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 Nov 29, 2012 18:21:02 GMT -5
I'm sorry I just realized I did a horrible job of explaining my point. The problem with this conclusion, which the study draws, is that it isn't supported by the evidence. He's using relative data to draw absolute conclusions. To say that Hamilton hit 40% better than league average against bad pitching by hitting 1.154 compared to a league average of .823 is a logical fallacy. What this actually shows is that he hit at a 40% better rate than league average. This could be 1000% better than league average for all we know, but the point stands that we don't know, because we can't actually compare Hamiton's rate against the rates of all other MLB players to draw that conclusion correctly.What I was trying to say earlier, is that I would suspect, without having any evidence to prove this either, that players have a smaller variance of success against better pitching than against bad pitching (by virtue of the fact that it is harder to hit good pitching than bad pitching, it is also harder to hit better pitching at a higher rate above league average than it is against bad pitching). Therefore, Hamilton's 12% rate above league average against good pitching may be close in absolute terms to his 40% rate above league average in bad pitching. Everything is scaled to the league average against the cited competition level. It's harder to hit good pitching than bad pitching, this is a fact. It's also why the offensive league average bar is set much lower against the elite pitchers than the average bar is set against the bottom third guys. In this study, when he says Hamilton hit 12% better than league average against good pitching, it's 12% better than the average hit against that same group of pitchers. When he says he hit 40% better than league average against bad pitchers, it's 40% better than league average against that same group of bad pitchers. He took all the starters and put them in tiers (top, average, bottom), and then took the average OPS against each competition level. It's not simply the league average OPS in general and then applying it to the competition level.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 18:09:54 GMT -5
Fair enough, I get caught up in snark from time to time. Allow me to clarify again. Hamilton hasn't been an elite hitter against elite pitching over the cited three year sample. Hamilton has been an elite hitter against bottom third pitching. His advantage in production over the average hitter is scaled much more to his domination against the bottom feeders than his ability to transcend against elite talent.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 17:38:40 GMT -5
This conclusion doesn't logically follow from the evidence. According to this study, Hamilton has hit 12% better than league average against "good pitching" (as measured by OPS against) and 40% better than league average against "bad pitching." By virtue of the fact that it's more difficult to hit good pitching than bad pitching, it's also more difficult to hit better than league average against good pitching than bad pitching.The guy goes on to say Jeter is an example of a guy who hits good pitching well because he hits them 19% better than league average but only hits bad pitching 5% better than league average. All this shows is that Jeter didn't hit bad pitching particularly well. This looks as a graph on TV when it pops up for 10 seconds, but it really doesn't make any sense. You are missing the point, I think. The conversation in this forum has revolved around "elite hitters" hitting any type of pitching (elite, average, below average) fairly consistently, while the good/mid-tier hitters feast on the average/below average guys and struggle mightily against the elite pitchers. Since Hamilton has been the talking point, he is the natural test case. He is an example of an elite hitter who produces far more against the bottom third while being just another guy against the elite pitchers...not just in a vacuum where it's obvious that you'll produce better against inferior competition, but scaled to the rest of the MLB against the same competition. The common talking point around here is the mid-tier guys are more reliant on crushing bad pitching than elite guys when you scale the overall production. Hamilton's total production is more heavily based on feasting against the bottom third than the average hitter. The narrative being discussed is that elite hitters can hit anyone and the Napoli's and Swisher's can't, which is why you need elite guys to win in October. The average MLB hitter has a difference of ~180 OPS pts between facing bottom third pitching and the league's best. Hamilton has an OPS difference of ~250 pts in the same categories. This means his production is more reliant on producing far better than average against the bottom third than far better than the average against the elite guys. He's marginally above average against the elite guys and elite against the poor pitchers, which is the opposite of the narrative here. I don't think this study is perfect and I don't think Hamilton represents every elite hitter, I just find the narrative in this thread is too simplistic and all-encompassing. Hitting has everything to do with the individual hitter/pitcher matchups, every elite/mid-tier player is not created equal. EDIT: I think you got caught by my intentionally hyperbolic comment after the video link. To clarify, Hamilton has hit elite pitching, just slightly above league average. He has absolutely feasted on bottom third production, which is the main source of his elite production, not his marginal superiority against the elite guys.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 15:04:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 13:49:40 GMT -5
The Gonzalez trade didn't work as expected, but the Red Sox wouldn't have been able to package Rizzo, Kelly and Fuentes to get rid of Crawford and Beckett AND receive talent like Webster and RDLR. The Red Sox didn't get value in the form they expected for Gonzalez, but the trade worked out, they were able to get rid of two awful contracts. The Gonzalez trade was not THE problem, the problem was pitching, injuries, and everyone declining at once. The difference between Webster & RDLR and Rizzo & Kelly is easily offset with the financial savings here.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 28, 2012 0:02:08 GMT -5
