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 notguilty on Feb 23, 2016 8:15:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Feb 21, 2016 17:24:44 GMT -5
Man, way to kick off Spring training. And to say that I was looking forward to it.
That Sandoval picture looks unbelievable. Just ridiculous.
And Farrell. Oh my. We'll have to see, but based on his history and what he's saying, I just shudder. He's going to mess up that whole outfield situation, and I'm now not sure he can hold Hanley and Sandoval accountable.
This team can't get off to a terrible start again - yet it's like the stars are aligning just to make that happen.
The tone on the airwaves has been awful. All Sandoval/Hanley all day on the radio. Even the Baseball Show on Comcast, which is often OK was depressingly negative from the very start. At this rate, this is going to be a long season.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Feb 17, 2016 12:28:53 GMT -5
I must be getting old..Why would somebody put up a picture of their newborn on Twitter? This new, no privacy world just boggles my mind.
On Hanley, I'm not a believer; I really want to see it work, because an ok-fielding, great bat Hanley would be so pivotal for this team. Alas, I'm pessimistic. I don't expect him to put in the day-to-day work.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Feb 3, 2016 9:51:25 GMT -5
JBJ should really stop talking to Bradford. It's like Bradford is always trying to get him to say or do something silly, then make a big deal out of it. As soon as JBJ goes 1 for 15, he'll be pushing the bus to get the kid out of town.
I wonder how he got him to throw that football - "Can you throw this, so we show everybody how great your arm is".
All that said, happy there's a reporter actually down there to tell us what's happening. Spring training!
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jan 16, 2016 12:55:27 GMT -5
I must say, I see Kennedy getting $70m, Chen $80m (could rise to $96), Leake $90m and whatever it was, and I no longer feel bad about the Porcello contract. Or picking up Buch's option (didn't feel bad about it, but looks better in contrast). If Joe Kelly can sustain a bit of what he showed over the second half, this Sox rotation can actually be quite good, with money fairly well distributed.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jan 10, 2016 13:03:34 GMT -5
I think soler is a regular 15-25 homerun hitter. I think a lot of people in the league sees it the same way. Jbj is a 10-15 homerun hitter who might not hit for more than .220 in a full season. Sorry if I'm a gm, I want more than jbj straight up. I just have no idea where you get these projections from. Are you looking at minor league performance? Or MLB? Both? Because based on what you're saying here, you're entirely willing to ignore all of Soler's MLB results and project him to be a good to excellent MLB hitter based on minor league numbers. At the same time, you seem to completely discount JBJ's stellar minor league hitting record, and his MLB successes last summer, and focus on his MLB failures. Your rationale is completely at odds with itself...there's no internal logic. Beyond that, there is WAY more to baseball than HR and batting average. You're getting hung up on 1978 Topps baseball card stats...that stuff tells only a small fraction of the story of a player's contributions to the team. Not to talk for Dirty Water, but I think he's basing his projection on..how Soler looks - and I'm being half facetious..You look at Soler, and the guy looks like a baseball beast, like he should be hitting 30-40 home runs minimum. Then you look at the numbers, and they tell you a different story. He reminds me a bit of Ruben Sierra in that sense, or Willy Mo. I used to shudder when those guys came to the plate; then wondered why I ever worried after they struck out, time and time again. Of course, Soler has a bit of time to actually grow into that kind of player. But I can see where one would conflate what the numbers suggest he is, with what he looks like he can be. And if you've watched JBJ over the past two years and see 2015 as a flash in the pan, I can see where you have a preference for the purported Soler upside, JBJ defense be damned. This is a fun debate though. I think both teams (and most fans of both teams) say no to such a trade, but only one team will wonder why they ever said no.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jan 8, 2016 9:01:53 GMT -5
I think this may actually be something the Red Sox have to look into-
-OF prices appear to be cooling off to a level where you have to think about it, for somebody like Upton
-Next year's FA list isn't compelling, and Ortiz is retiring.
-But the Sox have a full outfield, with two major question marks - Castillo and JBJ. I think you go with JBJ, but I wonder if there's a point at which you can bring in an Upton and send a subsidized Castillo somewhere else - like if Upton can be had for 70-80, you eat 20 on the 60 left for Castillo and send him somewhere else.
