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 telson13 on Dec 27, 2019 15:59:14 GMT -5
The White Sox have 6 starters.With Kopech behind the 5 starters of Giolito, Cease, Khechul, Gonzalez, and Lopez. No need for Price. Give this one rumor up Gammons and hopeful Red Sox fans. Cease was bad in the majors, Lopez is confirmed bad in the majors, Gonzalez is near the end of his career (he had less value on the market than Perez), Kopech was last seen two years ago looking like a guy with an amazing fastball and a questionable ability to remain a starter... it doesn't really matter that they've nominally filled all their slots when Price would still be pretty clearly their #2. If anything there's more pressure for them to get more depth in that rotation because a lot of guys currently on the fringes of it would probably be a lot better out of the bullpen. Sure seems like they’re going for it, and if they’re doing so in earnest they’re going to need to upgrade (or at least, it’s highly advisable they do so).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 21, 2019 0:59:57 GMT -5
True to an extent although I think for a lot of people, it’s just that a trade makes zero sense unless the return *is* wild. This trade basically makes the Sox a mediocre or even slightly bad team, for a still-bloated payroll, with minimal future benefit. If they’re really gonna blow up the team, they might as well do it after giving 2020 a shot. Agreed. That Dan O'Dowd trade idea looks awful. It smacks of the kind of return the Sox got in the Nick Punto deal where none of the five guys they received amounted to anything at all. Only Webster and De La Rosa had any promise and Webster couldn't throw a strike to save his life and De La Rosa was never the same pitcher after all of his injuries. And Loney was a highly expendable temporary 1b replacement. Stripling is better, as he could slot into the #4/#5 spot. I like him better than Perez, anyways, who I think, based on his long track record, is nothing better than a #5. I actually like Pollock as a player, but let's face it, the guy is rarely healthy - I guess I would accept him as part of a way to mitigate LA's expense for Price - and the Sox will need a CF as I still think they'll trade JBJ regardless of whether Mookie is dealt or not. The other three prospects are more suspects than anything else. Not really a lot of upside with those guys. Sheffield can't throw strikes. Santana's track record isn't overly impressive and Kendall can't even really hit A ball pitching. If that's what you're getting for Mookie, then no, hang onto Mookie this season and deal Price and JBJ, but I do think they can get more for Mookie than that. I still think they can get a serviceable player, a prospect in the 30 - 60 range (of all prospects, not just a single team), a guy you hope on (if the controls improves....but no guarantee), and a lottery ticket from A ball (nice stats or nice tools, but not both) - that kind of thing. And I do think that while the Red Sox match up well with the Dodgers there is one other team that can be a possibility for Mookie and Price, and I'm guessing it's the San Diego Padres. They're kind of a wild card. They have a lot of talent and they're getting very impatient and they're liable to do anything. They make plans and then change the script any time the wind blows. They never stick to their guns. They start off in one direction and then go 180 degrees in the other. I would include them as a team that could make a big landmark deal happen as well. And the more competition, the better the return. SD has the best, most redundant minor league talent, and stands to benefit most in terms of playoff hopes by acquiring Mookie and/or Price. That pair instantly makes them a strong WC contender and an outside (but legit) divisional contender, especially with a full year of Tatis Jr, soph Paddack, and guys like Gore, Patiño, Morejon, etc in the wings (whoever doesn’t get traded). They might’ve only won 74 but I’ve got them around 80-82 this year (and maybe 90-92 at the 10% upper limit), and adding 9-12 wins is a huge deal. blogs.fangraphs.com/2020-zips-projections-san-diego-padres/ I’m still a huge fan of a Patiño led deal with a guy like Morejon as the 2nd piece at minimum and a high-upside toolsy A-baller (Ornelas?!?!...lol, prob too much) as the 3. Wouldn’t really dent their inventory much, either.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 20, 2019 20:31:54 GMT -5
