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 Nov 30, 2019 13:10:10 GMT -5
Well, it verifies what you're saying in the sense that, yes, having an opener doesn't fundamentally change a team's pitching needs. But it doesn't mean that it isn't a good strategy to have an opener because you still get the match-up advantage early in the game because the other manager can't optimize their lineup for the pitcher they're facing. Which is what I always took the main point of the opener to be. As for the point about the swing guys, I think that verifies the point that I was making. It would be worth it to a team to target the best swing guys or #5 starter types available, both in terms of how much they invest in salaries and how much they focus on analytics in identifying who would thrive in that role. I wasn't saying it was a good strategy. I was pushing back a little against the post above mine saying that the poster would choose not to watch games started by an opener which is his right, but my point was that it's not this big huge thing that changes the bottom line: you still need five guys at least to pitch in bulk. Like you said the whole idea is to shift the innings pitched to make life easier for the starter. I don't disagree that the Sox need to find the best swing guys around now that they're more valuable to have, although I would argue that we're basically talking two inning relievers or guys who couldn't hack starting like a Travis Lakins or Darwinzon Hernandez, but have a little more stamina in them that they can be useful for more than 3 batters and/or outs. All I can say is we talk out the unpredictability of relievers....well so it is for these swing guys/multiple inning relievers. Obviously on the Red Sox guys like Shawaryn, Lakins and even Darwinzon Hernandez, although I would suspect they'd rather he be a late inning 1 inning reliever, could be these opener guys. But still the key is having guys like Sale, Price, Eovaldi (if he is indeed more than a 2 or 3 inning opener), E-Rod and whoever they acquire to take Porcello's spot do the job of pitching the bulk innings needed. I think there's this thought that the closer is this drastically revolutionary change. I honestly don't think it is. I think it's just a strategic shift but it doesn't drastically change the need to find guys who can pitch innings (like a starting pitcher would). To me it's kind of like all of this shifting. It doesn't add extra guys to the defense. It just places the 9 guys already there in a more strategic way. The way some talk, you'd think there are 10 guys on the field or something like that. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said, and I do think there’s an important distinction. Yes, you need guys to eat up innings in the 4/5 spots. But the division of innings can be very fluid. CW approach to a staff has pigeonholed guys into SP (6+ inning guys) and relievers (the vast majority being 20-30 pitch guys). There’s been, it seems to me, a decrease in “bulk” relievers, the relatively quality guys who pitch 100-140 innings largely out of the bullpen...old school swingmen (remember Mark Eichorn?) who weren’t just viewed as failed starters, but valuable components for games where the starter junked early. The SP/RP line has gotten more stark with time. But I think the opener strategy TB came up with is a sort of re-imagining of that (very) old-school approach. There is a certain market inefficiency whereby post-hype high-end prospects (like Glasnow) with significant flaws (for him it was command), or solid “SP” prospects with good command, ability to throw 100 pitches regularly, who fail due to middling stuff/lacking a platoon-neutralizing pitch like a CH/no true out pitch (Jalen Beeks) lose value and their *niche*, because of the stringency of CW definition of niches. Historically, those guys have washed out or been converted for a role (say, 7-8th inning reliever for Glasnow) that underutilized their skillset (he’s capable of 100+ pitches but only throwing 20-30). The opener-bulk strategy is specifically designed for addressing an early platoon advantage, and then limiting the bulk guy to two times through the order. To me, that seems like an *ideal* approach for two types of pitchers: 1) aging veterans who’ve suffered a loss in stuff and are thus highly susceptible to the 3rd-time penalty (and thus come *really* cheaply in FA or through trade), and 2) young pitchers like Glasnow (or, say, Houck maybe, or Darwinzon) who have significant upside if they can address their critical flaw. It’s also very useful for a guy like Beeks who, without the 3rd-time penalty, can give you 4-5 innings of 3 or high-end 4 quality work (maybe 120 innings a year), rather than being a borderline AAAA guy. I don’t understand the pushback on openers. True aces and even quality 2/3 guys will always have a place in the game. But if a team can convert their two “5th starter/long reliever/basically replacement level when forced into a traditional role” guys into what amounts to “one” 240-inning #3 starter, that has tremendous value. Roster size won’t allow TOO much of that, but it’s a good way to get the same number of innings (traditional might mean one guy ends up your cruddy 160-inning 0.5 WAR 5th starter and the other a 0 WAR 80-inning swingman/spot starter/low end middle reliever). In that sense, you’re getting “bulk” innings but spreading them more evenly. And because the situations that are most likely to reveal their flaws (3rd time for the first guy, riding pine/bouncing from role to role and AAA to MLB for the second) are minimized, instead you get two 1-1.5 WAR 120-inning guys. Same pitchers, more wins. It’s also a great way to break in prospects or rebuild post-hype sleepers, and to turn aging pillow-contract guys into legit quality contributors.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 22, 2019 16:54:54 GMT -5