-You have to think they really don't have a lot of money flexibility left, but wondering if it may be worth adding up this year a little bit. Hanley and Sandoval have really killed this team's payroll flexibility.
-One thing for sure - if one of JBJ or Rusney is struggling at some point, there'll be a lot of moaning as to why the Sox didn't consider bringing in somebody like Upton. You have to trust the kids at some point, but this is tough.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jan 2, 2016 21:34:12 GMT -5
Is anyone else starting to think Justin Upton might be worth it for LF? I always figured he'd cost too much for the Sox to be interested, but it sounds like he's not drawing much interest at all so far so his price could drop significantly. If we can lower the cost even more by giving him an opt-out or 2, I think he'd be a great addition. Wouldn't have minded him as a buy low candidate, but he received a qualifying offer, so the Sox would lose the 12th round pick. I suspect that makes it a non-starter. Plus I expect him to get a 3-4 year deal anyway, though probably not the $100m+ he's been hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 11, 2015 20:30:25 GMT -5
Thanks for the recommendation, but..how do you know I haven't read it? I can read something, agree or disagree with it. It's not like we're talking about the Bible here. Or maybe we are.. Well you weren't disagreeing, you were expressing befuddlement. Lol,true, true.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 11, 2015 19:34:31 GMT -5
I would recommend reading "The Book" by Tango, Lichtman and Dolphin, it's a great introduction to modern baseball analysis. Thanks for the recommendation, but..how do you know I haven't read it? I can read something, agree or disagree with it. It's not like we're talking about the Bible here. Or maybe we are.. Anyway, appreciate the thoughts. I always find it a bit fun to needle conventional wisdoms.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 11, 2015 19:27:20 GMT -5
...I’d rather have somebody who regularly puts up 130 RBIs vs. one who averages 60, but maybe I’m missing something... I think you are. The batting average on balls put into play, along with home runs, is a random variable centered around the true talent level of the player: up some years, down others. If you're a good player then you have more of those hits falling in or going over the fence over time, but it's still a statistical process. For runs batted in, that random element only comes into play if and when their are others on base. Two different players can have identical batting averages for those balls put into play, they can have the same number of home runs, and the same isolated power. They can also have wildly different RBI totals because it isn't about the batter, it's about the baserunners. On a lousy team with guys who can't get on base in front of you, you can get extra base hits all day and have little to show for it in your RBI total. That happens all the time. In other words, it's a function of the team you're on and also where you are in the batting order (if you bat leadoff you automatically get empty bases at least once a game). It really is that simple. Naah, that's fair, and I appreciate the explanation. I understand this has been the underpinning of the evaluation of offensive performance (in the 21 Century like mgoetze said above). Just pushing back a bit against that. I'm just saying that 1)it's too easy to say RBIs merely depend on baserunners when they're also impacted by the ability to actually move the baserunner along and 2)I wouldn't give $200m to a guy whose final numbers primarily, and presumably depend on what the rest of the line-up is doing. I'm not arguing he's not a good player, his OBP alone confirms that he is.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 11, 2015 19:15:13 GMT -5
~60 RBI (!) over the past two years – I know Keith Law says RBIs don’t matter. (I don’t know; I’d rather have somebody who regularly puts up 130 RBIs vs. one who averages 60, but maybe I’m missing something) And Keith Law is the only person who's ever said that, you think? Take the exact same player and put them 3rd in a lineup behind (a) Mookie Betts and Dustin Pedroia or (b) Rusney Castillo and Josh Rutledge. Do you think this player is going to produce the same number of RBIs in situation (a) and (b)? If not, then what does the number of RBIs tell us about the player they're being attributed to? Welcome to the 21st century. Yes, I understand I'm guilty of what is now widely perceived as neanderthal thinking. Keith Law (whom I otherwise like) and many others have certainly made that clear enough, with the now expected sprinkle of scorn. I understand that somebody has to be on base for you to drive them in. But driving them in does have value, does it not? If anything, your post reinforces my befuddlement. What you're saying is that the offensive contribution of a player like Heyward is pretty much line-up dependent? His value/performance depends on the performance of others? Then what's the point of giving him all this money if you don't put a great line-up around him (this doesn't apply to the Cubs, I suppose, we'll have to see how many RBIs he gets). Anyway, Heyward slugs .349 and .283 with RISP/RISP with 2 outs. Pedroia, Betts, Bogaerts, for example, are all slugging more than that in those same situations. So no, for $184m, I'm not impressed - but his defense is good and I'm in the 18th century, so who knows.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 11, 2015 17:14:08 GMT -5
Has anybody in Chicago asked Theo – “what’s the fascination, if it is true, what’s the fascination with Jason Heyward?”
