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 mandelbro on Apr 14, 2016 10:46:39 GMT -5
I disagree that Rijo is a placeholder in AA. While Moncada wouldn't be "blocked" by him, maybe they give Moncada some time at 3rd or the OF? It's not like he's going to play 2B for Boston in 2016 or 2017 anyways, and it's AA where they usually start trying guys at different positions (Mookie to CF) Agreed. Rijo isn't a flashy prospect but a 20 year old 2B in AA is on track to make it to the big leagues really. He's not organizational fodder.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Apr 12, 2016 9:50:30 GMT -5
Yes and no. Yes, because giving a big one year deal to a guy like that made sense. The Masterson deal, from a strategy standpoint, was a good one. No, because Masterson was coming off a year in which he was a horrible pitcher, and in the midst of a velocity decline. Hill was coming off a year in which he was practically unhittable, and if humbled by his starting attempt would be a good bullpen arm, unlike Masterson who hasn't gotten a swinging strike since the Gaddafi administration. Had Masterson been a number five pitcher and not a number five billion pitcher, it would have been a good deal, and there was a lot more reason ex-ante to be bullish on Hill's range of outcomes than Masterson. Now, the Red Sox either ignored the physically obvious red flags with Masterson, or waited too long to pull the plug. But I'm not going to put that on the strategic decision to sign him. When it was obvious that he was terrible, they could have moved him to the pen or dropped him there and then. That's the point of being a wealthy club. As a strategy, "sign reclamation guy to deal with short term in exchange for higher value" should be on the laminated call sheet. And Hill was a perfect option for that approach.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Apr 12, 2016 9:21:40 GMT -5
Price had one bad inning. Kimbrel had a bad inning. They probably will have other bad innings during the course of the season. Nothing else can be concluded about them from today. I wasn't enthusiastic about the Young acquisition and now I know why. I signed up for MLB TV this year and have been able to watch most of every game so far. I like the looks of the team on the field. I was dubious about the starting pitching before the season began and still am. Yeah, last year Clay B. gave up like 7 runs in his first home start. Finished with a 3.30 ERA and nice peripherals. Its not like Price is doomed. If there's an offseason move to hindsight right now for me, its not giving Rich Hill more than $6M and first dibs on a rotation slot. He wanted to start - well guess what, if he gets lit up then you don't have to start him anymore. Hell just DFA him if it came to that. Low risk-high reward moves like that are what the Sox should be leveraging their financial might to make.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Apr 12, 2016 9:03:19 GMT -5
I would be very surprised if Swihart was not a much better hitter then Vazquez in the majors this year. I would keep Swihart in majors. Let him watch and learn from one of the best on a daily basis in Vazquez. I would split playing time. For me Vazquez and Swihart is a better pairing then Vazquez and Hanigan. I also think Swihart has made good progress behind the plate since last year. I mean, sure, it's possible Swihart has a breakout year with the bat and in that scenario Vazquez and Swihart might well be the best tandem. The problem is that you can't bunker Hanigan in AAA (he's out of options and somewhere between 20 and 29 teams would claim him on waivers). I just really like the depth of having 3 starting-caliber catchers and think it would be prudent to keep it until the trade deadline, especially given Vazquez' recent injury. Why is significant development a necessary qualifier for Swihart to be a much better hitter than Vazquez? Their career wRC+ marks are 91 and 70 respectively. Swihart is a year and a half younger, a switch-hitter, and scouted by consensus to have offensive upside. I'd eat my hat if Vazquez were a comparable offensive player to Swihart this season. I'm agnostic. Swihart's lack of apparent defensive development is a concern. But if you lay out the pros and cons, between offense, defense, development, and roster management, I don't think there's a course of action that is meaningfully smarter than the rest. The Sox have bigger fish to fry than catcher depth.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Apr 7, 2016 11:15:16 GMT -5
Cy Young season starts tonight.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 31, 2016 13:42:13 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't think this has much to do with Travis Shaw, as it does with sending a message to Sandoval about getting serious. Yeah, who cares whether Travis Shaw can actually play 3rd base or hit major league pitching. We're not trying to win baseball games, we're just trying to send a message! Oh you know what I mean. Shaw didn't win the competition, Pablo lost it.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 31, 2016 13:34:56 GMT -5