IYO Who would you say are the best pitchers in MLB who don't have a throw it through the wall fastball? asking because more guys seem to be throwing hard and arm/ shoulder and elbow injuries are clearly up? Patrick Corbin (sits about 90-91 I think) Ryu sits 90-91 Shane Bieber sits 93, which is totally average these days (But would’ve been plus- or double plus pre-millenium) Kyle Hendricks isn’t “great,” but he’s quite good, basically a solid 2, sitting just 86-88. He’s a consistent FIP beater with low BABIPs, by suppressing contact quality. Aaron Nola usually sits around 92, and was a true 1 in 2018 and basically a strong 2 last year. Marco González has been surprisingly good for 2 years sitting 90...basically a solid 2/good 3. If you really wanna get into the weeds, it’s arguable that Clayton Kershaw fits that profile. He could dial up 95-96 in the old days, but he’s never been a really “hard thrower.” He sat 91-94 most of his best years (averaging 92+-93+). He just had insane command and the ridiculous slider, plus an excellent curveball and the ability to change slots/angles. Cliff Lee at his peak was in the same vein but sat more like 90-92. Jaime Moyer won 20 throwing mid-80s, though that was a while ago. Mike Hampton had some great years sitting high-80s. Mike Scott whiffed 300 while sitting low-90s I think (he had a vicious splitter). He might’ve hit mid-90s earlier in his career but he wasn’t really a fireballer as I recall after 30.. Koji was incredible when he sat 90-91.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 20, 2019 9:28:41 GMT -5
Kendall does not make enough contact to be considered any sort of significant asset. He’s a borderline non-prospect. Jordan Sheffield is a borderline non-prospect at this point. Pollock is fine I guess. Santana is trending in the wrong direction. Stripling might be an ok back of the rotation guy. In other words that’s an awful return for the 2nd best player in baseball and your #2 starterPrice's contract is underwater and Betts is expensive and a one-year rental. It's becoming clear to me that pretty much everyone who wants to see a Betts trade is wildly unrealistic about the return. True to an extent although I think for a lot of people, it’s just that a trade makes zero sense unless the return *is* wild. This trade basically makes the Sox a mediocre or even slightly bad team, for a still-bloated payroll, with minimal future benefit. If they’re really gonna blow up the team, they might as well do it after giving 2020 a shot.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 18, 2019 22:06:30 GMT -5
Lol I can't stop laughing at this thread title. I hope this nickname doesn't stick with poor Nick lol. Nonsense - he's about to make a big splash. Wow, I just saw this and it’s *amazing* Even better, I just saw “I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore” (solid movie, excellently quirky) last night and it has just such a scene. Made me laugh twice as hard with the visual on hand. 🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 18, 2019 13:20:03 GMT -5
That said, I like this move a lot. The underlying metrics suggest Perez was better than his ERA last year. He has both a modifiable pitch mix (4FB—>2FB) change possible and a situational change (RISP/strand rate) amenable to plenty of improvement. He has plus velocity for a LHSP, and a 4-pitch mix. He’s relatively young. He’s cheap and put up a similar year to Porcello but costs 40% less with a TEAM option. He arguably has more upside than Porcello too. He’s basically historically a 3/4, in a tough park to pitch in. I’d say he has 2a upside and a fairly likely solid 3 outcome with 5 floor. If he pitches like a 4, that’s more than serviceable (I’d guess a “4” is his 40th %ile outcome: 170 -180 IP, 100-105 ERA-, FIP in the 4.2-4.5 range). He also limited HR last year, which is good stuff in this environment. He put up 1.9 fWAR in 165 innings last year...that’s basically 3/4 territory. I think he’s got more there. I get looking at him as a 6, but that’s in a highly idealized world as he comes back from injury and a slightly sub-par (for him) season. However, that’s not his performance history. At 2 fWAR/180 IP career and 3 of the last 4 seasons with 29-33 GS, that’s basically by definition an average #3. I think they got a pretty damn good deal here, with plenty of upside. Exactly the sort of move to make on the margins. He certainly looks a little different using fwar vs bwar as his career total is almost double. He's only two years younger than Porcello, yet Porcello has almost a 3 to 1 career edge in fwar. I also think there's a huge difference in a contending teams rotation compared to league average rotation. Given our rotation right now and the health risks we face, with lack of depth options in the minors you need a #6 like him in my book. I really don't have a problem calling him a #5 on a true contender, but contenders shouldn't have league average inning eaters as a #3. While I can see some room from improvement saying he arguably has more upside than Porcello seems like a rather large stretch. Along with thinking he has 2a upside. We've actually seen Porcello be that type of pitcher, Perez hasn't come close to actually doing that. You never now in Baseball and I hope