I’m all into WAR and stuff (though I like peace better), but when it comes to $200m players, I have to admit I’m pretty old school. So I find this Heyward contract and the acclaim it’s receiving pretty puzzling.
$200m for this? 2014 against lefthanded .169/.252/.225 ( .272/.344/.364 in 2015) 11 Home Runs in 2014, 13 Home Runs in 2014 – I know, those don’t matter ~60 RBI (!) over the past two years – I know Keith Law says RBIs don’t matter. (I don’t know; I’d rather have somebody who regularly puts up 130 RBIs vs. one who averages 60, but maybe I’m missing something)
I know he plays good defense, but jeez. I look at those stats and I see something JBJ can do if he steadies himself a little bit (his defense being a wash vs. Heyward’s) though with a slightly lower BA/OBP.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 10, 2015 14:04:06 GMT -5
There is a virtual place for those arguments if they get really heated. This made me take a look at that subforum. Didn't know there was such a thing; made for excellent reading while having a sandwich, lol. Apologies for being off topic, please carry on.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 8, 2015 12:06:29 GMT -5
Lol, when I saw that I thought that deal had happened. Crazy. Fernandez is good but that's awful. Heyman forgot to add Benintendi..ugghhh
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 7, 2015 15:08:46 GMT -5
I'm ashamed to say I have no idea who Carson Smith is. Will take my cue from the reactions here...
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 6, 2015 19:13:25 GMT -5
Ok so supposedly the Dodgers have all the smart people in the world working in their front office and all the money in the universe to spend and somehow the end result of that is signing a 37 year old second baseman with no knees who hit .212/.286/.343 last year. I'm mystified. I think the Dodgers are pulling a Cherington. I mean, everybody knows they are smart, but it just seems they're trying too hard to show that they are. Mind you, they are facing a legitimate issue in trying to reduce that payroll (like Ben did). But I also think they have this propensity for taking too many bets, going for complicated options when relatively obvious ones are staring them in the face. Last year, I didn't understand why they'd have a so-so rotation behind Kershaw and Greinke. With Greinke gone (yes, 6-year 206m was too much), they should at least add Cueto + somebody like Chen or Iwakuma. I think that front office hasn't been challenged yet. They're all small market guys, who now have to deal with the challenges of a big market. Like Mike Tyson once said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. If the Dodgers don't make it far enough into the playoffs this year, I think Friedmann and Co will be on the hot seat (like Ben was, even though he hadn't realized it), and get one more chance. That said, I'm quite curious to see how they deal with the Greinke fallout.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 6, 2015 18:51:37 GMT -5
If the Dodgers were the least bit concerned with getting their money don't you think they would be taking an interest in resolving the so called issue. Yeah. You must be right. Cable viewers are 100% happy with their cable bills, like sheep they will not explore non-cable viewing options and therefore all of the RSNs are financially sound and there is no TV rights fee bubble at all: www.seattletimes.com/sports/mariners/are-regional-sports-networks-a-bubble-ready-to-burst/"MLB teams, like the Mariners with Robinson Cano, are committing record salaries over the next decade based off anticipated revenue from new regional sports network contracts. The deals have soared in value because advertisers know viewers still prefer to watch sports live without recording and MLB teams each offer 162 such programming dates annually. But these deals have been increasingly likened to a real-estate “bubble” prone to bursting. Analysts warn that TV viewers aren’t all sports fans and are pushing back at paying more for an expensive RSN bundled into their cable bill.Few agree on what will happen if lawmakers eventually “unbundle” cable packages and give viewers choice of what they’ll pay for. Or, if too many irate viewers dump cable and satellite TV for internet-based streaming options. In the extreme, RSN deals worth billions could be dramatically reduced and threaten a network’s existence. Yet, huge player salaries awarded years earlier would still have to be paid." Now, let's face reality. What's going on here is a giant game of musical chairs that eventually leaves the teams with enormous player contracts that have to be paid - Regardless of whether the TV rights fees they were depending on to pay those contracts have disappeared when an RSN files for bankruptcy or, by some other means, been unwound. Like the Dodgers owner said..."As long as the checks keep cashing"...until they, in fact, stop cashing These are some pretty good links, thanks. I've been saying forever that baseball has been in a bubble, and the stupid contracts they're giving away will come home to roost. People keep saying MLB teams can do that because they have money up the wazoo, but technology and viewership trends will catch up to them. In New York, Comcast is refusing to carry the YES network (in part) because they don't want to pay the premium. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 2, 2015 11:25:13 GMT -5