Lol, that’s actually really interesting. Honestly, if they did Price for Hosmer and Patiño and a viable third piece, I might jump at it (probably push for a second prospect tho). Maybe if the Padres are really going for it (I think they should...their system is insanely loaded, and a full year of Tatis Jr, a more comfortable Machado, and a more experienced Paddack bodes well for 2020), the Sox add Workman and the Padres include Urías coming back. The Pads get out from a horrible long term deal, and the Sox get some legit prospect value and the ability to spread the $ out. Hosmer’s basically unplayable, so I think the Sox can argue for an overpay coming back. And the Padres have tons of prospect capital, so they’re in a position to do so to get out from under his deal. I think for it to be worth it for the Sox, they’d need to get at least one high-impact guy, since Price does have value as a SP on a team needing SPs. But if the Sox got Patiño and, say, Morejon back (assuming Workman isn’t included), they could theoretically go with those guys in “bulk” positions for the 4 and 5 rotation spots, along with possibly Houck and/or Darwinzon (and maybe even Mata). There’s significant risk to moving Price, but there’s risk keeping him, too...they need Sale to be vintage Sale and Price to be a 3-4 WAR guy (and Eddie to repeat this past season) to really be a strong divisional contender. And regardless, they’d be well-served to get out from under his $90M+ commitment (or, more accurately, his high AAV). I think this is a really creative proposal. God, if somebody could get Hosmer to stop hitting so many grounders, he might actually put up positive WAR. I do think Fenway might help him a bit. It’d give them a little extra time for Dalbec, who could be a solid platoon in the second half with Hosmer (while getting additional PAs to spell Devers at times, or JDM at DH). Depending on how Dalbec does, try to flip Hosmer while subsidizing half his deal, along with prospects, next winter. His deal is terrible, though...he’s gonna be tough to flip, and if they can’t they’re stuck with an $18M bench player. I think we match up really well with the Pads. We might even get them to give us Urías if we take Hosmer. Another scenario I was looking at was Price for Hosmer, Morejon, Baez, and Cordero. Yeah, I agree that the Pads are a good match, in that they have almost “too much” minor league talent (lots of redundancy) but not enough MLB talent. There’s also a market issue there, and some dead weight salaries they could stand to dump, especially if they’re getting into the Strasburg/Cole sweepstakes, which makes a ton of sense for them. They’re very, very close to being extremely competitive, and have had some successful graduations. But efficiency-wise they’ll probably need to convert some prospects to MLB players (beyond just graduations) to avoid prospect (and thus value) stagnation, and ideally retool their salary structure to get much more value from their most expensive players. Getting rid of Hosmer and/or Myers creates substantial gain for them long-term, and potentially short-term depending on who those $ go to. They’re pretty incredibly set up for a stretch of big success.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 19, 2019 23:09:27 GMT -5
Lol, that’s actually really interesting. Honestly, if they did Price for Hosmer and Patiño and a viable third piece, I might jump at it (probably push for a second prospect tho). Maybe if the Padres are really going for it (I think they should...their system is insanely loaded, and a full year of Tatis Jr, a more comfortable Machado, and a more experienced Paddack bodes well for 2020), the Sox add Workman and the Padres include Urías coming back. The Pads get out from a horrible long term deal, and the Sox get some legit prospect value and the ability to spread the $ out. Hosmer’s basically unplayable, so I think the Sox can argue for an overpay coming back. And the Padres have tons of prospect capital, so they’re in a position to do so to get out from under his deal. I think for it to be worth it for the Sox, they’d need to get at least one high-impact guy, since Price does have value as a SP on a team needing SPs. But if the Sox got Patiño and, say, Morejon back (assuming Workman isn’t included), they could theoretically go with those guys in “bulk” positions for the 4 and 5 rotation spots, along with possibly Houck and/or Darwinzon (and maybe even Mata). There’s significant risk to moving Price, but there’s risk keeping him, too...they need Sale to be vintage Sale and Price to be a 3-4 WAR guy (and Eddie to repeat this past season) to really be a strong divisional contender. And regardless, they’d be well-served to get out from under his $90M+ commitment (or, more accurately, his high AAV). I think this is a really creative proposal. God, if somebody could get Hosmer to stop hitting so many grounders, he might actually put up positive WAR. I do think Fenway might help him a bit. It’d give them a little extra time for Dalbec, who could be a solid platoon in the second half with Hosmer (while getting additional PAs to spell Devers at times, or JDM at DH). Depending on how Dalbec does, try to flip Hosmer while subsidizing half his deal, along with prospects, next winter. His deal is terrible, though...he’s gonna be tough to flip, and if they can’t they’re stuck with an $18M bench player.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 14, 2019 11:48:04 GMT -5
