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 Oct 9, 2015 11:58:29 GMT -5
Hanley's apparent attitude on the field and at the plate were linked with the Sox downturn in many eyes....chicken and beer revisited. Honestly I expect both to be better players next year regardless. But will either show the necessary drive to satisfy management? Hanley was asked to lose 15-20 lbs. and Panda to no longer need to be hoisted on a meat-hook. Hanley has always appeared the reluctant malcontent and Panda's weight has long been an issue. I don't have much hope that either will metamorphose. For me color both long gone before their respective contracts are up and as soon as reasonably possible. No tears will be shed. You're 100% correct. Hanley DOES have an attitude. Panda's weight HAS long been an issue. But they do not have to metamorphose to be our best available option at their respective positions. Is Travis Shaw going to be a better option at 1B than Ramirez? Is Brock Holt/Deven Marrero going to be a better option at 3B than Pablo Sandoval? Are they such safer, smarter propositions that it is worth eating 7 figures a year on each guy for the privilege? Look, I'm not saying everything is rainbows and butterflies with Hanley. And if we can work out trades involving them, that make the team better, I'll be thrilled. It just seems to me that the "GET RID OF THEM!" sentiment is unfair - motivated by ignoring the considerable track record of the two veterans (and in Hanley's case at the plate, unfortunate circumstances), and ignoring the considerable downside/growing pains present in the rest of the young roster.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 9, 2015 11:00:00 GMT -5
Addition by subtraction. Both have to go, one way or another. If they can get someone decent in return, great. If not, release them. Money is no object to Henry, so that shouldn't matter. Forget the money. Look for the talent. The problem with this is that Hanley IS the talent. He's a career .327 BABIP hitter (and better than that from 2012 to today) who started the year mashing, crashed into a wall and finished with a .257 BABIP. This without him showing any change in terms of contact and swinging tendencies in the second half. He just stopped driving and lifting the ball, and hit a lot of ground balls. How could that possibly happen? Maybe a shoulder injury? Why are people so convinced that after a decade of being a fearsome offensive player, Hanley randomly turned into a melon this July?
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 9, 2015 9:52:18 GMT -5
In my opinion Brian is Boston's number four starter right now. I'd trade Owens to a big ball park team like San Diego. I'd package him with JBJ or Castillo. Owens is a fly ball pitcher which has never worked well long term in Fenway. I wonder what Washington would take for one of their pitchers? By July 31 I see a totally different team, Sam Travis at first, Shaw at third, Xavier at short, Dustin at second, JBJ in right (assuming he's not traded) Castillo (assuming he's not traded) and Mookie in center. I have mixed feelings about Catcher as I am really high on both. Obviously Henley and Panda are a forgotten memory wRC+ this past season:David Ortiz: 138 Jackie Bradley: 121 (in 255 PA, buoyed by an ISO of .249) Mookie Betts: 119 Travis Shaw: 119 (in 248 PA, after being a AAAA guy until a few months ago, may not even be able to handle 3rd) Dustin Pedroia: 116 Xander Bogaerts: 109 Blake Swihart: 91 Rusney Castillo: 72 Sam Travis: in AA What could possibly go wrong with this plan? People love to point out how young the team is. But that works both ways. The best hitter on the team is going to be 40 next year. One fo the anticipated top offensive performers in Pedroia is no spring chicken himself, and has struggled to stay on the field. I get that we hate him and I get that he's an idiot but idiot Hanley played hurt for most of the year. He has a track record of being an excellent offensive player. Yet we want to pay $15M today, for the privilege of making him go away, for the privilege to play a AA kid at 1st and play a 1st baseman who might not be able to reprise his offensive production... at third? I don't understand this whole "wish away Ramirez and Sandoval" thing. They're here. They're getting paid. And they have track records. Yet we want to cut off our nose to spite our face and throw some kids into the fire instead.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 8, 2015 23:01:28 GMT -5
This forum hypes Gray up so much it's crazy. He's got similar peripherals to McHugh, and he's worse than someone like Quintana, yet people group him in with Harvey, Fernandez, Sale, DeGrom, etc. ESPN may love him because he keeps his ERA nice and pretty in Oakland, but I'd stay away from him at this point because he's got the connotation of a monster when he's no more valuable than guys like Swihart who we talk about trading in a package for him. And Andrew Cashner would be absolutely terrible in the AL East. Like Porcello before the all star break bad, except it would never end. He has upside but he's about to be 30 and I see little reason to believe he improves much more. Agreed on both counts. Casher gets hit hard, velocity and all. At least with Kelly he's a converted outfielder and has some excuses to be raw at his age. What is Cashner's excuse? Injuries? The last thing we need is yet another reclamation project.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 7, 2015 16:23:01 GMT -5
It seems that a sliding scale of sorts emerging.