I think the majority of the top prospect "busts" were players early in their development who ranked high based on raw talent and pedigree heading into their draft/signing. The large majority of the top hitting prospects from the past ~20 years who maintained/earned a high ranking at an advanced setting generally became at least average regulars, and the truly elite ranked guys (MiLB POY) overwhelming become impact players. People discuss "prospects" like any minor leaguer is hypothetical and the bust factor is equal. A prospect in low A or the DSL is far different than a Wil Myers. I wouldn't call this trade a "no brainer", that would be dismissive of Lester's talent, but if it's obtainable with some reasonable side considerations I'd really love to see it happen.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 27, 2012 22:11:42 GMT -5
History is also littered with pitchers who peak in the first few years of their careers and steadily decline. Can anyone guarantee that Lester will become an elite pitcher again? We can do this from both sides. Even the best trades on paper can fail miserably due to fluke events. Naming Delmon Young is a good reminder of the uncertainty in prospect projection, but he is the outlier here, and it's equally important to remember that. Serious question, can you provide some examples? I could, but I don't have time to make a large enough sample to have it mean something, I feel like tossing in the first 10 or so that come to mind would lead to a pointless sample, and people could rightfully pick unusual circumstances or injuries for a few. Sorry if it sounds like a cop out. For the record, I think most pitchers peak around age 27, but each pitcher develops/declines at different stages based on injuries/skill set/unique personal factors. Lincecum is a good recent comparable, he could be had and is an elite guy in his theoretical prime, but for many reasons his best days are probably behind him. Most people could point to his unique delivery and be correct, which is why I'd need a bigger sample to prove a point. The point I'm making is pitcher primes are really based on a lot of factors and aren't as predictable as hitter primes. The volatility of pitching has a lot to do with the unnatural motion of throwing a baseball the way pitchers do, and even the injuries you play through can effect your velocity/stuff. Lester isn't doomed, but he wouldn't be the first pitcher to have his prime in his early to mid 20s, just like Myers wouldn't be the first top prospect to bust. We should recognize individual factors determine human events, there is no flawless all in one projection system.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 27, 2012 21:54:03 GMT -5
History is also littered with pitchers who peak in the first few years of their careers and steadily decline. Can anyone guarantee that Lester will become an elite pitcher again? We can do this from both sides. Even the best trades on paper can fail miserably due to fluke events. Naming Delmon Young is a good reminder of the uncertainty in prospect projection, but he is the outlier here, and it's equally important to remember that. Disagree. Average players by their name are the most common result. It's the profound disappointment (Brien Taylor, Matt Bush) or the huge success (Evan Longoria) that is the outlier. I do agree that it's no guarantee that Lester returns to form, however. Brien Taylor and Matt Bush are nothing like 2012 Wil Myers, it's just a pointless comparison. Taylor was a pitcher with arm injuries who never made the majors, and he busted when I was like 5 years old and prospect projection was much different. Matt Bush had a whole different set of problems, again was a pitcher, and never "busted" at the MLB level. Wil Myers is just about MLB ready and has consistently excelled, those guys were raw talents and never really came close to having the MLB ready value Myers has. All prospects aren't created equal. Guys who are widely regarded as the best hitting prospects in baseball usually become impact players. I've already given the imperfect sample of the other Baseball America Player of the Year winners from the past 20 years, and Young IS the clear outlier. All top ~30 prospects from any given year aren't comparable, my sample is flawed too but it's closer to the type of talent we're talking about. If Myers was an 18 year old kid who was a raw talent who just got his feet wet in A ball we could have the Bush conversation. He's not. He's not bust proof, but the most likely scenario is him becoming at least an above average corner outfielder. For the record, Xander has a bigger chance of busting than Wil Myers, and I doubt anyone here would deal him for the equivalent of Jon Lester.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 27, 2012 20:19:15 GMT -5
History is also littered with pitchers who peak in the first few years of their careers and steadily decline. Can anyone guarantee that Lester will become an elite pitcher again? We can do this from both sides. Even the best trades on paper can fail miserably due to fluke events. Naming Delmon Young is a good reminder of the uncertainty in prospect projection, but he is the outlier here, and it's equally important to remember that.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 27, 2012 17:54:36 GMT -5
i think bard will rebound and get his head straight. i'm not convinced that lester is past his prime. i still think he has several good years left in him. he did not experience a drop in velocity that i know of. the biggest thing is that he continued to rely a lot on his cutter to get guys out despite losing command of it. i also noticed that he did not used his change-up very often. i remember one game where he was throwing fastball after fastball. four seam, two seam, four seam, cutter, two seam, four seam... yet the batter continued to foul off pitch after pitch and eventually got a base hit. what i'm getting at is that lester rarely used his change-up and in that certain case, i think that it would have gotten him out. reading his scouting report on this website, it says that he has an above-average changeup. It's been pointed out already in the thread, but Lester has experienced declining fastball velocity over the past couple of seasons, which has coincided with his declining strikeout rates.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 27, 2012 13:37:19 GMT -5
The Red Sox don't have many significant trade chips right now. For Lester, the best case scenario is him reestablishing value as an elite pitcher on a contending Red Sox team. The next best case scenario is him reestablishing value on a mediocre Red Sox team, and getting flipped at the deadline for someone who is hopefully close to as valuable as Myers.