you're right. Well, Porcello has a 2.6:1 fWAR edge in a 2.1:1 innings edge, so it’s not egregious. Porcello, in his youth, was basically what i call a “2a” based on fWAR: a strong 3 who can be a first-division 3 or second-division 2. I think it’s less likely, after over 2000 IP, and a few years of decline, that Porcello rebounds to his 2016 peak or even early 2010s solidness. Perez, otoh, has only half as many innings (Porcello arrived VERY early), is entering his historical prime, has seen a significant velo bump in the last few years, and has added a new and highly effective pitch. I think you’re right in that, ideally, he’s a 5 on a deep staff, as a solid bet to pitch like a 4 and a reasonable bet to pitch like a 3. When I refer to upside vs Porcello, I’m taking into account their trends...I think they probably have similar 40th-60th %ile outcomes, but at this point I’d probably give the slight edge to Perez on upside (andconversely riskier downside), since he’s higher variance. There’s a lot to be said for Porcello’s innings-eating; I think the Sox, though, are well-served to take some value/upside risks. NY had tons of success last year with mediocre SPs...there are multiple formulas to winning. Yes, it’s not ideal to have a 4 in your 4 spot or 5 in your 5 if you’re gunning for a title, but even the best teams have a few average guys and a few holes (see 4SP, C, 2b, 2018 Red Sox). I’m not “confident” Perez will break out, but I think it’s a reasonable possibility. I think it’s high probability he’s no less than 0.5 WAR worse than Porcello and roughly even he’s better. At $6M, with the chance to add next year at a similar price if it works out...that’s a good deal especially for a salary-crunched team.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 16, 2019 19:15:21 GMT -5
Good point. But I'm also less bothered by some by the idea of just having David Price as one of our pitchers for the next three years. If they don't trade Price how do you propose that they get under the luxury tax limit which is what ownership wants? Arguing whether it's going to make the team better or worse is irrelevant. You don't just lose David Price, not have the money to replace him, and do better in that rotation spot....and if Martin Perez IS Price's replacement (rather than Porcello's or the depth option), it won't be an upgrade. Unless they get Jon Gray. I’m not ready to let that one go 🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 16, 2019 19:07:32 GMT -5
Didn't matter if the Red Sox farm system was better at the time. Dombrowski was a artist at getting the deal for the guy he wanted. Instead, guys like Cashman are afraid to up the offer for a Cole because he didn't want to lose the trade. The Red Sox won because of it. Dombrowski wasn't scared. Not one bit. He just wanted to win. That's what he was brought here to do. Imagine if the Nationals acquired Sale instead of the Sox? Debatable that the Sox had the number one seed and the division in 2018. Cashman sure as heck learned his lesson on Cole and paid full sticker price for him in free agency. There's A LOT of value in identifying the right talent and GETTING that talent, to sum it up. A lot can happen with signings like Cole. He may feel that he is set for life and the competitive part is not as strong as before or he can try to prove that he needs to show how much he deserves the contract that he overthrows or just forgets what got him there. this is just speculation on my part, but you can't deny that it affects some players exactly like this. Many players have received ridiculous bomnuses in free agency and have fallen flat on their face. Ellsbury..injured for the most part with the Yankees is a good example. I don't know if this will happen with Cole, but he is in a high pressure situation in NY and can create his own problems with the base. I don’t think Cole will suffer a pay-related competitiveness drop, but I do think that that park will affect him. Whether that translates into a legitimate “issue,” especially with HR (and poorer results), snowballing into a fan dissatisfaction issue that further affects Cole’s performance, I don’t know. Cole’s a pretty tremendous pitcher, but in light of the sign-stealing, you gotta wonder if Trevor Bauer’s insinuation that the huge (300 rpm) spin bumps Houston pitchers were seeing was fueled by foul play might have some validity.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 16, 2019 18:59:42 GMT -5