I applaud this move. I'm glad Shaw will get his shot at 3b. It now gives the Sox 2 legitimate LH power threats. I figure if Sandoval played this year he probably would have hit about a dozen homers. I expect Shaw's average to slide a bit, but I think he'll draw some walks, and he has the capability of hitting 25 homers in a year, I think. I definitely think he fits the lineup better than Sandoval does and I would think his defense would be better than Sandoval's as well. Based on the last couple of months last year, he deserves this opportunity. Hope he can run with it. Hot half-season at 25 aside, Travis Shaw hasn't really given us a reason to call him a "left handed power threat" yet. Now, if he can field the position at 3B, the expectations for his bat change considerably. But I'll eat my hat if Shaw slugs .480 again.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 31, 2016 11:59:10 GMT -5
If fielding is the main reason for the decision, I'm not sure how Sandoval is going to regain any range without losing a bunch of weight. So his time on the bench will probably be determined by how Shaw is doing and whether they can trade him. If the issue is Sandoval coming into camp out of shape and being unable to adequately field his position, there's a chance that this demotion pisses him off enough that he spends the first couple months of the season getting into shape and takes back his starting spot by mid-season. I also think Sandoval will get more playing time than the typical backup 3B. Any time Ramirez or Ortiz need a day off or get hurt (or, in Ramirez's case, if his positive early defensive showings don't carry over), Shaw probably slides over and Sandoval starts at 3B. Yeah, I don't think this has much to do with Travis Shaw, as it does with sending a message to Sandoval about getting serious. They need Sandoval to improve and he hasn't shown much urgency to do so. If it pisses him off and he gets in shape and works on his craft then the team benefits. If he shrugs and continues to be the player that he was last year going forward, well now you know.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 31, 2016 9:33:00 GMT -5
If the front office thinks Hanley can play first going forward I wonder if the next move is Panda for Kemp. Doubt it. Hanley Ramirez is a DH at this point. Its not about competence in the field so much as it about his health. Having 160 games of Ramirez at DH and someone else at first base makes more sense than 100-120 games of Ramirez at 1B and 160 games of Kemp at DH.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 30, 2016 15:57:54 GMT -5
Re: Castillo. Is there a GM out there who Eff'd up in a serie of move more than Ben C. did in 2014-2015? - Signing Castillo where he blew up the rest of the competition - Signing Sandoval - Signing Hanley - Trading Cespedes for Porcello I wish they hire him again so they could fire him a second time! I disagree strongly trading Cespedes for Porcello was a mistake. At the time, Cespedes was coming off a mediocre-at-best half season with the Red Sox. He slashed .269/.296/.423 in Boston and reportedly didn't want to play right field. He'd gotten consistently worse since arriving stateside, and he was set to be a free agent. meanwhile, Porcello was a young pitcher on an upward trajectory. The Red Sox turned an outfielder who wasn't in their plans (and who they had good reason not to consider in their plans) into a 1-year test drive of a potential starting pitcher for the next five years.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 30, 2016 11:02:20 GMT -5
Just spitballing; but if Mookie is still determined on his "can't walk your way to Fenway" kick (he has no BBs this spring), why not bat Holt leadoff when he's in the lineup and take advantage of Mookie's XBP; certainly a better option than Sandoval in 6th, and probably could hit 5th ahead of Hanley. Then return him to leadoff vs. LHP. Holt had a 9% BB last year and is an excellent baserunner Interesting thought. I think the problem with that approach would be that part of optimizing the lineup is getting your best hitters the most at-bats, and Holt simply isn't one of them. As I've said already, I don't think Mookie should be leading off when he's seemingly a mortal lock to rip 60+ extra base hits. My preferred leadoff man would Pedroia personally. Pedroia's always gotten on base, he's still one of the best hitters in the lineup overall. Seniority is served by having him near the top. And like Eric has alluded to, I've always felt that Pedroia has more professional at-bats when he's setting the table than when he thinks he needs to hit the ball to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 29, 2016 10:34:22 GMT -5
