays #royals Literally physically upset right now waiting to hear how much the Rays won this deal.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 9, 2012 18:17:29 GMT -5
Buffs, by that definition a "big acquisition" is any acquisition that nets a core player, regardless of cost. Credit the Red Sox for obtaining Lowe and Varitek, but the acquisition cost of the immortal Slocumb wasn't that big of a deal...it certainly isn't comparable to handing Manny $160m. By this logic, Theo did a lot more than "surround with complementary talent". Signing guys like Ortiz and Arroyo off the scrap heap would also qualify as "big acquisitions". This would also prove there are more ways to add elite talent than big ticket FA, so I'm not sure the point of this exercise. The acquisitions of Pedro, Manny, Damon, Lowe & Varitek were all completely different in terms of risk and acquisition cost, it doesn't tell us anything about Duquette's ability to hit on big ticket FA's. He really only signed one (Manny)...if Damon counts, well, so does Jose Offerman.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 9, 2012 16:41:17 GMT -5
Yeah, citing Duquette as proof of the importance of "elite talent" is odd. He had Pedro Martinez in his prime, along with a superstar in Nomar, and still couldn't win. The organization consistently had terrible depth. If anything, his tenure is proof that a few elite players can't offset a poor middle class. This isn't basketball.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 8, 2012 13:23:19 GMT -5
2011, the year Napoli drove in 75 runs, he did it in 369 at bats. The league leader in RBI that year was Granderson, who drove in 119 in 583 at bats. They had exactly the same RBI/AB rate. And as FTHW mentioned, Granderson's career high in RBI's before joining the Yankees was 74. He's averaged 112+ over the past two seasons. I guess if you still believe in RBIs as some important measure of value you won't change your mind now. We should really have a discussion about the value of lineup construction, I keep hearing this importance of the 3-4 combo, as if stacking your 3-4 is somehow more important than assembling a strong 1-9 lineup.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2012 19:58:08 GMT -5
Who are these lots of other guys? Drew is an upgrade over Iglesias, but he's hardly great himself. The Sox aren't going to fork over a six year contract for a pitcher like Anibal. Swisher costs a draft pick and more likely would be a longer contract. None of these players are as good as Hamilton. And a combo of them won't be. If it were me, I'd sign Hamilton, and sign a guy like Marcum for the rotation and/or see if a Salty for Floyd deal could be done. That would pretty much complete my team. I'd see if I can get Drew cheaply enough. If not I give Iglesias a shot and see what's available by 7/31. Who knows, by then Bogaerts could be the best option. Swisher and Hamilton both cost draft picks, for the sake of argument let's make it a sunk cost and write that off. Swisher isn't Hamilton, but he's a damn good player and would be a big upgrade for this team. He also will cost a lot less, the "years" argument is pure semantics, if the Red Sox can overpay on AAV to keep Hamilton's deal short they could do the same thing with Swisher...Hamilton will be paid significantly more money, possibly more than the difference in their performance. The leftover difference could also be invested in pitching, possibly Edwin Jackson or on the trade market. Or, they could ignore Swisher and use that money in the trade market or many other avenues. The point is that money doesn't turn into a pumpkin if it isn't spent on Hamilton. Adding one elite talent is not always best way to spend $25m per season, and it's not the safest method either, it's why there is a debate here. Once you spend it on Hamilton you don't get it back, you lose that flexibility. We can debate whether or not it's efficient/smart spending, but acting like the Red Sox can only improve themselves with Hamilton just isn't true. Any team can dramatically improve themselves on paper by spending the money it would take to land Hamilton.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2012 18:54:34 GMT -5