Judging Bloom or any of the moves he has made before a single game is played is just insane. /thread nobody is judging his record as Sox GM. there was commentary on his moves thus far. It may be ill timed to some, but IMO that should not matter at all. He is the GM of the team, so now he gets judged. There is a lot of groupthink that goes on around here anymore. It has driven some well meaning passionate fans/members underground. Somebody posted something and 13 people liked a 2 word response. I mean, is that what this site is about ? Someone can't say something that may be off the wall ? That is what I am posting about. I want Bloom to be more successful than any other GM in Sox history I think “off-the-wall” hot takes that border on trolling aren’t what this site is about. That stuff’s better suited for BDC or whatever. I’m all for stimulating discussion, but there’s a litany of better ways to do it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 16, 2019 18:56:39 GMT -5
This thread started as dunking on a brutal Bloom take and has now turned to rehashing old Dombrowski stuff (which I guess could happen in that thread if people REALLY want to go there). Let's find a reason to keep this thread open? Here you go: 1) Bloom has already replaced Porcello with a younger pitcher having probable higher upside at this point, at 60% cost with a low-cost option year at a time when league-average SPs (which said pitcher has been, historically) go for roughly 2.5x that cost. 2) Bloom managed to non-tender two players and then get them back on reduced-value deals, showing an ability to maximize savings while identifying useful, potential-upside talent at the fringes, an area the team hadn’t been effective in for the past decade. 3) He’s cautiously (intelligently?) waited on market/FA development to define areas of potential attack in trades, including the likely (substantially) improved value of higher-end SP. 4) All indications are that he’s reversing the “my way or the highway” approach of the last few years, which suggests that he’ll get substantially better internal communication and more complete player/approach evaluation by leveraging the talents and abilities of the *entire* staff, rather than a select few individuals. Dombrowski inherited an ideal situation; Bloom is inheriting a very difficult one. I think expecting any sort of immediate success (in the form of titles, divisional, league, or WS) from Bloom borders on delusional. What I’m looking for is a smooth transition to prolonged success, including an improving farm, better 40-man roster management (see, “5”- the grab-n-stash of Arauz) and 25 (26 now) man roster use at the fringes, especially with regards to cost/value, and retention/development of talent on reasonable terms.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 15, 2019 18:37:50 GMT -5
I think he'll win you over in two weeks when he trades JBJ. OMG 🤣🤣🤣 It’s funny cuz it’s true.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 15, 2019 16:28:46 GMT -5
That said, I like this move a lot. The underlying metrics suggest Perez was better than his ERA last year. He has both a modifiable pitch mix (4FB—>2FB) change possible and a situational change (RISP/strand rate) amenable to plenty of improvement. He has plus velocity for a LHSP, and a 4-pitch mix. He’s relatively young. He’s cheap and put up a similar year to Porcello but costs 40% less with a TEAM option. He arguably has more upside than Porcello too. He’s basically historically a 3/4, in a tough park to pitch in. I’d say he has 2a upside and a fairly likely solid 3 outcome with 5 floor. If he pitches like a 4, that’s more than serviceable (I’d guess a “4” is his 40th %ile outcome: 170 -180 IP, 100-105 ERA-, FIP in the 4.2-4.5 range). He also limited HR last year, which is good stuff in this environment. He put up 1.9 fWAR in 165 innings last year...that’s basically 3/4 territory. I think he’s got more there. I get looking at him as a 6, but that’s in a highly idealized world as he comes back from injury and a slightly sub-par (for him) season. However, that’s not his performance history. At 2 fWAR/180 IP career and 3 of the last 4 seasons with 29-33 GS, that’s basically by definition an average #3. I think they got a pretty damn good deal here, with plenty of upside. Exactly the sort of move to make on the margins.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 15, 2019 12:31:46 GMT -5
Pérez is a guy with a decent amount of upside that can be unlocked with some tinkering. Scrap or drastically reduce the 4 seam. It has been mashed his entire career. Play off of the cutter which looks like it can be a plus pitch. I’m not saying he’ll be an ace or even a #3 starter, but with some work he can definitely be a good #4 or #5. The potential is there. No guarantee at reaching it, but it’s a good signing. Guys who are league-average, as he has been, are borderline 3/4 starters. If he's not 3rd-starter caliber, it's a fail. The dream is borderline 2/3.
Now, contenders try to have as many slots as possible filled with a guy from the next slot up, e.g., you want an ace, two #2's, and a #3 for your playoff rotation. I think that's what you're thinking of here, and in that sense, yes, a good #3 (not 4) is a very reasonable hope.