I've heard nothing from the Red Sox themselves suggesting that they're going to send Castillo down. And if you send him down, who do you replace him with? I guess Marrero could handle the defensive side, but he's a blackhole offensively. This sure sounds like poor roster construction; again, unless something's coming soon And Marrero is a black hole offensively.... like Castillo. Like I said before, this is why I didn't understand the choice of Chris Young. Carrying two outfielders who don't play against RHP, just in different flavors (one with proportionally more bat and less glove than the other) is redundant. They should have sought a LHH to play in the outfield with Castillo. As for fixing it... we'll see what happens. Long-term, Benintendi going gangbusters would be a neat solution.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 29, 2016 10:22:09 GMT -5
Who is this guy and what has he done with John Farrell? On a serious note, who is the backup infielder now? Yeah, this is the bigger issue with Holt being the strong side of the platoon in LF. We need a guy to play SS or 2B in a pinch. I vote Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 29, 2016 10:10:30 GMT -5
I don't understand what they're doing. So Castillo is on this team . . . why? Neither Shaw nor Sandoval are middle infielders (hell, they're not even really 3B). Unless there's another shoe to drop Castillo has options. They don't need to do anything drastic. Just send him to AAA with the expectation that he earn some playing time. Demonstrating some ability to run the bases, and to put balls in play that aren't pulled grounders would be a start.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 29, 2016 9:58:04 GMT -5
Are you really so confident that his replacement is on this team? Or are you so down on him? I feel that he is at least a 1-WAR player, and that both Holt and Shaw have a chance to be exposed dramatically with every-day playing. I'm not sure I even have a strong feeling which has more upside. Sandoval is the only one with a history of lighting it up at any level, so I'm inclined to lean towards him (which doesn't mean I expect him to be better than 2 WAR this year). Last year, Sandoval both collapsed at the plate and collapsed in the field. I'm not that big on the defensive metrics and WAR by extension but you're projecting a 3 WAR increase in his performance. The collapse in the field was physiological, and nothing's changed. Its a safe bet that he's going to struggle in the field again. That leaves us betting on a bounce-back at the dish to get him halfway there. Given that Sandoval has some hallmarks of an early peaker at the plate (heavy and relies on O-contact)... I have a hard time seeing Sandoval being difficult to replace with some combination of Shaw, Holt, Marrero, or Hernandez. EDIT: Congratulations to Brock on what I believe will be his first opening day start!
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 29, 2016 9:26:42 GMT -5
There's no rational analysis that James Shields, a 3 WAR pitcher, is better than Joe Kelly or Henry Owens. Right. Yeah, right now Shields seems like roughly the same caliber of Jake Peavy when we traded for him. He's not particularly good anymore but he's a good bet to eat innings and everyone seems to like him. 3 years and $65M (incl. buyout) for that sounds much preferable to 4 years and $78M (incl. buyout) for Sandoval, especially given the age of the team.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 28, 2016 16:32:35 GMT -5
Even if he doesn't hit, Castillo adds value in a way that Young does not-- he's a considerably better defender and at least slightly better baserunner than Young. Plus, there's still a chance that getting more reps helps Castillo develop and improve (which is not true for Young), and having Young's bat on the bench gives you a useful pinch-hitter to either use or threaten to use versus LOOGY-types when Sandoval, Shaw or Bradley are up. But Castillo was one of the worst baserunners in the majors last year. His value is entirely derived from defensive metrics that we know lack the precision of their offensive counterparts. And on top of his value being entirely reliant on defensive metrics, he rated the highest in LF, which we know to be a UZR graveyard. I'll grant you that he has more projectability left, or that we should give him at-bats to sort out our investment. But I don't get the righteous indignation over Young taking playing time from him when he hits RHP like a pitcher. EDIT: In case you can't tell, my preferred approach would be a Holt/Young platoon in left field, with Mookie playing every day in right field, Bradley playing in center, and cycling Castillo through for Young/Bradley (vs LHP) or Holt (def replacement) where necessary.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 28, 2016 16:05:15 GMT -5