🤣🤣🤣 That’s exactly my question...what IS the “junior”? It's a wiener joke. Lol, I figured. Of course it is 🙄. With that setup, how could it be anything else?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 14, 2019 11:20:25 GMT -5
Another previously unknown, ProspectsLive although the author rings some kind of deep bell for me. The list and write ups that I read look decent enough, nothing looks as egregious as some. www.prospectslive.com/lists/2019/11/14/red-sox-2020-top-30-prospects1. Casas 2. Dalbec 3. Mata 4. Groome 5. Jiminez 6. Duran 7. Song 8. Lugo 9. Ward 10. Houck 11. Chatham 12. Cannon 13. Ramirez (Aldo) 14. Zeferjahn 15. Decker 16. Howlett 17. Murphy 18. Bello 19. Wilson 20. Flores 21. Rafaela 22. Shawaryn 23. Feltman 24. Lakins 25. Bazardo 26. Diaz (Danny) 27. Rodriguez (Jorge) 28. Hart 29. Aybar 30. Ockimey Agreed, that’s most consistent with my own internal rankings, and there aren’t any Groshans/Dedgar gaffes. I especially like the live for Aldo, who’s pretty intriguing as a projectable 18-y/o who’s been adding significant velo since signing. That Lowell rotation has TONS of potential. I think Murphy’s the sleeper who breaks out Ward-style next year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 14, 2019 11:03:09 GMT -5
Not always. We got Tony Armas Jr for Mike Stanley, then promptly outbid NY for Pedro with Pavano and...you guessed it, Tony Armas Jr. What baseball player is known for 4 body parts? Toe Knee Arm Ass. What baseball player is known for 5 body parts? Toe Knee Arm Ass Junior. Terrible joke I heard in the Fenway bleachers as a teenager. Always stuck with me, not the least because one of our crew kept asking "What's the junior?" 🤣🤣🤣 That’s exactly my question...what IS the “junior”?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 13, 2019 15:06:22 GMT -5
In fairness, I think the Ruiz/Downs/Gray package is a very solid one. I’m not sold on the others. Add another guy like Amaya, and it’s a winner. Regardless, any of these deals kills their 2020 chances. So unless they get a big overpay, and go hard after Mookie in FA, as the Clemens fg article notes, moving Mookie is a mistake, even before accounting for the PR mess, lost ticket sales, etc.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 13, 2019 14:47:36 GMT -5
I would never trade Mookie to the Yankees, a team in the same division that always fleeces us in trades. No way,zip, nada. Not always. We got Tony Armas Jr for Mike Stanley, then promptly outbid NY for Pedro with Pavano and...you guessed it, Tony Armas Jr.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 13, 2019 14:46:25 GMT -5
Poor Pete. Just wishcasting here/playing for clicks and not really keeping up with the real world or knowing legit prospect evaluations. Sad. I think that’s what most annoys me...this is a trade out of 1985. The gross ignorance of prospect evaluation is the most egregious failing, but...well, the Globe has the excellent Alex Speier, so I guess I can partially forgive Abraham for being so out of touch...he’s really still there as a mouthpiece for the casual (and particularly old-school) fan. That’s modestly ok, in that the Globe has him pigeonholed into a role, which he’s fulfilling. Of course, you’d hope out of sheer professionalism that he’d at least get familiar with the modern game, especially with the exploding emphasis on player development and future valuation, but...I digress. The more insidious failing here, especially for a guy who IS reporting from an old school vantage, is the poor evaluation of MLB talent. Frazier still has raw power, but every indication is that (and sadly, the concussion history may be part of it), his skills haven’t developed and actually appear to be deteriorating. Certainly, that could be partially a poor organizational match, but the fact is, he’s just not a good “bet.” He’s much more Allen Craig than he is David Ortiz. And to top it off, the idea of him in RF in Fenway is farcical. That’s just a glaring omission from Abraham’s reasoning. It’s a bad FIT, even if one were to dream on Frazier as the .270/.340/.500 guy he seemed destined to be. At BEST, he’s Nick Castellanos with a smidge more power. Any offensive value he provides will be grossly negatively impacted by his damage on defense. Pete Abe should recognize that immediately. And Andujar is a similar story, albeit with more offensive upside. Pre-injury, Miguel looked like a potentially excellent offensive player...sort of a JDM lite. While there’s value in that, it’s significantly reduced by redundancy...the presence of *actual* JDM, ostensibly for three