So here's what I am hearing 1) while this deal put us in a much better bargaining position, this is not it for the revamp of the staff there is one more deal which we almost closed early this fall for a young cost controlled pitcher who will slot in very well at #2 but will cost us outfield surplus (most likely JBJ) and one more guy that will be an unpopular add on. 2) Then we may look to shed some of our surplus pitching for prospects to restock, although 8 viable starters at 2 levels is what they want to get through 2016 and may just hold pat. 3) meetings will be basically an open Market everyone will be up for discussion that isn't named Mookie ,Xander or Papi. If someone blows us away we could be looking at a very different team. 4) we can't give Hanley away for a bag of balls. Expect to see him at 1B 5) Clay will be on the team in 2016 , if he reestablishes himself early, we will look for prospects for him. one way or another we will look to restock youth. 6) lots of excitement about #12 pick, its a good year to pick that high. 6) everyone wants Joe Kelly in the Pen someone needs to tell him. As always YMMV On Clay: This team is going for it, I think DD just established that. I'm not a Buch fan, but when he's healthy, he's ace-like. Why would you want to trade him? You can't give $217 to Price, then turn around and trade a healthy Buch for prospects. As has been said around this thread, you can trade one of Miley or Kelly. On Kelly: I for one want Kelly in the rotation. I like the stability that Miley brings, but there may be something in Kelly to see what he can do as the fifth starter. He showed something in his last 7-8 starts. This is really where I talk to my scouts and ask them. I keep the pitcher with the most upside (unless you can get a Shelby Miller for Kelly + JBJ or something) and I trade the other one. Then you have Owens/Johnson/Wright as back-ups in case the #5 falters. But I'd also be ok with keeping Miley as the #5 and put Kelly in the bullpen if the trade market is not attractive enough.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 2, 2015 8:38:31 GMT -5
This opt out discussion is killing me. It's so circular.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 2, 2015 8:15:18 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Ben Cherington could have managed to offer Price the same contract; spending lots of money isn't a skill Spending money is not a skill but getting the player you want on your time line and actually having a proactive time line are skills. Cherington was methodical and took his time and DD is decisive and acts quickly. The ability to get ownership to buy into your plan is also a skill. I like the deal. I hate these silly deals for pitchers but what are you gonna do? You need the front line pitcher, this is the best out there and it looks like they can afford it. And I must say I like the DD approach of not pussyfooting about. But I think we're falling over ourselves a bit to try to make a case of how great DD is. I think it's two things: 1)DD has been around for a long time; he's a veteran GM with gravitas. When he goes to JH and says "forget your theories and what the data says on 30+year old pitchers and work with me here. Spend the money"; it's a bit different from Cherington going to JH and saying the same thing. That's the downside of having young GMs. You trust them, but on big deals, it's really somebody else's call. Even Theo couldn't have sold JH (or was it Lucchino?) on doing something like this when he was here - but he can do it in Chicago. So I guess DD's experience in this sense is a "skill". Now, I'll tell you this. If Price goes out and blows his elbow/can't handle Boston/sucks in year 1 or 2 or something, I doubt DD can get John Henry to spend anywhere close to this on a pitcher again. That convincing John Henry "skill" will go away pretty fast. In a way, DD is pushing in his chips here with Price, because his job gets on the line if Price sucks here. But better to take that kind of job threatening bet with Price than Sandoval. 