|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Dec 14, 2017 16:21:50 GMT -5
Some of you are really scaring the hebejebes out of me with some of these predictions. Not saying you're wrong. Am I the only one checking online every few mins for updates with a sense of excitement mixed with dread?
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Dec 12, 2017 0:38:57 GMT -5
Why would you want to trade JBJ for an over the hill McCutcheon? Next year will be McCutcheon’s 31 year old season, he had a really good bounce back year last year posting an .849 OPS which by the way would have easily led the Sox. Adding McCutcheon and playing him in LF, and Benintendi in CF improves the offense, doesn’t hurt the defense a lot, and opens up a spot in the OF just in time to go all in on Harper (if the Sox are going to give a mega deal to anyone, I’d rather it be Harper than JD Martinez, or Stanton for that matter). So your plan is to trade JBJ (and more), who actually had a higher WAR than McCutch and is controlled for three more seasons, just so we can get a little more offense and have a spot open in the unlikely event we sign Harper? Keep in mind JBJ is only one year removed from an almost 6 WAR season.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Dec 11, 2017 23:00:10 GMT -5
Sign Carlos Santana, offer JBJ + to Pirates for McCutcheon. Next year go all out for Harper, let McCutcheon walk. Lineup: 1. Bogaerts (not a fan of Betts leading off) 2. Benintendi 3. Betts 4. McCutcheon 5. Devers 6. Santana 7. Hanley 8. Vazquez 9. Pedroia’s fill in JBJ plus for one- year of McCutch? Why? ?
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Dec 11, 2017 10:26:42 GMT -5
So in that scenario Mookie plays center, I'd assume Benny stays at LF and who plays RF? Or do you put Benny at RF and Schwarber at LF and Schwarber being a legendarily terrible defender? This doesn't make too much sense. Unless there's already a deal in place for JDM. Benny CF. mookie RF. LF??
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Dec 9, 2017 15:37:33 GMT -5
The only good thing about the Stanton deal is that Miami didn't shed as much money as they wanted/ hoped for. This means they'll definitely have to trade another of their better players-- Yelich or Ozuna. Maybe there's a deal to be made there?
|
|
|
1B in 2018
Nov 27, 2017 21:02:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Nov 27, 2017 21:02:58 GMT -5
Not a huge fan of Hosmer, but I think we get him on a one-year contract. I just don't see a very robust market for 1st basemen developing, and I don't see how he'll get anywhere near what Boras is suggesting. A one- year deal will allow him to try establish more value by showing he can be consistent (and playing in Fenway wouldn't hurt either, plus he'll still be fairly young). One year? 17 million-ish? Or even a relatively low $ multi- year deal but with a player opt out after the first year?
|
|
|
1B in 2018
Nov 26, 2017 13:34:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Nov 26, 2017 13:34:43 GMT -5
Lots of interesting things in that long post, but this claim puzzles me. There's only "one thing" that "causes a guy to look good while getting to fewer balls than average" and that's bad positioning? What about actual lack of range, actual slower reflexes, actual lesser quickness? Let me try to ease your puzzlement. First, saying "only one thing" does indeed assert that there are no other things. Saying merely "one thing" is rather different; it explicitly does not exclude alternatives, but does assert that the named thing is the primary thing, and perhaps the only one widely agreed upon. So I myself am puzzled that you inserted "only." There of course may well be other reasons why expert observers believe a fielder is very good when advanced defensive metrics say he makes fewer plays than average. Slow first steps and bad routes by outfielders aren't recognized as easily as pure bad range. For infielders, defensive inconsistency that is not reflected in errors charged is probably such a reason. There may well be infielders with good tools (range, hands, quickness) and solid positioning who sometimes simply fail to execute a play that's made 50% to 75% of the time by others -- because they were distracted, were anticipating a ball hit in the other direction, etc. IOW, the infield equivalent of a bad jump. GG voters wouldn't recognize that, either. However, you have not named such a thing. All three things you named are clearly evident to the Gold Glove voters. The most infamous guy who won a mess of Gold Gloves while having terrible defensive numbers was Derek Jeter. After the 2005 season, Bill James looked at video of his 20 best and worst plays of the year according to BIS and compared them to Adam Everett's 20 best and worst ("... sort of like watching video of Barbara Bush dancing at the White House, and then watching Demi Moore dancing in Striptease. The two men could not possibly be more different in ... style and manner ..."). He noticed two main differences: Jeter played "much shallower" than Everett and usually threw on the run rather than planting his feet immediately. Of course, if you play much closer to home, you'll get to far fewer balls despite having the same physical range. Hence the infamous "pasta diving." (Throwing on the run also impresses voters, but that's not something that can be fixed simply.) According to an article at Grantland, when Jeter went from -10 DRS to +3 in 2009 (at age 35!), it was because he had worked on "aggressive defensive positioning." Sorry, Eric, not to take this in an unproductive direction but when you say, "there's one thing that causes...." what you are saying is there is only one thing that causes it. Of course it excludes alternatives-- hence the ONE thing. If you had said, "one of the things that causes..." or "the primary cause is..." that would have been different. Doesn't mean your overall point isn't correct. But the reason jimoh was puzzled is simple: what you wrote and what you intended to write were two different things.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Nov 11, 2017 20:35:25 GMT -5