more years. Andujar can’t be stashed st DH. I can’t remotely see him at 2b...that’s just, well, bizarre. Taking a guy whose defensive failings are related to range, footwork, and transfers/control, and putting him at a position which requires more...it’s just very, very stupid. Look at his defensive stats...the most telling being, I think, that even on “unlikely” plays (10-40% made probability), he sat at just 6.7%. An average player makes 25% or so. And below that point, Andujar made ZERO plays. And the one thing he DID (can’t say does, because of the labrum tear) have was an arm...and Abraham wants to put him at the two spots on the diamond where that’s least valuable. Again, just a very, very poor FIT, without even getting into the issues re: Bogey and whoever is at 1b. Frankly, I think putting Dalbec at 1b, where he could (should?) very likely be a plus defender...along with moderate offensive production (.240/.320/.480 with 30 HR)...well, he’s probably a wash with Andujar overall, or close to it within a couple of years. So there’s just no VALUE added with getting Andujar, because he’d be redundant (CIF, DH) or woefully ill-equipped (2b). If the Sox really wanted to trade Mookie to NY, it’d have to be something more like Andujar (who I’d immediately flip, since he does have value, just not much to the Sox), Deivi Garcia (who becomes the 5 ideally mid-season or likely at least by September), Gil, and maybe Florial (whose stock is dropping a bit), or Roansy Contreras, who’s a couple years away but has plenty of raw stuff (tho who may, like Darwinzon, ultimately be relegated to the bullpen by his command issues). Tbh, try probably don’t get a fourth piece. It’s not a package I’d be all that ecstatic about, although Andujar, if he is back and hitting, could be flipped mid-season when Dalbec’s ready, and should return another couple/three quality prospects (say, a 55 FV if Andujar’s back to .300/.330/.500, and maybe another 50 and a low-level 40+-45); a contender might overpay and that’s Andujar’s main value to the Sox). Problem with Andujar is the massive risk attached...if it weren’t then the Sox wouldn’t be getting him for 1year of Mookie. Hell, maybe *Andujar* should be the RF in Mookie’s absence, if he can still throw. Idk, it just all seems so...click-baity and ill-conceived. I maintain that if I’m the Sox, I’d want maximal upside, all prospects (unless taking on salary), and at least one guy close to stepping in. Given their massive glut of talent, I’d target SD...Mookie would have peak value for them, instantly turning them into a contender. Maybe Urías (if they’ve soured on him some) and/or Patiño, plus Campusano (they need C options, and he looks like the real deal by 2022), and probably Morejon or even Baez (or Espinoza). The Padres have something like 12 50+ FV guys...they’re equipped to overpay, and they’re most likely to benefit most from doing so. There’s so much redundancy in their organization that they’re one of few teams capable of putting together an enticing package and having basically no negative fallout. Otherwise, the Sox should be all-in on 2020 with Mookie on board. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 13, 2019 12:38:41 GMT -5
Why is it I’m not remotely shocked that Pete Abraham came up with a trade where I wouldn’t want a single player he mentions coming back? As James noted, Frazier is rapidly barreling towards obscurity. That ship has sailed. Andujar is a nice hitter but any value he has is destroyed by atrocious defense (2b?!?!) He has no (viable) spot on the Sox, and a torn labrum is a huge deal. No thanks. King...I wouldn’t even rate. Local boy story is nice, but he’s a replacement level guy/AAAA type. Yeah, again, no thanks. Gil is intriguing, so maybe I’m selling PeteAbe a little short. But Gil is a long ways away, so he’d be a third or ideally forth piece in a deal. And including Groome (essentially for Gil, which isn’t a 1:1 I’m sure I’d make) is just...well, it’s stupid. What does his inclusion add to the deal? Why not Mookie for three instead of adding Groome for 4? Basically, it’s a Mookie for garbage return (trade 1), and former possible #1 overall LHSP post-injuries for rising wild-but-great-FB RHP-probable reliever (trade 2). I certainly don’t make the first, and I balk at the second. Just...atrocious work there. If you’re gonna write an article, at least put a modicum of creativity into it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 12, 2019 17:34:45 GMT -5
A.J. Preller seems ripe to do something stupid, like his job is likely on the line. Realistically Betts shouldn't be a target unless that owner is going to push payroll close to 70% of revenue. Yet I can see it, espically because he needs to win next year. Thinking if it works out he uses that very good farm system to dump Hosmer and Meyer to sign Betts. If it doesn't he deals him at the deadline to get back a lot of what he lost. Patiño (they get to keep Gore), Edwards, Renfroe (or even Myers if it takes salary relief), and Espinoza. It’s an overpay without the salary relief, but SD could make a run with Mookie. Sox really can’t risk much less from a PR standpoint. Edit: your inclusion of Workman moving Mookie to a contender to boost return might apply. Definitely possible they’d be selling high, although he could bring a lot at the deadline if he’s pitching close to how he did this past year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 10, 2019 9:56:12 GMT -5