2)And we have to admit there definitely is a change in philosophy here, from Ben to DD. Ben was a methodical, building for the long term, watch your payroll type exec. A bit too smart for his own good sometimes, going for the complicated approach. The few big bets he made blew up in his face. DD (so far) seems like the ultimate win-now guy. Straight shooter, pay whatever it takes, money is no object. It's great, and we've got to enjoy it. But boy, if his bets go south , it ain't gonna be pretty. What I do wonder about is the payroll. Looks like they've really decided to jack it up, because it's gonna have to be well above the luxury tax for a while to sustain the DD approach.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 1, 2015 21:29:12 GMT -5
I see DD and Cherington as two people who go our car shopping. They both make good money and can afford an expensive car. Ben haggles, shops around, and is willing to get a model and color which are perfect but are still good - he walks home happy that he got a nice new Toyota and a great price. DD goes out and see a Lexus he likes in the color he wants and he buys the Lexus. A Lexus and Toyota are often similar, if not the same, cars. But the Lexus has all the features and is exactly what DD wanted. DD isn't worried that he could have saved a few bucks because he had the money to buy a nice car(s) and got exactly what he wanted. Just like in real life, there are very few people who buy a Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, etc and come away with buyer's remorse - usually because they have the money to spend and they value the perfect car they want more than that money or the possible savings. Yeah, but you're assuming they're going shopping with the same budget. I don't think they do. If I have money for 5 Lexuses, there's no buyer's remorse in getting one. If I have money for only one Lexus, I kinda look at the nice Toyota Camry too, just in case I can save a bit of cash for something else.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 1, 2015 21:24:27 GMT -5
Negotiation certainly is a skill, though. At the very least, there are clearly different advantages and disadvantages to different negotiating styles. Dombrowski's style gives you overpays but closes the deal now. I don't think that if Cherington were the GM, he gets this deal signed on this date. I heartily agree that negotiation is a skill; but it's talking nonsense to say: 1. Party A is a skilled negotiator 2. Party A overpays. Nope Yeah, these types of comparisons are pretty tough. I mean, one GM acted like he had a salary cap (even if they could go up a little bit here and there). The other is acting as if money is no object. What is going on here? I mean, I'm happy they got Price, but history has not been kind to this kind of deal. I can't imagine Cherington working under a framework in which money is no object and not going after Scherzer last year, or playing tight wallet with Lester. It doesn't compute. I mean, the money isn't even deferred in this deal. Maybe it was Lucchino putting the screws. I think we have to see what kind of payroll DD works with over the next year or two, but I'm getting the sense that DD doesn't have the same type of budget constraints that Ben had. Of course, whatever money Ben had, he gave to Hanley and Sandoval, so that's a strike against him there (and Moncada (great) and Castillo (meh so far). I agree that overpaying isn't a skill. Anybody can do that. Heck, the Dbacks just tendered $120m to Cueto. But overpaying and getting a deal done on December 1? Beautiful, great for my ulcer.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 1, 2015 18:27:40 GMT -5
[..] DD has now solved each of our 3 biggest issues with arguably the best player available. He also has the ability to recoup the value of Margot and Guerra by trading one of our back-of-the-rotation arms. The farm and major league team could both be in better shape on opening day 2016 than they were at season's end. Man, that'd be downright Machiavellian. And you have the 12th pick still.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 1, 2015 18:19:42 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see how dropping their homegrown lefty ace in Lester for another lefty ace in Price will work out. Lester was just about the same age as Price when he signed last year, and had pretty similar numbers in his contract year. Lester is about 1.5 years older than Price, I wonder how well Lester's performance in year n will predict Price's performance in year n+1 (e.g. Lester 2015 vs Price 2016). Come on now. I like Lester too, but Price is the superior pitcher here. That's a flawed comp. Now, about the playoffs...
|
|
|