What do you mean make it fair? The Sox might not want Swisher either, but I'll tell you one thing - if I'm the Sox and I'm giving up a 2nd round pick, it'll be on Hamilton, not Swisher, who probably would get at least 4 years. You posted the current Red Sox lineup and then added Hamilton to a hypothetical separate lineup as if those are the only two options. One lineup had an extra ~$25m, of course that one looks better on paper for 2013, why wouldn't it? If you spend the leftover money on other players for the original lineup that one will look much better too. It's not like they are either going to spend $25m AAV in Hamilton or keep all that extra money and give it to Liverpool. No one is debating that Hamilton would improve this team on paper for 2013. Swisher would too. So would Drew, Anibal, and lots of other guys who could be signed for some of that money.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2012 16:29:54 GMT -5
The $5 million for his 2017 season is where you draw the line? I can't imagine him pulling more than $25m AAV on 5 years. There is a huge different between a 4 and 5 year contract in this instance that goes well beyond the extra 5M dollars. It's not as simple as "hey the Sox get Hamilton for 5M in year 5, lets do it". It's all about payroll flexibility and putting a competitive team on the field while staying within a certain luxury tax budget. If Hamilton is junk during that 5th year, then you have a $25M salary slot going towards a below average player. It's a huge concern that this front office is really starting to pay attention to. Huh? Read the original conversation, you took away all context. He advocated paying $120m over four years to "avoid" paying the fifth year. If the common thought is 5X25 would be necessary to land Hamilton, he is essentially drawing the line at paying $5m for 2017, and I was asking why. As for the tax stuff, paying 4/120 instead of 5/125 gives a clean slate in 2017 (yay) but adds an additional $5m to the lux tax from 2013-2016. I don't want either deal for the record, I just found the logic interesting and was asking a question about it.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2012 15:28:51 GMT -5
Yeah, the Red Sox should only severely overpay for superstars like Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett, and Adrian Gonzalez! Since when was Carl Crawford or Josh Beckett a superstar? That was a case of the Red Sox signing good player to bigger contracts than they were worth. Shane Victorino is a case of the Red Sox signing a mediocre player for more than he's worth, but at least they didn't do it for a very long time. With Hamilton, you'd be signing a "superstar" for only 4 years and very big bucks. That would not hamstring the Sox in the future. He'd be paid his last $ in 2016, right around the time Stanton becomes a free agent, coincidentally enough. If you want the Sox to go to war with this lineup in 2013, that's fine: Ellsbury Victorino Pedroia Ortiz Napoli Middlebrooks Gomes Lavarnway (I assume Salty gets dealt?) Iglesias/(Drew?) Or do you prefer: Ellsbury Pedroia Hamilton (LF - with Gomes on the bench) Napoli Ortiz Middlebrooks Victorino Lavarnway Iglesias (Drew) I like this lineup way better - particularly given the fact that the Sox won't be able to impact their starting pitching too much given the lack of options available to them. This team needs to really rake to make up for their mediocre pitching. Doesn't seem to matter anyways as it sounds like they'll let the Mariners outbid them now that Texas has dropped out of the running, which I think is foolish. And to top off things, my guess is that Tampa Bay walks away with Will Myers when the Sox could have had him. One lineup has at least $25m more dollars allocated to it. If you wanted to be reasonably fair, make it Hamilton and Iglesias vs. Swisher and Drew plus a bit more freedom to spend more on pitching this season (not to mention assuming less long term risk). You're also assuming four years, which is still a very large assumption, unless you're willing to go above the $25m AAV.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2012 11:43:26 GMT -5
Napoli has never had a season where he played the large majority of his at bats at 1b. The one season where he got more at bats at 1b than catcher was still essentially a 50-50 time share. You don't get a clean slate on the random days you get at 1b, catching is a cumulative grind over the course of the season. The fact is he's never had the opportunity to be a real first baseman. I think it's silly to ignore the logical benefits of avoiding catching just because he didn't hit better at 1b while he was splitting time between the positions. Even if his performance isn't significantly effected, it should allow him to play more and create less stress for his body. If you catch three days in a row and then get placed at 1b for a game, that random game at 1b isn't predictive of how you'd play if you avoided catching entirely (or almost entirely).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2012 1:05:17 GMT -5
