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 m1keyboots on Feb 20, 2015 22:17:06 GMT -5
Really good stuff. You guys did a great job of adding not just information, but meaningful stuff not just fillers. It seems as if someone who's never seen the site were to come on and start poking around theyd have thought they stumbled onto something they should have paid for. I may have missed it, it might have been mentioned before (I csnt find it), but I'm unable to look at around 7 of the new scouting reports in the top 20. I want to make it clear I'm not complaining, the new format is so good I JUST WANT TO READ EVERYTHING!
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 20, 2015 21:36:53 GMT -5
So tired of the radar gun worship. What is really strange is seeing batters swing late at a 90 mph fastball and then look silly trying to hit the changeup in the dirt. I don't know if it's fair for someone to inquire about the velocity on a given pitchers' pitches, how he holds that velocity etc, and have it be called radar gun worship. I for one believe it's important to know some of that stuff. If the guy can't hold his velo but can crank it up in short stretches, it's fun to wonder if he can be a dominant lefty out of the pen (if the journey to becoming a starter fails). Or if his curveball is a power breaking ball, as opposed to something on the slower side, one can wonder about if it can evolve into a Wipeout pitch. Obviously velocity is relative to the pitcher, his other pitches, height, stride etc, but asking questions about velocity doesn't always mean the person is ignoring the inning, count, and score during a game and only hoping to see 94+. I just think velocity is something that can tell us a lot about a pitcher, and while far from the only or most important factor in a guys maturation, it's something that is pretty important to discussing a pitcher. Much like "can't react to breaking pitches" is a nice tidbit on a hitter, "can't hold velocity through 3 innings is nice to know about a starter. I'm sure other teams while scouting a henry owens talk about his velocity/how he holds it as much as his awesome change. That being said if people start writing him off bc he sits "only 88 mph", I agree that to be borderline ignorant. Just an example of what I believe velocity mongers to think, but I can't help wondering about a guys velocity.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 18, 2015 19:22:28 GMT -5
Oh lord we're going to be debating Sandoval's weight for the next five years aren't we? Just to break you down. Wouldn't it be nice if his weight was our biggest problem?
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 18, 2015 17:14:10 GMT -5
agreed, at that size he always seems to be perfectly able to leg out his doubles, first to third etc. Does anyone really want him to drop 40 pounds and play at a weight he's never played at? Possibly be uncomfortable? At what point is he "skinny enough" for fans that we think he'll suddenly be able to get through a year unhurt or hit 300 with 20 dingers? Something he's done at a higher weight throughout his career anyway. I'm not someone who takes issue with Sandoval's size. I've seen him before and expected exactly that. But lets not pretend that slimming down would be a bad thing. It's not like Sandoval has always been some power hitting, huge slugger who needs 300 LBs in order to hit balls out of the park. IMO, there would be nothing be positives to Sandoval playing at something like 220. Not that I'm expecting that. I understand this is who he is and I'll live with it like the Red Sox will too. I mean, dropping 10 pounds or so, or generally being stronger, more fit etc is always a good thing. I just think his weight has only been a problem once, and this was when he ballooned. But at that current size/weight, in the picture, hes always fielded his position well or exceptionally. Also I think being the Kung Fu panda with that body type is part of his allure. This may sound stupid, but I think there is something to people being drawn towards Papi bc of his shape, especially when it doesn't affect his performance.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 17, 2015 19:36:12 GMT -5
Ortiz has looked fatter than this on occasion. It is a body type, guys, get over it. It doesn't mean he isn't going to hit or field. agreed, at that size he always seems to be perfectly able to leg out his doubles, first to third etc. Does anyone really want him to drop 40 pounds and play at a weight he's never played at? Possibly be uncomfortable? At what point is he "skinny enough" for fans that we think he'll suddenly be able to get through a year unhurt or hit 300 with 20 dingers? Something he's done at a higher weight throughout his career anyway.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 17, 2015 18:04:55 GMT -5