Why are we assuming that Young would logically be anything less than the 3rd outfielder? He's obviously playing whenever we face left handed pitchers. And he might represent the best blend of offense and defense versus RHP as well - the alternatives are Castillo and his career 49 wRC+ versus RHP, Shaw who can hit righties but isn't actually an outfielder, and Holt. I would like to see a Holt/Young platoon in LF personally but I can see the argument for Holt being needed elsewhere. That's the worst scenario I can think of. Young is below replacement level vs. RHP at this point in his career. May as well put Pablo out there. Young owns a career wRC+ of 83 versus RHP. Fangraphs doesn't break it out for you but his last two OPS's versus RHP are .720 and .585. Splitting that down the middle as a baseline puts him in the realm of pretty bad... and the realm of hitting RHP much better than Castillo. Given the choice of below replacement level and below-below replacement level, what's the manager to do? This is what I didn't understand about the Young signing. He's a good platoon bat but he plays the same side of the platoon as Castillo does. The manager doesn't exactly have enticing options here.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 28, 2016 15:14:19 GMT -5
Am I the only one scared we might see Chris Young everyday? I can already hear Farrell's interviews: "He's a veteran, he is a guy that gives you professional ABs" Why are we assuming that Young would logically be anything less than the 3rd outfielder? He's obviously playing whenever we face left handed pitchers. And he might represent the best blend of offense and defense versus RHP as well - the alternatives are Castillo and his career 49 wRC+ versus RHP, Shaw who can hit righties but isn't actually an outfielder, and Holt. I would like to see a Holt/Young platoon in LF personally but I can see the argument for Holt being needed elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 27, 2016 17:39:18 GMT -5
Bradley has always been a lead off hitter, Betts power would be better utilized in the three hole. Agreed. Bradley has always had a huge isolated patience split. If he can hit a lick his OBP should be .350 or so, which is lead off caliber. I'm not ready to buy into him doing that but if he does, I'd put Bradley at lead off and Betts in the 2 hole.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 26, 2016 20:21:01 GMT -5
I know lineup order isn't that important in the big picture but are we going to consider moving Mookie to a more 'run production' oriented spot in the lineup at some point? The dude is more of an XBH threat than Xander or Pedroia. I know he's a great baserunner and therefore a more stereotypical leadoff hitter. But at some point doesn't the fact that he's the best slugger on the team overshadow that? EDIT: Best slugger besides Ortiz, that is. I agree they're probably going to think about moving him from the leadoff position. Logical choice if he were to continue to hit would be Bradley. With a decent batting average his OBP would give him a leg up on that spot. I think they'll wait and see if he can carry the bat in the regular season before they consider such a move. The player I had in mind, although I know he's on record as preferring not to lead off, is Pedroia. Seems like a good bet for a .350 OBP. Still one of your best hitters, an honor I'm not ready to confer on Jackie. That way Betts gets more ABs with a man on base. Its not just home runs - Betts makes so much hard contact. Few infield singles.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 26, 2016 14:19:18 GMT -5
I know lineup order isn't that important in the big picture but are we going to consider moving Mookie to a more 'run production' oriented spot in the lineup at some point? The dude is more of an XBH threat than Xander or Pedroia. I know he's a great baserunner and therefore a more stereotypical leadoff hitter. But at some point doesn't the fact that he's the best slugger on the team overshadow that?
EDIT: Best slugger besides Ortiz, that is.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 24, 2016 10:38:45 GMT -5
In general, I just don't think the optimism surrounding this team is warranted. The Red Sox went 80-82 last year. Do they improve? Sure. But there's a big difference between 80 wins and being a genuine contender. There's a lot of question marks still. Every rotation slot other than the top one is pretty much a question mark. The infield could end up with a 1B at 3B and a DH at 1B. LF is a battle between offense and defense. Now, I can see a best-case scenario where the Sox win the AL East. But Ortiz, Buchholz, Bradley, Bogaerts and Shaw would be hard-pressed to repeat their stellar 2015 seasons. You'll improve in some areas but you'll get worse in others. And there's always the injuries. I just don't see a reason to think that a successful season by most people's standards is some kind of midline for this team. I'd guess they win 86-87 games. It'll be fun, but adding Price and Kimbrel doesn't magically make this a different team.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 24, 2016 9:06:56 GMT -5
In case anyone didn't notice, that NIH article describing the increased risk associated with slider use has a very credible name on it. "JR Andrews" in the author list is the famous Dr. James Andrews.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 24, 2016 0:28:57 GMT -5
A-Rod's combination of shortstop skills and triple crown-level hitting ability was unreal. I doubt I'll ever see something like it again.
|
|
|