No one knows how certain players will age, but so much of Betts value is in being a 5 tool player. You have to worry about decline when your talking 10 plus year contracts.I don't understand why Mookie's athleticism is held against him so much when all the really bad contracts are Price Fielder and Miguel Cabrera and Chris Davis. Look at how long Ichiro held up, and Betts is basically the same guy except a much better all around hitter. Hell, Brett Gardner is still a good player and he was never remotely in Mookie's class. I guess the idea is that small guys don't age well, but I think that's actually a middle infielder thing, and that's just where most of the smaller guys end up playing. As an outfielder, I think being smaller probably just means less weight on your knees and your back and less momentum for when you crash into a wall or make a diving catch. Predicting the second half of a player's career is one of the hardest things to do and I make no definitive claims about Mookie's future, but don't think you can convince me that anyone besides maybe Trout has significantly better odds of aging well than Betts does. I definitely agree re: the middle infield thing, especially 2b. Although, Craig Biggio was a relatively small guy, who held up at C and 2b, so who knows? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not remotely wedded to the idea that Mookie goes off a cliff at 30. Hell, look at Hank Aaron. He wasn’t much bigger than Mookie, and he played forever. My main concern with Mookie is the reliance on pull-side power. Tbh, he might be atypical there too, in that a lot of his bat speed is tied up in quick wrists/hands and his twitchy athleticism, not strength. He may very well maintain his bat speed better than some of the sluggers (Howard, Davis, etc) who see rapid declines once they lose a little bat speed. But yeah, Ichiro might be a reasonable comp based on size, position, dependence on athleticism/quick hands, and he was a superb player (All-Star caliber, 4-7 wins/yr) right up until he was 38. So a 10- or even 12-year deal for Mookie, especially if his hitting skills are adaptable, might have no “down” phase at all. In fairness, he’s averaged 7.1 fWAR per season over his five full seasons, making him a pretty solid bet for the best non-Mike-Trout player in baseball. If he kept that up even for 4 years, at $35M AAV you’re still talking nearly $150M in excess value. So I think it’s reasonable to figure his long-term contract could very well come out ahead, possibly quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 9, 2019 10:43:36 GMT -5
Trout, Harper, Machado and Arrenado all have one year of their current deals under their belt so I agree it’s too early to judge. But look at some of the current deals. Pujols, Cabrera, Stanton, Votto, Cano, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Heyward, Posey, Kershaw, Chris Davis, Tulowitzki, Price, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Lester, David Wright, Upton, Freeman, Choo, Cueto. How many of those have worked out? Not sure you can say Lesters deal ended up all that bad so far. Not being discussed much is Mookies age which greatly reduces the chances of the back end of a contract being all that lopsided, especially if you consider $ 8-10 years down the road. The new CBA could also change the landscape a bit. Throw on top of that the history of players peaking @ 27-30s years of age and Mookie could be a 40+ war player over the next 5 years. Considering the Sox were purchased for 380 million 17 years ago and are now valued at 3.2 billion makes me think they can afford to pay to keep one of the best players in team history. One who also happens to be a perfect teammate. Don’t get me wrong, because Mookie’s on my short list of favorite Sox players ever. But there are a few concerns. One, offense actually peaks earlier...*HR power* tends to peak when you’re describing, late 20s. But overall offense historically peaks around 24-25. I’m *sure* there’s a lot of attrition bias there, so I’m not entirely sure how to look at Mookie. His walk rates have gone up, which is a good sign, but he has very little opposite field power. That’s a problem, because hitters who rely on pulling for power tend to decline in their early 30s when bat speed starts to slow and they have to cheat early, resulting in a lot of rolled-over GB. I’m really not sure how Mookie ages, because he’s such an outlier to begin with. He’s better than McCutchen, but not insanely so. And McCutchen’s skills deteriorated very quickly at 29-30. Look at Altuve...he’s losing some value as well, at 29, despite a career-high 31 HR. I hope Mookie’s awesome right up until the day he quits, no matter who he plays for. But for a guy who’s 5’9” 180 lbs, relying on fast hands/wrists and pull-side power...there are some very real, legitimate concerns about his long-term production. I think it’s a good chance he averages 7-9 WAR/year from 26-29, but he could drop down to the 2-4 range pretty quickly unless he’s able to make up for declining power with higher BAs/OBPs, and maintain his outstanding RF defense. OTOH, as you say, by the end of 10 years, $35M AAV isn’t going to look so ridiculous...because the FA $/WAR calculus will probably be approaching $15M, so as long as he’s a solid starter, he’ll be providing sufficient value.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 9, 2019 10:05:39 GMT -5