1) Trading valuable young position players (say, Betts, Swihart) for young AND impactful pitching (say, Harvey or Carrasco), and throwing $$$ at a position in the field. An approach with great upside, that is financially safe, but is also reckless in terms of sending out a ton of future value and cost controlled talent. One TJS and its over.
2) Trading position players with second-tier value or mediocre veterans (say, Margot or Miley) for less impactful pitching (say, Tyson Ross or Jose Quintana). An approach that is financially conservative, and conservative with prospects, but with lower/unsexier potential payoff.
3) Throwing $$$ at older but impactful pitching (say, Price). An approach that is very conservative with prospects, with great/sexy payoff, but extremely imprudent financially.
If there were an easy way out everyone would do it. Any one of these tacks will come with disadvantages. To some extent, the above looks like a pick 2 out of 3 situation.
I like the second one the most personally. People have gotten on the Red Sox for foolishly trying to build a "rotation of 3s" - but the problem was that they ended up for most of the first half with a rotation of 5s plus Clay. Thad they really had a rotation of "number three pitchers" in terms of percentile rank among the league's starters they would have been fine. I'm okay with adding some pitching that is better-but-not-drastically-so, and gunning for a rotation whose strength is depth for a second straight year. The issue isn't the strategy - the issue is getting it right.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 7, 2015 16:04:56 GMT -5
Anybody else think that it amy make sense to sign J Upton to play LF and try and move Castillo or maybe JBJ can be a centrepiece for Harvey or Sale? ?? Upton will probably cost less than Cespedes and much less than Heyward. He may also be the power bat this team needs. The short answer: No. The long answer: I don't think Cespedes having a career contract year is going to make teams ignore the fact that Upton is younger and has been more consistently productive. I'm sure he'll have plenty of suitors. I think the premise that Castillo or JBJ could be the centerpiece for Harvey or Sale is also off. After all, if JBJ were good enough to be the centerpiece for such a trade we wouldn't be sniffing around Upton, Cespedes, Heyward in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 7, 2015 15:49:22 GMT -5
Yeah, whatever diet works I guess? Not really the point of my post. Just saying I don't see how you can say what is the right amount for him to lose in the next 100+ days based on you and your experiences. He is crazy overweight. Probably 100 lbs or so? Whatever the case it should be easier for him to lose weight faster than someone who is only 20 lbs overweight. It will certainly be easier for him to lose weight faster than you based on age alone. How much loss does that add up to? No clue, but would guess that if it is only 20 lbs the Sox brass will be pretty upset. I think you are seriously overestimating the value that rapid weight loss would have for Pablo. He's spent his career honing skills to play with the body he has. Can he lose 20 lbs in 6 months? Yeah. He'll probably be losing a lot more than just that. Coordination, motor skills. Average Joe who is significantly overweight can lose 20 lbs because they can do it without regard for maintaining peak athletic performance. You can't do this in an offseason. Like someone else observed, Ortiz has been improving his conditioning gradually over the past five years. He has attributed that to diet in interviews. Its about slow and steady. Like it or not, Fat Panda is Fat Panda at this stage. I don't like it, because Panda falls into the two scariest demographics of player aging-wise (heavy, reliant on O-contact). But saying he can turn it around so easily is unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 6, 2015 16:44:55 GMT -5
Honestly, if I were in charge, the one name I'd really be sniffing around is Tyson Ross.