If the Red Sox are really confident in Lester returning to elite levels, next year and for years to come, this is the time to talk extension. The only thing I don't want to happen is the "wait and see" approach. If he continues his decline, he'll have minimal value next winter. If he reestablishes himself and has a great season, he'll be one year away from FA with significantly more bargaining power and they'll have to lose him for picks or lock him up for a top of the market deal. Either way, there just isn't great value unless he helps lead the 2013 team to a World Series. If the Red Sox really believe in Lester, great, talk extension now while his leverage is down. If they see the declining performance and loss of velocity as long term problems and think there's a good chance he'll never be an elite pitcher again, they need to deal him this offseason. They need to try to get value right now, invest in Lester or invest in a real rebuild.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 27, 2012 0:49:51 GMT -5
Prospect projection is infallible. We can do endless misleading comparisons of similarly ranked prospects from past years to fit agendas. Let me try mine. One of the links Jmei provided was Baseball America labeling Myers 2012 Minor League Player of the Year. Since 1992, the following hitting prospects won this award:
Mike Trout Jason Heyward Matt Wieters Jay Bruce Alex Gordon Delmon Young Joe Mauer Rocco Baldelli Eric Chavez Paul Konerko Andruw Jones Derek Jeter Manny Ramirez Tim Salmon
All BA POY award winners aren't created equal, and it doesn't grant super powers. The point here is to illustrate how high end this prospect is. We can find Andy Marte's or Delmon Young's to show even elite prospects can completely bust, but it's very rare for this type of player. Delmon is the only player to really bust from this group, two if you want to count Baldelli's unfortunate condition. The rest of that group is made up of a mix of impact players, Alex Gordon is on the very low end of this group. This is a flawed sample in isolation, but still, spin the wheel for a chance at the six years of a cost controlled All-Star bat.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 26, 2012 21:16:05 GMT -5
I just don't see any team dealing an ELITE cost controlled pitcher for Myers straight up. It seems illogical on the surface, but illogical GMs do illogical things when human factors like job security take over. He might figure the Royals have to become contenders in the next two seasons to keep his job, and if he's fired he won't be able to benefit from Wil's prime. They can't contend with that staff, and it's tough to sign FA's to come to KC without a big overpay. Shields and Lester really might be the best type of options he gets offered, and if he's dead set on upgrading...well...crazier things have happened. Or maybe I'm just trying to make myself believe there's a chance.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 24, 2012 14:47:04 GMT -5
I wouldn't deal Webster+ for one season of Choo. If the Indians can land a premium pitching prospect for Choo good for them, I just don't see it happening, but I also have no idea what the market is and it just takes one team. I can't think of any recent comparable trade. If teams are in the mood to give out premium pitching prospects for one year rentals of guys like Choo, are we underselling Ellsbury's market? If they hit the market this year, I think we all agree Ellsbury would be the more highly paid player, bad 2012 included.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 24, 2012 14:31:03 GMT -5
If the 2012 team received the 2011 levels of Gonzalez and Beckett they would've been much better. They didn't receive that production and they were a bad team. I can't subtract value they didn't receive to begin with. If we wanted to subtract the 2011 levels of Gonzalez and Beckett, do it to the team that received that production (and finished one game out of the playoffs). Losing that "elite talent" is the attractive part of this team moving forward. They should be able to allocate those dollars more efficiently and get better production with it than they did the past two seasons. It's not like that trio gave you surplus value, their underachieving last year relative to their salary was one of the major problems. This team is nothing like the 2011 team right now, even most of the internal pieces that remain are at different points in their career. The 2012 team had too many replacement level players (or worse) playing too many innings, and it led to a terrible team. Simply adding adequate depth, a competent manager, and spending some of the available money would push that team to at least around .500, and it should put them on fringe contention with even decent luck.