Re the 4-seamer that has been hit hard his whole career -- I noticed that too, and initially had the same reaction, demote it to a show pitch. But there's a reason he's kept throwing it, and it might be a seemingly good reason ... so you'd amend that to either severely limit it, or figure out how to make it as effective as it should be. (In any other year I'd be all over his pitch/fx data, but I don't have the time now.)
Looking at historical weighted pitch values, seems like he’s best off going 2FB/Sinker over 4FB, and continuing the high (30%) CT usage. Kind of a “modified sinker-slider” guy, CT acting as a hard slider. Won’t get a ton of whiffs but should reduce his baserunners, prob drop the BB rate with some weak contact resulting in shorter AB, and hopefully improve his strand rate, which has been historically pretty awful and clearly hurts his ERA (and ability to escape innings).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 12, 2019 20:22:57 GMT -5
Agreed. He’s an extension candidate, certainly not a trade chip. While not an original signee, he’s gone from AA to MLB with the team, and I think he qualifies as a development success, since a big part of his success has been the changes implemented on his arrival in Portland. After some lingering health issues, he’s shown a very steady incremental improvement along the lines of Bogey. Last year reminds me a lot of Bogey’s 2018: starting to put it all together and refine it. While there were no particularly remarkable changes in Rodriguez’s deeper data last year, he did evolve over the course of the season, and improved his sequencing and location choices. He’s been dropping his LD rate bit by bit, and his GB rate (I think driven by CH usage/location) jumped last year. He limits hard contact. His O-sw% has been creeping up, and Z-sw% creeping down. All very good signs. After his first few rough starts, he was excellent. I think there’s very clearly another level, and just like Bogey in ‘19 vs ‘18, I think Rodriguez is primed to take another significant step. He might not win 19 games (with a .760 WP) again, but I can certainly see another 200-210 IP, low-3 or even sub-3 ERA, a drop in WHIP close to 1.0, and 10-10.5 K/9. Last year he was a legit 2 and I still think he’s destined to be a 1a or even a true 1. He’s just now entering his historical pitching prime. He’s absolutely a guy you lock up for 6 more years, especially when it could easily come at a moderate discount akin to Bogey’s deal (and arguably now a big discount). I've always been and still am an Eduardo fan, but I have to disagree with this. He's been remarkably consistent: 2017: 25.8 K% 8.6 BB% 2018: 26.4 K% 8.1 BB% 2019: 24.8 K% 8.7 BB% The jump in GB rate is interesting, and you're right, the groundball rate on his changeup specifically spiked all the way up to a very nice 66.9%. The plate discipline stuff... I'm pretty skeptical that a couple points of O-swing% means anything. And honestly, a breakout based on spotting the changeup really well isn't necessarily a breakout I trust that much. It's not like when James Paxton changed his delivery and got three extra tics on the gun AND improved command. It's a guy who might not spot his changeup quite so well next year. Well, I tried to make the point that there’s been no sea change. You can look at endpoints like K and BB rates (and lots else, as well), and there’s not a whole lot of difference. He *has* been very consistent. But my point is that when you look at underlying trends, there are good signs. His O-swing has steadily increased 1-2% per year (5% in his career) and contact% is down 5% in his career. His SwStr% has been pretty flat for 3 years, but he had a clear drop on zone% over his career...meaning he’s gradually fooling guys better and staying off the plate. Again, Bogey’s breakout had nothing to do with a real LA or EV increase...he just picked the right pitches to swing at, the right way. I see ERod as learning to do the pitching equivalent, getting the hitters to regress to swinging the wrong way at the wrong pitches. If one focused on EV and LA (or direction/contact quality comparing his early and recent seasons), there’s not much difference for Bogey either. For me the devil’s in the details. I agree that there’s not a *clear* sign Rodriguez breaks out, but I’m going rosy in my outlook because I like some of the deeper metrics and the trend of progressive improvement of different parts of his game.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 12, 2019 19:42:35 GMT -5