"Tendency" is mispelled in the scouting report for Pat Light. I feel like a jerk.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 17, 2015 15:59:11 GMT -5
Does anyone happen to know how well Rodriguez holds his velocity throughout his starts? I'm not hung up on velocity, and with prior reading, it seems obvious he was encouraged to throw his changeup more often and/or harder. However his once again found velocity coincided with his dominance after the trade.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 16, 2015 14:39:45 GMT -5
Not sure if this counts, but there are several typos on Trey Balls scouting report. Not trying to nitpick, just contribute.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 16, 2015 14:35:31 GMT -5
Plus, he's probably free to sign with any other org. If there is any chance whatsoever that he gets his crap together, they paid for that chance. No one would sign him....if he's released his next job is bagging groceries. I may have to disagree. People rarely change, but some few do get their act together when it comes to this kind of stuff. I've seen it happen at my workplace, and although mine is not the redsox, if someone that has natural ability like him can take responsibility for his actions and make moves to change future behavior without asking for mulligans, why not give him another chance? Not saying devote resources and even large amount of time to him, but I feel like his next job will be baseball oriented, and not in the realm of skid row. Especially if the redsox are truthful in their claims of giving this guy the help he obviously needs (and hopefully for his sake, wants).
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 12, 2015 21:15:40 GMT -5
Its still legal to discuss the possibility no? Would you ponder over mooks Blake, and some second tier guys for goldy? Only if they throw in a teleporter. was just showing that goldy and his friendly contract aren't impossible. I'm in the dc area, and friends wanted mooks and a bag of chips for Jzimm. That may be because of the pedestal I have built for Mookie on the balcony.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 12, 2015 21:12:03 GMT -5
I would never trade Goldschmidt for a teleporter. Didn't you see The Fly? You'd end up with some grotesque Blookie Bethart hybrid. Hey, don't bring Goldblum into this.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 11, 2015 21:35:25 GMT -5
Its still legal to discuss the possibility no? Would you ponder over mooks Blake, and some second tier guys for goldy? Why would Arizona trade a potentially perenial All-Star on a team friendly contract for 1 prospect and second tier guys? Even if he became available, other teams would gladly blow out that offer. I mentioned mookie and blake. Plus some 5-10 guys. I guess i think its not as one sided as you may think. And yes you are correct other teams may do that, unfortunately I am not on their prospect site.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 11, 2015 20:27:29 GMT -5
In Jonah Keri's annual trade value package, he rated Goldschmidt the #3 value in baseball. Do people realize how hilariously team-friendly that dude's deal is? 4/$29, with a team option for 2019 at $14.5M. They aren't trading him. Its still legal to discuss the possibility no? Would you ponder over mooks Blake, and some second tier guys for goldy?
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 11, 2015 17:00:06 GMT -5
In a way his at bats/swing/batted balls remind me of a younger josh Hamilton :0 Hopefully he's not swinging as often. ideally no, but 8 years ago did It matter too much? Josh was an elite bat, sadly we only saw flashes of his ability
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 10, 2015 20:43:08 GMT -5
Swihart and Owens are starting points for Goldschmidt. They'd want Betts too, and the Sox don't need 1B with Napoli and Craig, and Sam Travis looks like a major high rising prospect. I like Sam travis as much as the next sp troller, but goldy he is not. Napoli will be out of the game in 4 years tops, and Craig is the definition of a gamble. THat Being said, I would start with one of HO and BS, with no mookie. Mooks at this point is untouchable I would imagine. 22 yo obp machines with speed, a good stick, versatility and a little pop don't grow on trees
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 8, 2015 16:43:04 GMT -5
In a way his at bats/swing/batted balls remind me of a younger josh Hamilton :0
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Feb 8, 2015 16:40:08 GMT -5