iakovos and brent. it is true that the proper werd is "enuf". I am outside the SoxNation mainstream. I say go with the team as is. No new pitcher, no new OF, no Drew. We build an impressive AAA squad and then we block them with guys like Drew? The AAA is there only for a rash of injuries. Dat is berry berry stoopit. I just don't understand how a Red Sox fan could watch the past three seasons and not want real depth. Injuries happen, and the last three years have been brutal. Everyone builds their favorite roster in the offseason and plans as if injuries don't happen. I don't see a single MLB ready guy being blocked right now at AAA, unless you want to hand the RF job to Kalish after two lost seasons. Ideally, you build an organization where you create competition at every level and nothing is handed over for simple convenience. Leaving replacement level players as your only depth is how you get consistent top 10 picks.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 5, 2012 19:29:06 GMT -5
4 x $25M to Hamilton? I would do that in a heartbeat. Agreed. I'd even be in favor of 4x30 to stay away from the 5+ year commitment The $5 million for his 2017 season is where you draw the line? I can't imagine him pulling more than $25m AAV on 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 5, 2012 14:15:44 GMT -5
Jeff Keppinger got a three year deal.... Now will everyone understand how this offseason is playing out?!?! Just because other teams act foolish doesn't mean that I would want my team to act foolish. It's not necessarily "foolish", it's paying what's necessary in this market. The industry is flush with cash right now, small to mid market clubs are offering role players large deals. If you refuse to pay market value to free agents, you'll be left with the leftover crop in late January, and you can land some great bargains and have a bad team. You can't allocate the savings into the draft and international free agency either. Most people here, including me, want to avoid dealing cost controlled young talent and prospects unless it's a very good deal. If you want to bring in talent to this organization, you have to sign players to market value contracts or trade prospects for short term players. If the Red Sox had viable MLB depth and a good team in place I'd want them to keep the payroll flexibility, but they have huge holes all over their team, so I want them to fill those holes on short term deals. It's been far from perfect, but the market is far from perfect, and the Red Sox didn't put themselves in a perfect position. There are still quality free agents out there, after seeing Swisher's deal it might make Victorino look pretty decent.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 4, 2012 22:36:48 GMT -5
I'm not ready to jump off of a bridge for this deal, but I'm far from happy about it. I think the 2-3 mil per year overpays will add up quickly, if we can't get some value buys here. Looking like a 80-win season more than likely. I do like the defense and I think there's a lot of value in the specific set up (over-valuing RF defense and under-valuing LF defense) because of the home park effect. I just don't see how we couldn't entice Victorino with a few mil less. Only way this makes sense to me is if they move Ellsbury because otherwise, i think we could have sat back and waited out Victorino and if we missed out on him, so be it. Cleveland reportedly offered 4/44, and multiple teams offered three years (at unknown AAV's). If you like the player enough, this is the cost in today's crazy market. Everyone signed so far has been on 2-3 years, not to be captain obvious but next offseason they'll all have 1-2 years left. I don't think the spending has been very efficient, but they couldn't afford to wait out the market at every position with such roster uncertainty...and even if they did, the new CBA limits what you can do with the leftover money. This move from a pure value standpoint is poor imo, but given the factors at play I don't mind it IF they plan on adding another plus OF bat against righties (which is far from certain fwiw).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 4, 2012 19:57:47 GMT -5
The Phillies aren't trading Cliff Lee for Ellsbury, so that ends that.
EDIT: And literally five seconds after I post this comment, Amaro Jr. said "no way" do they even consider hearing offers for Lee or Halladay. They are in win now mode, and Michael Bourn sits on the open market. Nice idea, but it's not happening.