Not to be too nit picky, but Adderall is the brand name for mixed amphetamine salts (not to get too into it, but “mixed” is same chemical makeup, but because of the nature of carbon’s ability to make 4 bonds, you can have the same formula but mirror images...the R and S (rectus and sinestro) versions). Amphetamine is legal and widely prescribed obviously. Methamphetamine is amphetamine with an extra carbon on the “amine” nitrogen. It’s substantially more functionally potent because it diffuses more readily through cell membranes (especially into the brain via blood, which is highly regulated) because of the extra carbon (methyl group). Methamphetamine is problematic for this and doesn’t really have the same cognitive and functional benefits. It’s definitely more concerning than Adderall or Dexedrine (pure R amphetamine) would be because of the essential illegality (exceptionally rarely prescribed) and related issues. That said, I love this pick. I hope the draft-n-stash works. Edit: oops, Dexedrine is pure S, not R. Again, not to get too into the weeds but dextro- and levo- (D- and L-) are terms originally from naming *sugars* first based on how they’re configured relative to a standard; old school but still used widely as a sticky remnant (including for amino acids and lots of other biomolecules), like the English system is in the US vs metric everywhere else. R and S refer to specific carbons which have four distinct groups bound to them, anywhere they are, sometimes multiple ones in a single molecule, in the internationally agreed-upon naming convention. Anyway, point is because a lot of biological systems depend on interlocking shapes for binding, and because mirror images don’t necessarily fit those specific shapes, even tiny structural differences can have huge influence on effects.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 3, 2019 11:12:09 GMT -5
Both Walker and Nelson are intriguing options as 5th starters with some upside. I was high on Walker before the AZ trade; not sure how his stuff rebounds but he was looking like a 2/3 for a couple of years there, with maybe 1a upside. Nelson is older but seemed to have similar ceiling. And Treinen...tough NT after an incredible ‘18. Lots of talent out there.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 2, 2019 14:38:42 GMT -5
They're absolutely a contender right now unless you really think that they'll only get one good starting pitcher again. It's still basically the same team that won in 2018. That 2018 team had Sale at his best, Price having the most dominate stretch in four years, Porcello and ERod pitching well, along with Eovaldi best stretch of his career. Add in Kimbrel for the bullpen. The team had so many starters they barely used ERod in the playoffs coming off a 3 bwar season. What are the chances you get Sale, Price, and Eovaldi pitching well and staying healthy? Even if you do, you still don't have Porcello and Kimbrel. Where's your pitching depth? Thinking this is the same team as 2018 basically means you think everything goes 100% right with our pitching. If your being 100% honest with yourself, what are the chances that happens? Except Sale and Rodriguez only pitched about 2/3 of a season, Porcello was his average self, while Eovaldi was very good he only pitched 1/3 of a season with the Sox (preceded by an absolute disaster in the 5 spot, including Pomeranz’s 6+ ERA), and Price wasn’t demonstrably better than last year beyond being healthier. They definitely didn’t have everything go right with the rotation in ‘18...it was a very mixed bag. Everything but Rodriguez went wrong last year. I think there’s substantial upside and relatively little downside for ‘20 as compared with ‘19. Certainly, Sale and Price and Eovaldi are concerning, and there’s an issue of innings and depth subject to health, but there’s also quite a bit of room to be better (even much so) than ‘18. I’m not sure how the likelihood breaks down, but I look at ‘18 as something like 50th-60th %ile outcome, and 2019 as more like 25th %ile. I think the real question (and probably the second-most important behind top-4 health) will be internal depth and the performance/development of Houck, Darwinzon, Mata, and maybe even Ward.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 2, 2019 14:16:10 GMT -5
They did try, but apparently didn’t get what they wanted for an offer. Which, since they knew they wouldn’t keep him, makes it all even more stupid. What’s the value of holding out? Now or at the deadline? Like right now I can see the market not giving up much, yet at the deadline they should have got something decent. Last deadline. I’ve got to think they got offered *something*, although I don’t know specifics. Kind of a no-brainer, but given what happened with Britton...well, we know how that went. Now they can still move him, but the return will clearly be limited by time and they’re over a barrel.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 20:38:33 GMT -5
Btw, just saw TB DFA’d Jesus Aguilar...he’s someone I wouldn’t mind seeing the Sox take a shot on. Had a rough follow-up to his breakout, but he walks (11%) and cut his K rate from 25 to 22%. Big drop in ISOP but some of his struggles are probably BABIP-driven. He’s slugged over .500 in ‘17-18, so depending on cost he might be worth a flier. Probably redundant with Chavis/Dalbec, but if Chavis starts at 2b and Dalbec in AAA, Aguilar might be useful for a few months, and flippable if he starts out hot.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 20:20:47 GMT -5
All that said, I think there’s an added aspect of difficulty in roster construction these days, because certain players (Mookie might even be one) could see significant production drop in the case of a ball carrying less. And, guys who are GB pitchers would see little change with less carry, but FB pitchers could really benefit. A deadened ball would probably benefit both, although high-K guys would see a reduced benefit.