I know the way 2015 went awry has got people really gunning for star pitching, but in terms of being a considerable improvement, but attainable short of trading away the top 5 or so young players we have, is there any more attractive option than him? He has qualities that should play well in Fenway.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 6, 2015 10:22:53 GMT -5
I don't think there's a pitcher on that list you couldn't get, if you went all in. With five teams to talk to and seven guys to evaluate as smartly as possibly, I just don't see any way in which signing Price could possibly be the smartest or best thing to do.
By "all-in" do you mean including Betts or Bogaerts? Otherwise I find this statement impossible to believe. If the Red Sox could get someone like Harvey or Syndergaard for spare parts like Miley and Marrero and a single A lottery ticket.. why hasn't it already happened? Personally, the only name that screams 'available' is Strasburg. He has one year left before he becomes very expensive. He's a bit of a question mark despite his hype and talent, and he's on a team that doesn't need him that badly, needs to shake things up, and likely wants to get younger. Strasburg would fit what the Sox need in a few ways. He's young, he's talented. We have money so the impending FA is a game we can play. I guess Gray and Archer are available in the sense that their clubs exist to be exploited and not compete at baseball. But even then, calling them available seems like a stretch. They'd be gone already. Lots of teams would give up lots of players for a young horse. EDIT: Somewhat off-topic but how do we feel about the disconnect between Gray's peripherals and results? He scares me - I wouldn't want to pay full price to acquire Gray and find his ERA plummeting back to "normal" good pitcher levels.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 6, 2015 9:12:02 GMT -5
So far it looks like Eno's column on Fangraphs was extremely prescient. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/which-pablo-sandoval-did-the-red-sox-buy/Anyway, Hanley Ramirez, for all his warts, could well be the difference between the 2015 Red Sox scoring runs and the 2015 Red Sox being the most feared offense in the USA. Does eating the bulk of his contract to get him to go away really make sense? Likewise does paying your third basemen (a position we don't have alternatives at) to go away make sense? At some point, TRADING THEM AWAY! so you can pretend they never existed and pencil in some 22 year olds instead isn't a productive use of resources. The Sox made their bed and they have to lie in it. I am cautiously optimistic about Ramirez personally.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 28, 2015 7:34:32 GMT -5
It surprises me how many people are looking forward to/expecting some kind of fireworks, while simultaneously reluctant to part with the jewels of the Sox farm system. Can someone propose a realistic scenario in which the Sox retool substantially without trading guys like Devers or Swihart?
It seems the most popular plan is "oh just sign David Price" - but securing the services of the most sought-after pitcher on the market isn't going to be easy. The Red Sox could offer him $32M a year for many years and get outbid or come up empty. And if they don't come up empty they're going to be paying $30M a year for a pitcher in his... you know the drill.