EDIT #2: Amaro isn't looking for prospects. It's literally impossible to value Cliff Lee more and prospects less than the current Phillies organization.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 4, 2012 19:08:25 GMT -5
The Dodgers gave up talent to acquire Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett. I don't care about their personal projection of declining veteran talent.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 4, 2012 16:30:05 GMT -5
Do the Red Sox plan on only facing left handed pitching this season? It might be a good idea to grab an outfielder who can hit righties.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 3, 2012 19:04:45 GMT -5
If you combine these two factors. Napoli's actual WAR per 600 PAs is 2.3. Keep in mind that Napoli has never reached 600 PAs in his career.As the main catcher on his team he's never reached 600 PAs. I'm sure you'll acknowledge it's far more difficult to reach 600 PAs at catcher than first. The only year of his career where he was allowed to play 1B more than catch was 2010, and he played in 140 games and logged 510 PA's. Even that year he basically split time between the positions (67 games started at 1B, 59 at catcher). I doubt he's been brought in to catch 60+ games per year, he's more likely to be the full time 1B, and as a result he'll be on the field more.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 2, 2012 17:30:30 GMT -5
Really? Seems like it's exactly the opposite to me. Hamilton gets labels like "hero" and "inspiration" thrown on him, whereas Greinke is simply seen as damaged goods. Which, by the way, is ridiculous. One of these players is a normally functioning adult, and it ain't Hamilton. See I haven't really heard Hamilton being praised like that, but I don't follow the MSM narratives much and I could see them peddling Hamilton as an inspiration. I'm sure they knock Greinke too, and see "social anxiety" and Fenway as a disaster waiting to happen. In my closed baseball circle world, I don't hear many people who acknowledge the possibility of a setback or relapse in Greinke's condition. Like I said it would be a very minor factor, but if you're going to give a record setting deal and 6+ years to a pitcher, you need reasons why he'll be the exception to the rule who'll actually earn the deal (or at least come close). It's just a personal peeve of mine, mental health issues aren't well understood by the general public, and Greinke's case has a fair amount of ignorance on both sides apparently. I've had a lot of experience with the disorder, and issues can resurface, especially with dramatic life changes. The variables in his life make him a unique case, and while his doctors may give him the best possible outlook I doubt anyone would ever think the struggle is "over". Keith Law is right when he says his disorder isn't a reflection of mental toughness or his ability to fit in a certain market, but that isn't really the point, and I'd bet Law would acknowledge the possibility of relapse. Medicine and therapy help to control the feelings, not cure them. Again, this wouldn't the reason to not sign him, just consideration #24 or so of the massive long term risk. I'm personally rooting for Greinke and don't care for Hamilton for the record.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 2, 2012 1:42:46 GMT -5
One last thing...
Greinke's anxiety/depression is a factor, even if it is minor. His short term outlook is probably great, but over a six year agreement things can change. I mean, I know Klaw will call me ignorant, but medicine doesn't cure 100% of extreme cases for life. In fact, many people have setbacks or full blown relapses. It's reality, medicine isn't perfect and the human brain is complex and constantly changing. Over six years, it is an added risk most players don't have. Many players may have similar disorders, and if they walked away from the game in such a public forum they'd face it too. I keep hearing about Hamilton's relapse possibilities and even mentioning Greinke's seems taboo. Boston wouldn't need to be the reason for the relapse, he could really have it anywhere. Again, I have no idea how to quantify this risk, but it exists. Dismissing a relapse as a possibility is overconfidence at best and ignorance at worst.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 2, 2012 1:24:55 GMT -5
I find it interesting that people here evaluate the difference between Price and Greinke to be big enough that they're willing to part with Bogaerts, Barnes, and multiple other top prospects to acquire Price instead. Then again, I also find it hard to believe folks are willing to forgo a top of the rotation starter entirely (by terming him non-elite) in the interest saving a few additional million on the $80M in spare payroll we'll be carrying. I'll be looking forward to the "we stink, but we're fiscally responsible" signs at the Fens this year. If you can sign him for one year, I'd probably allocate $30m of that $80m. In the real world the Dodgers exist, it's going to take at least six years. Have you seen the recent Dodger strategy sir? The Angels dealt Santana for scraps and had to buy out Haren, all to clear money for Greinke...they literally based their offseason around him, and are in clear win now mode. From multiple reports, the Angels have accepted they won't be able to outbid the Dodgers and are regrouping their rotation strategy (with the Hanson deal as semi-evidence). I think it would take 6/150, and I could see the Dodgers topping that even if the Red Sox would offer it. You are misrepresenting the opposing argument, I want a payroll close to the luxury tax this year but not on terrible long term commitments for the wrong players.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 23:22:20 GMT -5