I don't get how people just think the Phillies can wait and it won't hurt their rebuild. Onley main reason why they need to trade him now is that he just turned 31 and is coming off his best season rWAR had him at 6.6 the best of his career. Chances are his numbers go down slightly next year, hence why they should trade him now. Actually Onley said they should have traded him after Lester signed with the Cubs. I understand that the Phillies want a good return, but they are asking for a monster return without eating any money. All the Phillies are doing is hurting the Phillies themselves. They need to be willing to eat half of his contract and then they might be able to get a great return they are looking for. This way all teams will be able to afford Hamels and it will spark a bidding war. If your the Sox wouldn't you been more willing to give up more/better prospects if you are getting Hamels for 5 years at 11 million a year? Look at Lester. Sure he was great down the stretch in 2013, but he was dominant in 2014. Lester made another 50-60 million by being a free agent in 2014 and not 2013. Timing matters with pitchers! I tend to agree and firmly believe Ruben is a little off his rocker, but if he asks for so much teams will be forced more to offer the best deals in their interest. IE no Betts/BS , but a cache of 2nd tier guys. Which with how deep our farm system can seem at times, can be a pretty good haul, and possibly good for both sides considering he eats a good portion of the salary
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 31, 2015 16:00:12 GMT -5
Also rusney is a tad different than abreux ichiro etc. He was out of baseball for an extended period and starTed at 26. Didn't have NEAR the track record in his specific lead as Tanaka, Ichiro, Abreu xcetera. Not saying he should win Rookie of the Year is his numbers are great but I think that they are different cases
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 31, 2015 15:57:50 GMT -5
I don't think he'll strike out as many people in the majors as he has thus far, but I think Owens will be more of a K pitcher than Mulder. It would be great if he can keep the BB/9 as low as Mulder did, but other than being tall lefties with lacking velocity, I don't think its a great comp. Mulder had excellent fastball command which Owen's doesn't have yet. Yes they are both tall lefties with plus secondary pitches and great makeup, but you are right other than that, it's not a great comp. I don't see many other recent comps. Tall lefties, high pedigrees in the minors. Middling fastballs that play up bc of a dominant secondary pitch. HO proved to be an innings eater and MM had higher k rates in the minors. relatively clean deliveries, not great fastball command, cool demeanor, highly touted at young age...think thats more than just tall and left handed handed....don't remember if it was you or the previous comment who daid those were the only similarities
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 31, 2015 12:21:11 GMT -5
While I like Mujica, he did a lot of his good work later in the season in lower pressure situations. Doesn't mean he didn't get MLB batters out, and be very efficient, just a penny in the pond. On Ogando, if the sox snatchef him, he must have some juice left and there's something to be said for a power arm from the right side when we only have Taz. Yes I've looked at his splits and k rate etc, but even when he was getting shelled he still flashed low to mid 90's with the power slider.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 30, 2015 0:24:33 GMT -5
There are plenty of successful two-pitch pitchers, however you want to actually parse them out with regard to a show-me third pitch. But those pitchers have at least one pitch that is exceptional. Why in the world are Randy Johnson, Mariano Rivera and Jake McGee be applicable to Anthony Ranaudo? You can't try to find comps based on a player's weaknesses without paying any attention to their strengths. where does Jamie Moyer fit in? 2 pitches. "Fastball" slowball. Yes there were many variations of those two pitchest but from memory late in his career he didn't throw many breaking balls.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 29, 2015 20:07:56 GMT -5
Is it just me, or does anyone see a lot of Mark Mulder in Henry Owens? The curveball might not be there, and his changeup is more advanced for his age, Doesn't quite have the same pedigree. But the height, the motion (to an extent), cool demeanor, fastball that plays up etc. I'd love for his career to start out MM's. I just can't remember a tall lefty non power pitcher so highly touted so young.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 29, 2015 18:31:56 GMT -5