Don't get me wrong - I like the DD hire and I like a lot of things about the team - but this whole "Sox fireworks!" thing just seems like wishful thinking. If the Sox are much better in 2016 its going to involve Ramirez and Sandoval having bounced back and adapted to the infield corners, and Porcello pitching better. Paying them to go away doesn't solve any problems.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 25, 2015 15:01:30 GMT -5
That's essentially what I'm saying, and what I meant by Jmei looking at him "statically." I don't see it as an either/or BA vs power...it may be now, but he hopefully won't remain at his current aptitude as a hitter ("static"). He may not be able to combine both approaches *now*, and at 22 that's not surprising. But as he matures as a hitter I think it's more likely he will be able to change approaches within an at-bat, pulling inside pitches for power and hitting outside pitches the other way, on top of being more selective about which pitches he swings at. I simply see a higher upside for him than Jmei seems to. This is very semantic. But him changing or managing to blend approaches would be more of a surprise than him not, I think. I'm guessing the other poster would agree. I think he's most likely Johnny Peralta, with a chance to be more than that if something fundamental changes. I would consider that optimistic. Peralta has been a top 5 SS in the game at his peak. It doesn't look optimistic relative to what a lot of people are saying on here though.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 25, 2015 10:10:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't want to make it seem like I'm disparaging the guy. I think he's overwhelmingly likely to be an above-average regular and probably a multi-year All-Star. But I tend to think the most likely scenario is something more like Jhonny Peralta or Carlos Guillen than Troy Tulowitzki or Alex Rodriguez. On the other hand, you're looking at him statically: if he traded power/walks for BA right now, he might've put up "X" batting line. He's 22...it seems odd to conclude that he won't further develop as a hitter, and thus add power/walks to his BA. It's quite rare that players peak in offensive production at 22. At the very least, he's got 4-6 years until his HR output is likely to peak. Hitters evolve...Bogaerts has shown that he's adaptable and a quick study. It's not a stretch at all to think that he may learn to be more selective with pitches away, and start identifying those he can turn on. He's on target for 35 doubles or so...in Fenway, when he learns to pull the ball at opportune times, he's likely to benefit from the Wall in both 2b and BA, and potentially some HR. He's also likely to get a bit stronger and get more carry on liners to RF, which may not help in Fenway, but will certainly be dangerous in a place like Yankee Stadium. The point isn't that he is static. Its that "trading power/walks for BA" sounds good in the abstract, but he's had success with an approach - stay back and swing often. It's a lot to ask for him to be simultaneously giving you all the good and none of the bad of two different approaches within a split second. IMO, because of BABIP-related regression as he tries to pull the ball more, Xander could take strides forward without his overall slash line looking much better, and it will get completely overlooked by the media/crowd fawning over him in the present. 600 PA .330 BABIP .160 ISO 16% K-rate 4% BB-rate I'd be content with that. That would come out to a .291/.322/.451 slash line more or less, but the improvement would have been deeper than surface level - evolving his approach to both drive the ball and poke singles into the opposite field when needed. If he can isolate the two with some regularity... he can grow into both and that's where all the hyperbolic comparisons become in the realm of possibility. I'd also consider batting Xander in front of Pedroia next year. Less so to "optimize" and more to keep Xander's head in the right place about hitting for power - encourage him to focus on being a GOOD hitter and not get too carried away with being a power hitter. Pedroia has more of it in the present anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 23, 2015 10:29:33 GMT -5
So what do we make of Xander's BABIP?
First 274 PA: .383 Next 268 PA: .199 (June through August, or the great slump of Summer 2014) Last 700 PA: .368
Where is his "true talent level"?
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 22, 2015 15:26:18 GMT -5
I agree with most of this, but I want to reiterate that a run prevented is essentially the same as a run scored, and the biggest problem with the 2015 Red Sox weren't their run scoring but their run prevention (11th in wRC+, 24th in FIP-, 19th in UZR/150). They don't need to be a top 5 offense to win the division, and I continue to believe that defense is still somewhat undervalued and an easy route towards significant improvement. Truly, a run prevented is as good as a run scored. But from a roster construction standpoint, I would think that: 1. Team wRC+ has the most potential to improve without trades (maturation of young players, bounce-back years from Ramirez and Sandoval, more than half a season of Pedroia, DH redundancy with Ramirez present to compensate for possible Ortiz decline) 2. The UZR/150 has the least potential to change one way or the other despite trades (3 center fielders plus Brock Holt plus the fact that no-bat outfielders are cheap makes it easy to have a studly OF in most scenarios, defensive liabilities entrenched in the IF corners makes the infield bad in most scenarios) Thus, if I'm trying to be a competitor in the short term, I'm trading from redundancy (defensive CF/UZR) to address weakness (FIP-) and hoping that the rest of the improvement comes from within (wRC+). Bradley being a 6-hitter and not a 9-hitter makes him part of the solution, if not directly as a player, then indirectly in letting us move someone else, or as a trade piece. I don't think they need a top 5 offense to win the division in a vacuum. But I do think that their best bet to get to the postseason next year, given the constraints (how good the current roster is, age distribution, what the contracts look like, what the farm looks like) is as a bat-first team. Or to put that in a different wording, I think that their most realistic shot at cumulative improvement is being top a fringe top 5 team in wRC+, and getting around average in FIP-, while treading water in UZR/150, for example. Would you disagree with that statement?