Beasley-- we all agree, lasershow just wants a stat which is normalized to 100 like my tOPS+ stat was. Just a sticky methodological question. Fact remains that there is little evidence that "impact bats" as a whole hit good pitchers better than "non-impact bats" hitters do relative to their baseline performance levels. Yeah, towards the end of our discussion I asked if he wanted that guy's findings scaled like wRC+, but I should've just mentioned your tOPS+, I got stuck in a discussion about the obviously flawed study trying to make the larger point. To end on a more serious note, Guidas, I'll take Pedro over Manny and have fun watching Manny put up a James Loney line over a full season.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 22:11:01 GMT -5
My jumping off point was all elite hitters don't hit every tier of pitching equally, which believe it or not became a talking point in multiple threads today. The Napoli's and Swisher's of the world were labeled as guys who just feasted on bottom feeding pitching and couldn't produce against the elite pitchers. I had MLB Network on as background noise yesterday, remembered the study, and boom...it was less a co-sign of his findings, and more to point out 3WAR position players can sometimes hit good pitchers. Also, elite hitters struggle against elite pitching too.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 21:58:42 GMT -5
The guy only gave a few players for reference, but he claimed Hamilton had one of the largest differences in OPS from the elite tier to low tier in all of baseball. Selection bias is at play here, a guy with an elite OPS will naturally have a larger difference, but he cited Hamilton as an outlier. It would make sense for lower BB% guys with higher slugging to do poorly in this type of test. I can't speak on it without seeing everyone's results, just going off his possibly flawed findings.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 21:41:49 GMT -5
I think I can best demonstrate the problem with a hypothetical: So as here, the 50 percentile hitter had a .823 OPS against bad pitching. Assume the 60th percentile hitter had a 1.154 against bad pitching. In this scenario, Hamilton performed 10% better than league average against bad pitching. The problem is, that we have no idea what the 60th percentile (or any other percentile) hitter did against bad pitching. So what we're left with is the meaningless statistic that Hamilton hit bad pitching at a 40% better RATE than league average. But this does not mean that he was in ABSOLUTE terms 40% better than league average against bad pitching. Edit: What we need here is a comparison of the rates at which hitters hit bad pitching to draw meaningful conclusions. Wow, that was easier than four or five posts. I think we're both assuming this study is using different data points. By my understanding, this study isn't claiming the exact 50th percentile hitter had an exact .823 OPS against bad pitching. It isn't claiming the definitive league average hitter produced at a .823 clip against this tier. It's saying the combined OPS of all hitters against that "bad tier" is .823. It's also saying the combined OPS of all hitters against the "elite tier" is .641, which illustrates the difference in competition level. The OPS's used here take every at bat into account and don't discriminate based on playing time. Like any offensive stat, there will be tons of outliers on both sides based on plate appearances, doing percentiles like you're proposing on a stat like OPS would include tons of guys with limited at bats at the far ends of the percentiles. Your scenario doesn't seem to make practical baseball sense. If the average OPS against bad pitching is .823, there is no way Hamilton would be just the 60th percentile at 1.154. How would the average OPS be ~.350 lower than the 60th percentile? In order to compensate for the dramatic difference, the 40th percentile and below would be hitting at or below pitcher levels. When you take into account the fact that productive players tend to play more than unproductive players, it becomes even less plausible. In your scenario, the MLB would be filled with elite guys and replacement level players, with very few average hitters. There just couldn't be that much variance between the total average and the 60% percentile. I agree this study is very flawed, the baseline it sets doesn't give enough context, it should be scaled like wRC+. We need a fangraphs style leaderboard to see everyone's results and compare players. We also need to know how many at bats each player got against each tier, I'm guessing Hamilton faced mid/bottom tier pitching more than the elite tier. He also was in a division with Felix and Weaver, so the majority of his "elite tier" at bats came against the truly elite guys.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 18:41:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure I follow. You're saying it's impossible to get a league average OPS total for each individually tiered pitching environment?
(just to make sure we're on the same page)
This study claims it separated the qualifying starters in three tiers based on their OPS against, with the lowest totals going to the elite tier and the worst going to the bottom tier. Then, each tier was assigned a league average OPS AGAINST THEM ONLY. So the elite tier's total OPS against is their own benchmark. The mid-tier's total OPS against is their benchmark, and the low-tier's total OPS is their own benchmark. Then, the study took Hamilton's OPS against each individual tier and compared it to that tier's average. It created three different offensive environments (elite, average, below average pitching) and assigned the league average OPS when facing each respective environment. How is that not scaled to league average (genuine question)?
FWIW I'm not trying to claim absolute conclusions from this at all, I think the process behind this is flawed and not very predictive. There's probably a sample size issue at play here and it would be necessary to see how many PA's he got against each tier before attaching meaning. It seems like they also ignored the middle tier in the displayed results and only focused on the two extreme tiers. Playing in a division where the only qualifying pitchers for the elite tier might've been Weaver, Felix, and another starter or two could really manipulate the results.
|
|
|