Looking at the Sox, I really think they’re in an especially good position to benefit from the opener strategy, because of the very-talented-but-significantly-flawed cluster of young arms in big D, Houck, and Mata. Those are *exactly* the sort of pitchers who fit the “bulk” profile. Hernandez probably can only give you 4-6 innings because of command/pitch count. But he needs reps. Houck has two great pitches but no ready platoon neutralizer...so he’s a big 3rd-time risk and could stand to miss some lefties. And Mata has command issues as well, but terrific stuff and is very young, needing reps. All three could see significant upticks in performance and development time by limiting exposure to their weaknesses, pitching regularly but with moderately fewer pitches, and increased exposure to MLB including coaching. It also saves money, because viable relievers to make up the 1-2 “extra” innings are a LOT cheaper than viable 3/4 level (or even 4/5) SPs.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 20:03:59 GMT -5
Thank you, Eric, that’s what I was alluding to without clearly delineating it. I agree that the shift data overall don’t represent a huge issue in that there doesn’t seem to be a large enough effect *league-wide* to be “observable” during viewing, beyond the kinda fun silly appearance of the fielders. But it does have a marginal effect that provides enough utility to perpetuate the practice. I see shifts as falling into the sort of grey zone in which the two groups have some overlap. Baseball is a particularly “conservative” sport (and despite my left-leaning moderate political sensibilities, it’s an aspect I really love), so there’s quite a bit of hand-wringing when it comes to justified, analytic-driven change. Yet, I find the John Smoltz/Goose Gossages of the baseball world particularly annoying, despite my appreciation for baseball history and limited rule change. Often, the complaints are in contrast to the quality of play rising (see: integration, for example), but...yeah, the TTO issue is a serious one. I think a deadened ball/mound drop would have a substantial effect, but it takes a few years for the league to adjust (find/develop speedier players with better contact skills, for example). For that reason, I wonder if the recent offensive nadir of ‘14/‘15 might’ve scared the league into too quickly overcompensating with the ball. Idk.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 19:45:00 GMT -5
Why didn't they trade him at the deadline? To non-tender a guy after a career year when you were one of the worst teams in Baseball makes no sense. They did try, but apparently didn’t get what they wanted for an offer. Which, since they knew they wouldn’t keep him, makes it all even more stupid. What’s the value of holding out?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 14:30:27 GMT -5
Villar is a good option for this team for cheaper dollars than he's making now. Once he probably makes free agency, the Sox should pounce and get him at their price. Yeah other than the bad trade proposal, it's not a terrible idea. He hit .274, 24 hrs, and stole 40 bases. They aren't going to get him at "their price", he'll have other suitors. You’re probably right, but it’s really tough to say these days with the wonky FA dynamics. Aside from his cruddy 2017, he’s been an above-average player for 4 years. But last year was almost certainly a career season, and he’s someone subject to value loss with a less juicy ball. I’m pretty surprised the O’s nontendered him, because even at $10M, he’s almost a sure-fire deadline trade candidate if he’s even close to his production last year. Nobody’s going to balk at $4M for a rental first-division regular who can passably play SS and give you above-average 2b defense. At the same time...is he really going to get a Marwin Gonzalez deal without the versatility? Idk. He’d be a terrific addition for the Sox, although probably not at $10M, simply due to salary constraints. I could see him getting claimed pretty quickly; I could also see him becoming a FA and getting a 3/$18M deal, too. I will say this: he’s absolutely a guy who would help the Sox significantly, but it would essentially require several moving pieces. I’m not keen on moving Chavis, but a Chavis-JBJ-Houck-40+ FV package to CO for Gray and then picking up Villar and Shogo Akiyama would set the Sox back $10M but make them a WAY better team imo.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 14:04:11 GMT -5