The 2012 season saw almost every key part of the team perform under their career norms. It's tough to predict where this team's true talent level is, unless you know how Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Ellsbury, etc. will perform...and their recent trends have been all over the place, it's really a big unknown.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 23, 2012 20:34:43 GMT -5
I don't think they'll acquire both Choo and Swisher. Honestly, if Choo is only going to be a platoon left fielder for you, I'm not sure he's worth the trade acquisition cost. He is a very good defender in RF and adds additional value on the basepaths, and I would want him playing more than in a platoon role even if he is bad versus lefties. If you already have Swisher, I'd rather save my trade chips/salary space for starting pitching. But I agree that that lineup would (if healthy) likely be first or second in the league in runs. That one through seven is relentless, and Lavarnway and Drew are pretty great eighth and ninth hitters too. Choo really shouldn't get regular at bats vs. lefties. His baserunning and defense aren't enough to make up for his lack of hitting, especially in a corner, no contending team with an elite offense should settle for that production. For him to produce like that I'd need Tampa Bay Crawford defense and baserunning to make it worth while, and even then he'd be batting 8th against lefties. His production against righties is so good that he's worth acquiring (especially with Gomes on the roster), the bigger half of this platoon could still be a 4 win type of player. He'd be another capable defender in the currently questionable OF mix. I think depth is very important in the post-steroids environment, the Red Sox need lots of quality depth more than any singular elite talent. I don't want guys like Gomes/Nava/Kalish being forced into every day duty and overexposed once the inevitable injuries to the OF happen yet again. The last few years of injuries should make the Red Sox stress the importance of building a good bench...the Yankees do it almost perfect and it pays off My hypothetical idea of the the trade acquisition cost is the attractive part, but I'm probably way off. I just don't see Choo commanding top 100 talent with only one year left and his skill set. His value is far less than the Alex Gordon's of the world, nevermind Upton. They'll need real talent obviously, but the QO and potential draft compensation might be less valuable in their mind than the Red Sox, so that could be a positive factor to consider. I was thinking some mix (2-3) of Kalish, Wilson, Workman, Ranaudo, Vinicio, KDLC, Shaw (complete hypothetical, just range of value). Some team might be willing to offer elite near ready prospects for Choo and maybe this quantity package is way low. I just can't see a team willing to give elite prospects for Choo but no team willing to do the same for Ellsbury in CF. Cleveland might look to package him with Masterson, Perez or Cabrera, but then the dynamics change and a new set of players could be made available.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 22, 2012 20:18:14 GMT -5
I get it, he's a free agent and no one wants to spend prospects to invest in the short term. Before Gomes signed I didn't give it any thought...it's just that he'd be the PERFECT platoon partner with Gomes, they'd provide elite production out of one corner.
It's the most likely way to add premium production to a corner without packaging multiple top prospects (Upton) or adding a long term big contract (Hamilton). I think they could have a very good offense by adding Napoli and Swisher while platooning Gomes with an internal option...but to "contend" they really should add another plus bat to the mix, and the combo of Choo/Gomes fits the bill without a premium cost. I don't know what it would take to land Choo, but he's only under contract for one season and he plays a corner position without elite power. Obviously the cost would be the big factor here, but he'd likely bring back a compensation pick after the season barring injury or unexpected collapse in performance.