In a gruesomely forgettable year, in the midst of some pretty dull sox iterations, Carl Everett and his maximum-security prison attitude (including but not limited to gems like his feud with “CHB”) provided entertainment both on and off the field. To this day I’m surprised nobody on that team got shanked with a sharpened toothbrush.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 7, 2019 14:54:00 GMT -5
Also, in fairness, the push to trade Mookie is about the fact that he’s almost certain to go to FA. I think the real key is the team deciding if they really have a good chance to win a WS...not just “be competitive.” An acquiring team gets to offer a QO and thus nets a draft pick. That’s not the case mid-season. So it should boost return, at least some. I really think that if they can’t get Mookie to sign an extension, they should really consider just moving him and blowing up the team. Keeps guys like Bogey, Raffy, and Beni...but shed as many ungainly contracts as possible. OTOH, if they think the rotation is pretty healthy, and they believe in Houck, Hernandez, and Mata as bulk guys and can go with a 4+.opener strategy...well, suck it up on payroll for one year and take some shots with the kids (including Dalbec at 1b, Chatham at 2b, etc). If the team is floundering or even just at the periphery of the races come July, make a bunch of deadline deals...hell, maybe it turns out like AZ this year and they’re competitive anyway. Whatever happens, I don’t think any of us is remotely surprised given Dombrowski’s MO. It’s going to be an unpleasant few years most likely, but I think Bloom gets them turned around pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 7, 2019 14:27:17 GMT -5
One things nobody seems to be mentioning about a potential Mookie extension: By being over CBT threshold for as long as we have, and by being potentially $20M-$40M (at least) over the $208M threshold next year, a hypothetical $32M salary for next year would actually cost over $50M once tax penalties are accounted for if my math is correct. This is a large part of the reason why the owners want to reset the penalties. This is a big reason why I get so frustrated with people crying that ownership is “cheap.” Idk how to describe it, but I don’t like throwing money away either. There’s something about wastefulness there that sort of offends me morally. Paying something like a 50% overage on an already huge contract is just...stupid. I get why they want to reset and get under threshold; this ownership group has never NOT tried to win. There are obviously some inherent issues in the CBT concept, so we’ll se what happens in the coming negotiations. But it’s just odd to me that people so willfully ignore the tax burden. I mean, it’s a calculated risk...maybe they stay over this year and approach it as prep to get under next, so they can chase a WS in ‘20...but spending wildly is, and always has been, stupid business practice. Cautious overspending with clear limits and goals to curb...that’s a lot more defensible.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 7, 2019 13:07:46 GMT -5
The difference between Madison Bumgarner and Dallas Keuchel is.... ? I think there was some legitimate concern that Keuchel couln't keep his Astros magic going if he wasn't on the Astros anymore. And if you'd like to twist the knife a little, the difference between Madison Bumgarner and Nathan Eovaldi is...? (The qualifying offer is an uncomfortably large part of that answer.) There's also the element that Bumgarner seems a little bit high-maintenance - not sure he's the right fit for every team. Like, I usually laugh off the "he shouldn't play in NY" stuff, but can you see Bumgarner in New York? He seems like a guy who would lash out at the negativity. It is sort of mind-boggling that Bumgarner only just turned 30 in August. He peaked from 23 to 26, which isn't particularly rare, but I never really thought of him as being that young at the time. I feel like the entire range of outcomes is here. Maybe he gets a four-year deal has four more good years and has a weak-but-not-insane HOF case. I can also see him handling his decline phase poorly and clashing with coaches and him getting paid to sit home by year three. I just don't know with that guy. I get the feeling he’ll replace Smoltz’s kvetching about analytics and the changes in the game once his playing career is over. He strikes me as pretty rigid, too.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 7, 2019 13:04:33 GMT -5
mlbtraderumors predicts Bumgarner to get 4/$72M so we'll see about that. They had Abreu at 2/$28M. The difference between Madison Bumgarner and Dallas Keuchel is.... ? Bumgarner’s production has been propped up by his home park, while Keuchel’s arguably been hurt by it? Yeah, unless some team gets confused and signs Bumgarner strictly for his postseason history, I think the offers are going to be a lot less enticing than he thinks.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 7, 2019 12:46:17 GMT -5