I think Erod could very well improve on all his numbers this year but still not match his 19-6 record. He is the only starter that doesn't have questions looming over his head and they should think about moving him? I'm not on board with that. I am on board with him being close to an ace. Agreed. He’s an extension candidate, certainly not a trade chip. While not an original signee, he’s gone from AA to MLB with the team, and I think he qualifies as a development success, since a big part of his success has been the changes implemented on his arrival in Portland. After some lingering health issues, he’s shown a very steady incremental improvement along the lines of Bogey. Last year reminds me a lot of Bogey’s 2018: starting to put it all together and refine it. While there were no particularly remarkable changes in Rodriguez’s deeper data last year, he did evolve over the course of the season, and improved his sequencing and location choices. He’s been dropping his LD rate bit by bit, and his GB rate (I think driven by CH usage/location) jumped last year. He limits hard contact. His O-sw% has been creeping up, and Z-sw% creeping down. All very good signs. After his first few rough starts, he was excellent. I think there’s very clearly another level, and just like Bogey in ‘19 vs ‘18, I think Rodriguez is primed to take another significant step. He might not win 19 games (with a .760 WP) again, but I can certainly see another 200-210 IP, low-3 or even sub-3 ERA, a drop in WHIP close to 1.0, and 10-10.5 K/9. Last year he was a legit 2 and I still think he’s destined to be a 1a or even a true 1. He’s just now entering his historical pitching prime. He’s absolutely a guy you lock up for 6 more years, especially when it could easily come at a moderate discount akin to Bogey’s deal (and arguably now a big discount).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 13:44:32 GMT -5
I do wonder if MLB will try and do something to disincentivize the opener somehow if it continues to spread. I'm not sure what that would be though - you can't FORCE the starter to go a certain number of innings. Maybe # of pitches except in the case of an injury?I could see the players union wanting that too. The opener could be seen as a tactic to keep starting pitcher salaries down, in their eyes. Probably a requirement that whoever starts the game goes five complete innings, and then a list of exemptions... if you throw more than X pitches total they can take you out whenever, more than X pitches in a single inning, more than X runs given up, etc. As to the bit about the players union wanting this... I actually think everyone should want this. I think that if you were to fully optimize pitcher usage within the current bounds of the rules, it would make baseball almost unwatchable. For instance, one tiny bit of inefficiency that hasn't been touched is the convention of not lifting your pitcher in the middle of an AB except in the case of an injury. But really, you should always change pitchers mid AB. People have looked at it and it's definitely a huge disadvantage for the hitter, and some college teams have apparently started doing this. But does anyone really want to watch that version of baseball? Critical AB, pitcher gets strike two... and then we bring in an opposite handed pitcher, bringing the game to a screeching halt and putting the hitter in a completely impossible situation? It’s strange that, while in some ways this feels like a reduction to absurdity, it’s actually a real concern. I have no issue with openers, and I think that the frequency of its use as strategy (as with bullpen games, or 5-reliever games after a 5-inning start, etc) is roster-size limited. I’m totally ok with a team having, say, 3 or 4 real starters and then one or two rotation spots done opener-style. I don’t find those aesthetics particularly unpleasant...certainly, to me, no worse than watching Mark Portugal or Johnny Way-back stumble through 5 innings in a traditional manner. In fact, to me it’s probably preferable, frankly, if it means breaking in young guys and/or watching a higher quality of pitching/stuff. But, you’re right that within the bounds of the rules, there are plenty of potential loopholes that analysis is going to eventually reveal and push for, aesthetics be damned. There will always be organizations like the Astros’ current regime (win at all costs) or TB (innovate or fold). And your in-PA example is perfect. That’s ugly baseball. While I generally dislike adding new rules, especially extensive ones, it’s reaching the point of necessity. The TTO and shift-heavy direction of the game are already problematic, in terms of watchability. I dislike the idea of, say, robot umps and counteracting the rise in pitching quality by moving the mound back, too. But as data force evolution of the play on the field, more and more aesthetic issues will be revealed. I’m not sure it can be addressed proactively in many cases, but there are ways of driving the game in the other direction (deadening the ball, lowering the mound, etc.). It’s a very hazy line, I think, between being a pragmatic purist, and being an old fart gribbah grousing about the present while pining for how the game was played 20, or 50, years ago.
|
|
|