1. Ellsbury 2. Pedroia 3. Ortiz 4. Napoli* 5. Choo/Gomes 6. Swisher* 7. Middlebrooks 8. Lavarnway/Saltalamacchia/Ross 9. Drew*/Iglesias
This lineup would kill it at Fenway. I know the half the board wants to see Ortiz batting 6th and Ted Williams and Manny batting 3rd and 4th, but this offense would be elite in today's offensive environment.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 19, 2012 22:14:48 GMT -5
...to which, Beasley, I say 'so's your old man'... I am biased against the Yankees ...but not against their players individually. I probably have seen 120 Yankee games over the past 3-4 years so that is not SSS. My "eye test" is the same one that you use and from which you formulate your own judgments (reported here). The fact that none of us are "scouts" by designation does not mean that we cannot assess, from observation, foot speed, range, athleticism, relative arm strength, apparent bat speed, authority with which a ball is batted etc. Swisher is, IMO, not a particularly good fielder but is probably adequate for Fenway LF. Think Manny. He is the perfect fit as a Sox dirt dog at the plate. He has wonderful strike-zone judgment from both sides and is, on that basis alone, a possible target for the Sox. Indeed, we were interested in signing him prior to the Yankees acquisition. All I'm saying is confirmation bias might be playing a role here. While you're going to recognize obvious greatness (Cano, Sabathia, etc.), you might have selection bias in remembering the handful of poor plays Swisher made over the many decent plays he made. Almost everyone is guilty of this on some level, and I was just pointing this factor out since you admitted you root for them to lose...that might cloud your objectivity in player evaluation even if you aren't aware of it at the time. The bigger point here is that the TV eye test is very flawed. You don't get to see the positioning, you don't get to see the routes taken, you really don't get any type of full picture with that perspective. I'm not saying Swisher's defensive value is accurately reflected in UZR or whatever metric the conversation was about, I'm just reminding you of the flaws of the tv eye test evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 19, 2012 18:16:07 GMT -5
Since you throw out the Trout running stat (by which I guess you mean he theoretically created runs). Let's look at actual runs created: Cabrera's RBI %: 21.40 Trout's RBI %:17.32 Scoring position 2 outs: Cabrera 1.211 OPS Trout .782 OPS So, actual events showed Cabrera far superior to Trout in creating runs. Not saying which one deserves the MVP award, but I can't stand the congratulatory continued follow up by the Saber crowd that anyone who votes for Cabrera is an old school flat-earth society compared to the enlightened "Nate Silver" crowd. Actual events also showed that Trout scored runs at a much higher rate, and with less HR's hit. Now of course runs scored is a context stat that is influenced by your teammates, but so are RBI's. We don't need stats to tell us that Cabrera is a poor baserunner and a poor defender, and we don't need stats to tell us Trout is an elite defender and baserunner. The "saber" crowd is accused of ignoring "the eye test", yet the flat earth society you reference are the ones who are ignoring the obvious here...or if not ignoring, denying that other factors besides hitting the baseball impact baseball games in any significant way.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 18, 2012 21:19:02 GMT -5
Stats obviously have their place and I confess that I am more a creature of traditional metrics than the multitude of newer, more exotic ones created in stat geek labs today. But, hell I don't have an IPad either. I trust my eyes too. I have watched a lot of Yankee games over the past 3-4 years ( rooting for them to lose) and on that basis view Swisher as a below average fielder. A number of my friends are Yankee fans and think that Swisher is a defensive klutz. But, playing in a short porch right field, he seems ok. He has a pretty fair arm.To me, he does not go back on the ball well and appears to have below average speed, range and athleticism. But, IMO, putting him in Fenway's spacious RF over 81 games is a prescription for disahhster. I do think that Swisher could be ok in left at Fenway as its dimensions mimic RF in Yankee Stadium. If acquired and if we put him there, then the discussed Sands/Nava platoon would man RF. I have no idea about Sands' defensive prowess so perhaps he could do it. Nava to me tho has the same range issues that Swisher does and he has a much weaker arm. To me he is a LFer not a RFer in Fenway. Swisher's acquisition IMO would thus create a dilemma. I think that it would relegate Nava to being a bench player, traded or released. jmei to your comment, I did not just look to batting average in judging Nava. I examined all the stats available including the esoteric. None of them stood out to me so I did not mention them. Beyond that I noted his hrs., RBIs, ability to work counts and his resultant higher than average OBP. So, I say back to you, I know that you are better than that. Nava is an overachiever of the first order and exemplifies the Sox patient batting philosophy. I hope that there is a place for him on the bench in 2013. Defensive metrics aren't perfect, and no one argues they are one size fits all exact measures of defensive ability. To turn around and talk about your biased amateur TV eye test in a SSS as some type of counter argument isn't real supporting evidence.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 16, 2012 19:37:44 GMT -5
Remember the narrative last year? Verlander was the clear MVP since "the Tigers wouldn't have made the playoffs without him". Miguel Cabrera's 177 wRC+ and .437 wOBA were completely ignored, who wants to mention the guy with a DUI when the feel good narrative is 50% of the award? The next year, Miggy follows it up with a 166 wRC+ and .417wOBA and those shiny RBI's and he HAS to win.