This may be off the current topic, but the few times I saw Pedro live, I was lucky enough for it to be while he was in his prime. My past Fenway visits included Pat Rapp. The only way I can describe it, it must have been like watching Jordan, or Tyson early in their careers. At bats didn't seem fair, and at age 11 I was actually under the belief that batters were helping Pedro get themselves out (confusing for a little leaguer) because it looked so easy and unfair. Now with the benefit of Stat collections, and better knowledge of the difficulties of the game at higher levels. It might not have been easy for Pedro for I doubt not he worked very hard, but he definitely dominated batters mentally and physically before, during and after the game. Hell, his changeup looked like a whiffleball live. Glad he got in first ballot, and for those who didn't ballot him for some "greater good"...they know in their hearts it was wrong, and I forgive them. Long live 97 with running break, 82 with a jet engine blowing at it from first base and esrly on 77 with the break of a ping pong forehand.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 29, 2015 10:58:52 GMT -5
always had love for the human worm killer. I meant ranaudo during his triple a run, plus a couple other pieces not including mooks, Blake, henry, Eduardo (if he was around then) for something we needed at the time. Like a replacement level OF/3rd baseman. Don't get me wrong I believe Ranaudo overachieved in MILB, but achieved nonetheless Exactly. And you are not the only one that thinks Ranaudo overachieved in MiLB. Like all MLB organizations. I'm sure the Sox didn't turn down some great trade that people think might have been available. If you were ok with trading Ranaudo last year for a replacement level 3B or OF, why again is not ok to trade him now (when he has a little less value - and may increase his value or may - as the Sox likely think - further decrease his value this year) for a solid reliever? I think you need to forget about his 2014 and being jerked around from rotation to pen. I think we also need to remember Moonstone's post page 4 that quoted Gammons (I think) where he talked about what the Sox saw in Ross from 2012/2013 - someone on his way to be an elite reliever with his 4-seam/slider/change mix, while last year he relied more on is 2-seam and cutter (and also didn't have a defined role). The Sox clearly see something in Ross and believe they can get him back to that 2012/2013 guy. Let's hope they are right. If they are, this trade is a steal. I think our needs were much different last year than this year and don't get me wrong, I hope your dead right. Simply talking about last year, and I may have exaggerated on replacement level but think 260/320/400 ish with a decent glove for ranaudo and some minor pieces last year would hAve been the judged as well, but he would have been our best outfielder, and probably our best infielder leaving out pedeys defense. I rrally hope they do see something in him, something more than an average reliever I don't see. And I love gammons, but his stuff wasn't elite In 2012, and thay pitch mix doesn't replace BB which is what people are saying with all the grounder he'll induce. I simply came into this thread with the idea that an NL team might value Ranaudo and pieces more, and given more than Robbie Ross. Either way Ross is 'one of us' now, and I certainly don't wish a Mujica like start for him, just so I can come back here and rah-rah
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 28, 2015 22:30:48 GMT -5
you may have misunderstood me, I was praising Badenhop for the way he came into games and did his thing on cue. No matter the hitter, men on base, score etc. I ws implying it's hard to find a guy like Burke who provided us with a binkie in the 5th,6th,7th, even 8th inning. I certainly did not take Burke for granTed and was hoping beyond hope he'd be back after '14. I may have sounded like I was saying relievers can be plucked off the street, I was trying to get at the fact that 8 months ago ranaudo was being talked about as one of the centerpieces in a deal that would yield a much higher return of ML experience. When I equated ross to breslow, it was to the better version. I just feel we have several in house options for RHH situations, or even the chips to deal for someone on a higher level than ross. I also btw am high on Layne. Very unique skillset, and pitch mix/windup. I'm Of the mind he's more than a left on left only guy. Ah, my mistake. I certainly know others were taking that sort of thing for granted and mistakenly thought you were one of them. I will say that if you thought Ranaudo could have brought back some huge return eight months ago, that was probably wishful thinking. He didn't crack any top 100s, and though he might have been in that next tier or two, guys like that just aren't centerpieces for star or even average players (see the Gallardo trade or the Latos trade). always had love for the human worm killer. I meant ranaudo during his triple a run, plus a couple other pieces not including mooks, Blake, henry, Eduardo (if he was around then) for something we needed at the time. Like a replacement level OF/3rd baseman. Don't get me wrong I believe Ranaudo overachieved in MILB, but achieved nonetheless
|
|
|