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 20, 2015 22:35:05 GMT -5
I never said that he would be a surefire lock as a starter if he were an 80 wRC+ player, just that he'd still be a decent starter. Teams try to upgrade on two win players, but teams are (or should be) comfortable with those guys even if their value comes disproportionately from their defense. You're also skewing the sample by looking at guys with wRC+s of 79 and lower. There are a bunch of guys with wRC+s in the low 80s that meet your criteria-- think Leonys Martin (80), Andrelton Simmons, Michael Bourn (81), Stephen Drew, Alberto Callaspo (82), J.J. Hardy, Ruben Tejada (83). I read your post and the one you quoted, and drew a similar conclusion from both: *There are a bunch of low-end starters who profile similarly to a hypothetical "Jackie Bradley who is just good enough to stick". *Is Bradley "good enough to stick" with a .660 OPS? Sure. So is Leonys Martin or Michael Bourn. Martin is a good and underrated player - over whom no one is salivating. *Framing the debate around "good enough to stick" is not particularly interesting. A top 5 offense edition of the Bosox is going to have to be 10% above league average. This means having a plethora of above average (say 110 wrC+ or better) offensive players. *That Bradley can hack it as a 80 wRC+ guy is better than nothing. The real question is whether he is part of the solution to that top-5 offense, the problem, or somewhere in between. Because that informs how we have to build the rest of the team to get there. I would bet on solution - 95 wRC+ combined with his sublime defense. But people are throwing around these putrid offensive benchmarks without considering how they affect overall team construction.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 18, 2015 9:43:07 GMT -5
Mike Napoli seems to have recovered his batting stroke. Since August 16 he is 16 for 47 (.340) with 4 HRs. In the sweep of Houston he was 4 for 9 with a HR and 3 RBIs. Good for Mike. He and Papi are both trending upwards as they learn the new strike zone. I would be surprised if Napoli isn't "good Napoli" next year.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 14, 2015 15:27:31 GMT -5
I think your assumptions are way, way, way too strong on Vazquez. A) I don't care how good his defense is, if he's hitting a Sandy Leon line, even just with the optics, it'd be hard to start him. Leon was tolerated because he was a stopgap while Hanigan got healthy. But that's a much harder thing to do if we're talking "long-term, 6-year player." B) Then of course, there's the fact that you're assuming his defense will be as otherworldly at the major league level as you think it is. It's entirely possible after missing a year to Tommy John, his arm just never is the same, his mechanics don't come back, he isn't as agile, etc etc. Seriously, for me, my answer to the question in the poll is, "IDFK, ask me again in a year when we've got a year of data on Vazquez post-injury and Swihart post-actually-being-ready-for-the-majors-in-theory and then I'll tell you whether they should keep one or both." This also depends on what trades become available, doesn't it? And yes, I think you may miss out on the chance to trade Swihart for his peak value by doing this, but to find out whether you have a potential long-term solution at catcher, I think that's absolutely worth it. Basically where I'm at in my thinking. We don't know if either guy is a 'long-term, 6-year player' at this stage. We could keep both and find out that in 2016 our primary catcher is Ryan Hanigan. The problem with this poll is it that it can be summarized as such: Assuming Christian Vazquez is a superstar, what would you do with Blake Swihart? But the real debate to be had here is whether or not Christian Vazquez is a superstar.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 14, 2015 8:49:32 GMT -5
Voted C.