To win the MVP, you usually need to be on a team who is good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to easily make it. You can with with no traditional stats, just as long as no one gets a lot of RBI's. I don't know why these garbage awards bother me so much, but they do, this is relatively criminal. I've learned to not get upset by the Grammy's, I don't know why I care about these awards still...or why I subject myself to the occasional talk radio. People don't want to learn new things.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 16, 2012 0:49:23 GMT -5
Sorta replying to Buffs but mostly thinking out loud...
I'm of the mindset that the Red Sox shouldn't make poor value signings just to try to contend next season, but I believe their goal should be to contend, if that makes sense. I'd be extremely disappointed if they "punted" next year (Sands, Gomez, etc. playing every day). I think they could contend without signing Greinke or Hamilton if they make a series (say 6-8) of smart acquisitions. Right now I'm just looking for them to acquire quality talent at good value in any way possible.
I'd be fine with signing Greinke to a 4-5 year market value deal or Hamilton to a three year market value deal, but I don't think that will be an option. The Angels are in win now mode, are basing their entire offseason around him. I can't imagine the Angels pass on a "market value" deal when they desperately need pitching. Hamels and Cain weren't on the free agent market, the industry is full of cash right now, and next year's crop doesn't look any better. I wouldn't sign any non-generational pitcher (Pedro, Halladay, Verlander, Felix) at $20m+ AAV for more than five seasons, I just think it's bad business and an unnecessary risk. I can't imagine Hamilton taking three seasons here, if that was an option I'd expect a return to Texas.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 15, 2012 0:25:09 GMT -5
Buffs, where do you draw the line cost wise for Greinke? Or do you not care (genuine question..just curious)? I'm all for adding elite talent, I just don't see how you can base an offseason plan around signing a guy when you know the bidding might get to a point where it would be poor value. If he's available for your/Red Sox value, then great...but you need a contingency plan if that fails. From all accounts the Angels are beyond determined to sign him, they are in win now mode, and might be willing to offer a silly contract.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 14, 2012 17:38:08 GMT -5
beasleyrockah - You completely miss my point. No sense going any further with you on this topic. You are telling multiple posters that we don't understand your point, yet you aren't offering clarification. Maybe you aren't expressing it clearly? I have no interest in going further on this topic, just something for you to keep in mind in future posts.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 14, 2012 17:21:34 GMT -5
In your plan, you want the Red Sox to trade Xander, JBJ, Cecchini, Workman, and Melancon for Fielder. Your plan also calls for trading more prospects/assets for OF/SS help, and would take the Red Sox over the luxury tax for the next few seasons. Yup, My plan just might take the team over the luxury tax. But I'm not the Pro siting at the Round Table making the decisions. I'm talking about what should be expected from the Front Office Team for a Big Market Team like The Boston Red Sox. Bust me all you want for my suggestions on what I think the team should do. But why should we/I as a fan of the team expect anything less then what I'm calling for from the Front Office? I think they should be held accountable to put together a team that has a realistic chance of competing for a Division Title Every Year. There are 29 other franchises in baseball, expecting to be a playoff team every single season is unrealistic. We aren't dealing with a cheap ownership here. Other teams have money too, and no, the Red Sox can't sign every good free agent on the market. You have no idea what the Dodgers or Angels are willing to offer Greinke, or what offers are out for Hamilton. Advocating to sign the yearly best free agents for blank checks isn't a strategy. Wanting to deal the top two prospects for a guy who signed a huge contract last year is a bad strategy. You can spend $175m on payroll without signing multiple guys long term for $20m+ AAV. The Red Sox have a ton of resources, but they don't have the deepest pockets in baseball. Your plan wouldn't just take them over the tax next year, but it would force them to be up against the cap for years to come, at least the next 3-4 years. With the new cap penalties, the Red Sox can't sustain that spending AND supplement the necessary talent when future team inevitably need upgrades, ESPECIALLY when you just dealt the near ready elite MLB talent. What is your plan when that core inevitably needs upgrades? Spend $400m on Bryce Harper in five years? We aren't playing with monopoly money, this is real life. Everyone wants instant gratification, but when this plan fails you'll want instant gratification then too.
|
|
|