Id like to see the sox give Dalbec a shot next year at 1st. I know he's unproven but with a good top half of the lineup I believe we could afford to play Dalbec at 1st and Chavis at 2nd. If you find a good lhh 1st baseman to platoon that works too. I would look to trade Price if possible and resign Mookie. Not sure if he even wants to be resigned at this point, If hes dead set on free-agency we can see how the season goes and decide at deadline what to do. I think they’ll do that after he’s spent enough time in AAA to get the extra year of control. They’re not in position to spend $6.5M on a platoon 1b, so I think they give him his (extended) shot come May. To me, it makes a lot of sense...he needs to learn at the MLB level, and he showed in AAA that he can cut his K rate by taking fewer pitches. I think he also provides good defense, and he’s a backup for Devers if the kid needs a day off. Historically the Sox have hated letting prospects learn in the bigs, but the salary crunch is kinda forcing their hands, in a good way. I think it’s likely Houck is up as a bulk-inning guy as they go to a four-man rotation with the fifth day being an opener-bulk-bullpen game. I also think that that’s a perfect situation for breaking in Houck, Hernandez, and eventually Mata. That’ll save the cost of a 5th starter ($10-12M), and give the young guys the reps they need.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 6, 2019 23:36:06 GMT -5
Your probably right when it comes to Eovoldi but you never know, he has great stuff and has just never put it together. My real purpose in being soo optimistic was to shine a light on the fact that the Sox rotation really does have a high ceiling. Yes their are many concerns and rightfully so but with all the talk about doing anything possible to get rid of Price and Eovoldi I wanted to point out that they have a chance to be very good. Who are they going to get that is going to have as high a ceiling or is guaranteed to pitch better? As someone else pointed out, actually they said it all hinges on Sale, I say it hinges on the whole rotation. The offense and defense should be fine but the pitchers need to pitch to their abilities and if they do the Sox will be right there fighting for it all. Who will have a better season next year? Mookie or Raffy? Baseball Reference gave ERod a war of 6 for 2019. And Gerrit Cole 6.8, despite 100 more whiffs, an ERA 1.3 runs lower, and a couple baserunners/9 less in the same number of innings. I consider multiple WAR sources, but I take that 6.0 with a huge grain of salt. Somewhere between 6.0 and his fWAR of just under 4 is probably a lot more representative of how he pitched this past year. He was a strong 2; I think it’s reasonable to hope on him reaching 1a (perennial 4.5-6 WAR) status at 26, with a fair shot at being a true #1 (ie, a regular Cy contender for several years). I think he probably gets into Corbin territory in ‘20, and beyond that, we’ll see if he can stay under 3 with the ERA/FIP. I’ve been a big Eddie booster for a while (lol to all the yahoos who were calling him a back-end starter this past spring when he had a rough start), but he hasn’t had any sea change, beyond health. His control isn’t changed much but his command has gotten a bit better and he’s refining his specific pitch locations, but there aren’t any standout indicators that say he’s a new, improved guy. No big SwStr rate change or K-BB or O-Sw...Just a lot of small things (kind of reminiscent of Bogey’s development) and helpful incremental changes. The 200 innings this year is the biggest change of all, and it’s really pretty impressive. I think he does it again next year but cuts his HR/FB rate a bit and gets a little more chase, fewer walks, gives up fewer hits, and puts up something like a 5.0-fWAR year with 210 IP, 170 H, 250 K, 60 BB, and an ERA/FIP around 3.20-3.40.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 6, 2019 20:05:39 GMT -5
People need to keep in mind that trading Betts is a separate, but related, issue to cutting payroll. The reason you trade Mookie Betts is to avoid being left with nothing if he leaves in free agency. You do not trade him IN ORDER TO save money. However, if you do trade him, that has the effect of cutting payroll. Hence why it is related. Nobody is saying the Red Sox are going to trade Betts for the purpose of saving money. The complication is the Sox front office broadcasted to the world that they are determined to cut payroll and came close to saying that means they can't keep Betts. Not exactly good poker. That sends a message to other teams the Sox are desperate. They want to, they’re not desperate to. There’s no way in hell they make a bad deal over money, and the entire industry knows that. I’d have to disagree completely...they’re not going to do bad business over payroll. That’s just not how the team operates under Henry.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 6, 2019 13:15:58 GMT -5