This poll seems to have been constructed on the premise that Vazquez is a cornerstone backstop going forward, and that the only uncertainty remaining is whether or not Swihart is one as well. A premise that I would not take for granted.
Swihart has a lot of learning to do defensively, and needs to at least prove his offensive success so far is not a mirage. Vazquez has to recover from injury (at a position where that represents a real caveat) and establish himself as more than a black hole offensively. I'm not convinced either establishes themselves as the answer in 2016, much less both doing so and presenting us with a neat trade one/keep one scenario.
I say wait and see. Once I'm ready to roll with one of Vazquez/Swihart for 120 games a year, then I'm trading the other guy. And I'll gladly risk 'trading lower' for the assurance that I'm coming out of the whole process with a catcher.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Aug 31, 2015 20:41:55 GMT -5
Just when I thought I couldn't hate Brian McCann any more
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Aug 31, 2015 13:19:54 GMT -5
Here's my problem with this entire discussion, everyone is assuming that it's some kind of player development wizard to figure out which $200+ million contract will workout. News flash: None of them workout when you're signing guys in their 30's. If you're going to do it, it's gotta be for someone younger. Price and Cueto will almost certainly be bad contracts.
If you really want to look at this like a business, you sell high buy low and reduce risk. Buchholz, Uehara, and Holt almost certainly should've been traded back in June for a lot, which many were highly averse to. I think Buchholz could've fetched Schwarber at the time to fill our 1B hole. Looking at this strategy now, Sonny Gray could be a target by using guys like Margot who is being given a huge benefit of the doubt due to age. The Mets also may undervalue a starter as they showed by their willingness to give-up Wheeler for short-term assets. With either Gray or a Mets starter, you'd be gaining 3+ years of control for an ace without the risk of the downside. Getting really creative, Jason Heyward would be an interesting target if Rusney Castillo has value on the trade market for a starter (to the NYM most likely). This depends on how much money Heyward will cost, but if it's within reason, he'd be a far lower risk than other guys on the market. Before anyone says Carl Crawford, Heyward is a RF, has a much better track record, and is younger. Obviously none will work out in a purely academic, $/WAR sense. You do it if you think front-end pitching is an essential ingredient, and that you don't have palatable trade options. The riskiest thing you can do if you're a sports franchise is miss out on a great team. Here's the thing. You can't avoid risk, you have to balance risk mitigation with being in a position to win the pennant as best as you can. The Red Sox in the past two offseasons have absorbed substantial non-aging related risk in the name of competing without paying older pitchers. They've risked $95M on Sandoval's obesity, $88M on Ramirez's ability to change positions and stay healthy, $82.5M on Porcello's metamorphosis, and $72.5M on Castillo's ability to be a major league player. The Red Sox have made a policy out of avoiding a specific model of risk they feel confident in projecting. That is fine until you fail to find impact in the "asset pool" you see as undervalued. Short of tapping out of the sport and becoming the Tampa Bay Rays, any effort to improve the team is going to be risky. In 2013 the Red Sox signed a declining, broken down OF for $39M, a marginal inning-eating RHP for $39M, and a catcher with a degenerative hip condition to play first base. And... it worked. This is why I don't think you can simply "look at baseball like a business". There are parallels but at the end of the day you can't. Business performance is proportional to profits, while a sports franchise derives infinitely more value from finishing 1st than any other position. Put another way, if the 2013 Red Sox were a business they'd be looking at a huge loss on Shane Victorino. But they're a sports team, and flags fly forever. Furthermore, I think that in talking about players as assets to buy low or sell high, you are ascribing too much variance too their valuations. I don't think professional GMs are going to look at 2 months of Buchholz or Holt and just throw out the book on them. Theo Epstein isn't going to think Clay Buchholz is a whole new player just because he's healthy for two months. Clay is a very good pitcher who doesn't throw a lot of innings, he's been a very good pitcher who doesn't throw a lot of innings, and other than looking like he might be done last year his value probably hasn't changed much in any direction. As for the specific moves, if either of the plans you submitted actually happens, I'll be absolutely thrilled.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Aug 31, 2015 10:32:34 GMT -5
Actually the net WAR of prospects traded by the Red Sox over the last 15 years has far exceeded the WAR of veterans acquired (or if you add in contract extensions has slightly exceeded the veterans at a fraction of the cost). Feel free to look it up (I did). Also feel free to go to Fangraphs and see that the Red Sox will get 15 WAR from their young players this year but won't make the playoffs -- so another of your favorite assertions does not stand scrutiny. The Red Sox appear to be a 30 WAR team this year. They really don't need very much to be a wild card team. Toronto is a 50 WAR team. The Red Sox could mortgage their farm system and still not catch the Blue Jays. I don't see why investing in one of the FA aces out there and adding a few bullpen pieces and allowing our younger players another year to develop while competing for a wild card is such an unpalatable strategy to so many people.That is a palatable strategy. So here is my question to you - does Cherington's track record suggest that he is the man to be handing out a $200M contract to a free agent pitcher? Does his track record in identifying bullpen arms on other teams look like he is the guy who is going to rebuild the bullpen? People are painting false equivalencies between Dombrowski and 'win-now', and between Cherington and 'sustainable development'. Perhaps the hire of Dombrowski was Henry, Werner and co. laying the groundwork for precisely the kind of offseason you want to see so badly?
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Aug 31, 2015 8:58:57 GMT -5
You just mentioned three of the best pitchers in baseball. Waiting out pitchers with quality stuff might just be the next market inefficiency. Its called good scouting, not waiting out. And we can wait out while guys like that pitch in the minors or the bullpen. I'm perfectly fine with hoping a guy has a breakout in the majors if he's already competent like Kluber (think Porcello) but if he's not good enough to be in your rotation, you dont leave him in your rotation in the hopes he figures it out. The Cardinals have had success using the bullpen as a "holding area" for their starters. Carlos Martinez, Lance Lynn, Shelby Miller, Adam Wainwright, and Joe Kelly all came out of the bullpen before they made their first start. The value of this strategy when executed correctly (as STL does but BOS may not have confidence in) is: 1. It gets the pitcher broken in facing MLB hitters without the team having to eat 100 innings of learning on the job 2. Relief pitchers are notoriously volatile and it saves the club some forays into that market On the flip side, St. Louis' strategy would burn a year of team control of these prospective starters as a relief pitcher, which seems like it would be unpalatable to the Red Sox. Hard to argue with the success though.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Aug 31, 2015 8:29:28 GMT -5
This duality people are pushing between "Cherington and his wonderful patient long view" and "big bad irresponsible win-now Dombrowski" is just not accurate. Cherington made some very significant win-now moves. At the deadline he turned the two best arms on the trade market in Lester and Lackey into "MLB players" instead of prospects, and followed that up with perfectly unproductive outlay of $275M. Had BC been the model of patience and responsibility that some want to give him credit for... he'd still be here.
At the end of the day the Red Sox are going to have to make productive moves at the MLB level to take the next step forwards. They're in a pretty big hole in that regard already thanks to Cherington's missteps. John Henry and co. probably see Dombrowski as the guy for that job.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Aug 28, 2015 9:06:00 GMT -5
$20M for Zobrist? Jeez. Well, finding a platoon partner for Sandoval is an important order of business. Unless you believe in Holt's reverse split, all the internal options are the same side of the playoon as Panda - Holt, Shaw, even Cecchini. What do we think of Chris Johnson? He's a stiff but has a career 115 wRC+ versus LHP. He can play 3B and 1B, although we wouldn't be planning for it to come to the latter. He'd have to be traded for, but seeing what he was just traded for (nothing) the cost wouldn't be prohibitive.
|
|
|