Not sure if I've seen it discussed, but the following players received qualifying offers: Jake Odorizzi Marcell Ozuna Anthony Rendon Jose Abreu Josh Donaldson Madison Bumgarner Zack Wheeler Will Smith Stephen Strasburg Gerrit Cole Smith and Abreu have to be considering accepting, right? Possibly a few others too? Wheeler and Odorizzi just grabbing a one-year pillow and hitting FA in a year without a QO attached seems like a good idea. I think everyone should accept the offer except for; Cole Strasburg Rendon Donaldson Wheeler will probably get 4-5/$70-$100M; I don’t see him taking it. Bumgarner...idk. He probably should, as should the rest. Odorizzi needs another year like the last to get a good 4-5 year deal, and Ozuna probably needs to show he’s capable of being more 2017 than ‘18-‘19 if he wants a worthwhile deal.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 4, 2019 19:41:05 GMT -5
So how do they now drop $20+M to get under $208 while keeping Mookie? I've thought a bit about this and I'm pretty sure they don't. You otherwise have to come up with some pretty farfetched plans like one that includes all of the following: 1) Pedroia's contract comes off books, 2) Trade JBJ, 3) Non-tender Leon + Hembree, 3) Add no more payroll No Moreland and putting Dalbec at 1b with Chavis the backup and Chatham getting a shot at 2b, probably letting Holt go. That’s another $10M. But yeah, might be more about getting close.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 4, 2019 14:41:11 GMT -5
I love your optimism, but (since they’ll need a 5, too), 20 WAR from a rotation is nearly unheard of. I think Sale can bounce back (Lester did, and got better, for example) into the 5-7 range. If Price is healthy he could be 3.5-5. I DO think ERod has made some incremental improvements each year, and if he continues healthy could certainly be a 4-5 guy, maybe (*maybe*) more, since he’s only 26 and his CH is stupid. He wasn’t much different this year than last, but he did do some subtle things with refining how he’s locating pitches, little different sequence, etc. His weighted FB value was over 10, which is really impressive considering the average velo (really probably plus for a LHSP I suppose). He’s gotten better at locating his 4FB vs 2FB, too. He remains a breakout candidate for sure, and there’s not much wear on his arm at all. The patella is old news. So cross our collective fingers he becomes a 1a (true 1?!) and not the solid 2 he is right now. And a shout out here for clearing 200 IP, which has become incredibly rare. I think your big overrate is Eovaldi, who has really never been healthy, and simply isn’t a 4-WAR guy even when he is. I do think he could be a 2-3 WAR guy, if he can find *some* combo of location/spin/deception/mix to boost the swing&miss. His control is excellent, but he sometimes doesn’t command at the edges, and for all the juice on the FB, he’s a lot more Joe Kelly than any of us like admitting. WAY too many hits allowed, suggesting he’s just not fooling anyone. The CU definitely helps, but it’s not a panacea. If he gets 180 IP in, I think 2.5 WAR would be a pleasant outcome. That’s a reasonably optimistic (rather than ultra-best-case) scenario of 6+4+4.5+2.5 of 17 WAR, which is still pretty freakin’ good. Like, rare good. Lop 2 wins off the top though, cuz someone’s gonna miss time. Even at 15, that’s still really good...and still optimistic. The wildcard, I think, is how they fill the 5. I’ve advocated acquiring Jon Gray; Zack Wheeler averaged almost 97 last year (zoinks) and has b-2-b 4 fWAR seasons. Idk what his market ends up being, but he’s seemed over the injury hump. Like Eovaldi, more contact than you’d think given the velo, but with some upside there. Put a guy in the 5 spot capable of 3-4.5 WAR, and I think the 19 WAR rotation prediction becomes eminently doable. FWIW, I think if JDM *does* opt out, they can get a guy like Wheeler on a 4/60 deal, saving $8-9M a year, and getting basically the same production. Acquire Gray, and it’s more like saving $15M this year (though the talent capital lost hurts). Your probably right when it comes to Eovoldi but you never know, he has great stuff and has just never put it together. My real purpose in being soo optimistic was to shine a light on the fact that the Sox rotation really does have a high ceiling. Yes their are many concerns and rightfully so but with all the talk about doing anything possible to get rid of Price and Eovoldi I wanted to point out that they have a chance to be very good. Who are they going to get that is going to have as high a ceiling or is guaranteed to pitch better? As someone else pointed out, actually they said it all hinges on Sale, I say it hinges on the whole rotation. The offense and defense should be fine but the pitchers need to pitch to their abilities and if they do the Sox will be right there fighting for it all. Who will have a better season next year? Mookie or Raffy? Lol, yeah I was just playing devil’s advocate, I def got your gist. And I think you’re right. It’s a wide variance, but there’s absolutely real, significant, attainable upside. It’s unlikely the team gets value back in a trade, so yeah...kinda just see how it shakes out.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 4, 2019 3:30:45 GMT -5
8 podcast questions not enough huh? 😉 It's a two-week tournament. They're going to have a larger sample size in spring training alone. I'd peg him for Greenville with a chance for a quick move up. By the way, two things I just noticed about the coaching staff 1) Red Sox legend Phil Plantier 2) Red Sox pitching coach candidate Bryan Price. Planter had an all-time classic “wha... ?” stance. Idk how his quads didn’t give out on ABs over 5 or 6 pitches.
|
|
|