Mata + Chavis and filler. That would be my max. And even then I'm unsure. DD worries me guys and gals. Stanton would look good for 4 to 5 years, but those last 5 could be pretty bad. DD hates to lose and he may do something crazy! I understand your fear, and believe me I'm also worried. However, as much as I don't like DD, I don't think he's stupid. He's not going to give up Benny or anyone major because Martinez is still on the market. Why would you give up great assets and pay lots of money when a great bat can be had for less money and no assets? I think DD is moving aggressively on Stanton because Martinez IS still available. Once Martinez signs, teams who need a bat might get desperate and be willing to take all of Stanton's contract and give up elite prospects. So by moving quickly, while Martinez is still available, we can get Stanton without giving up many assets. At least that's what I hope his logic is. 🤞
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Nov 4, 2017 9:37:16 GMT -5
I see Jayson Werth is now a FA. Wonder what the interest here would be. Also, think that makes the nationals a huge player in the JM market. Thus making the final contract more in line with the 6 for 150 OR MORE. I do not see the sox going after and signing all those guys and hitting 250 mil. I seriously doubt nats will be a player. They have very little extra money to spend, have bigger needs in the bullpen, plus they have no openings in the outfield and first base... unless they want to try to trade Harper now-- which I don't see happening.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Nov 2, 2017 21:42:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Oct 30, 2017 20:17:56 GMT -5
I was not impressed with the scenario on first read. But quoting the KC blog gives me more reason to doubt the proposal. The author's talking points are severely flawed. Example 1: "The Red Sox financially invested in Hanley Ramirez as their DH through 2019. Wrong!! Sox hold an option for 2019 which becomes effective only if he passes a physical after the 2018 season and records some 475 plate appearances. Sox control plate appearances and it's argued that the number won't be attained in the team is not convinced he's worth $20+ million. "Dustin Pedroia is on the decline of his career". While he may not be in his mid twenties, there is no evidence that he cannot play the position or that he performance has deteriorated. Why trade for a second baseman when you only need him for two months in the regular season. And the writer claims that Merrifield becomes the utility player. With Marco, Lin, Marrero and possibly Nunez, the team is well protected at the position. "Red Sox bullpen is a bit if an issue.........". BP is one of the strengths of the roster. Herrera may be helpful, but, with Thornburg's return and Smith's recuperation coupled with Maddox, Kelly, Barnes and the Beeks and the AAA relievers on the horizon, there are better internal options. The writer notes that Holt has missed significant amounts of time with injuries in the last two seasons. Yet he touts him as the Royals second baseman until Lopez is ready then becoming the utility guy. ...."we know Ned Yost loves him some Holt" Chavis could very well be included in a trade. But it would be for a much higher profile player such as Ozuna or Abreu, not Merrifield. True Pedey has still shown he can field and his approach is still exceptional, but he's still a 34 yo coming off major knee surgery. And even if he comes back in seven months, his playing time will need to be monitored. I don't see the harm in looking for someone who can step in for him when needed, play well when given playing time, and could be used elsewhere as well. I could be talked into this trade, but I'd prefer not to give up Maddox. I'm also wary of buying high on merrifield and potentially selling low on holt, although I'm not as concerned with the latter. I'd rather kick the tires on Ian Happ first.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Oct 28, 2017 20:01:33 GMT -5
Joc Pederson has lost the confidence of Dodger fans. However,he is still young (25), not expensive (entering arbitration), and has power. At worst, he would be a less expensive option than Castillo as 4th outfielder. At best, he could re-emerge if JBJ is traded. I would offer Brock Holt (who will be an upgrade over Ultley) and Robbie Ross Jr. Despite a rocky season, he's hitting .300 in the post season and has tons of talent. Even if the Dodgers would be willing to trade him, they'd certainly not do it for two guys with injury concerns and who may not even be on our team opening day.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Oct 25, 2017 23:41:35 GMT -5
I'm seriously considering trading Eduardo Rodriguez for this type of deal if I'm Dombrowski. Eduardo has had chronic knee problems the past three seasons. If something tends to be chronic, it tends to stay chronic. Surgery doesn't guarantee anything in this regard, hopefully it works out for the best, but it's a cloudy situation at best with Eduardo's trick knee. There is a lot less risk in a Schwarber, Happ, or Baez then there is with Eduardo at this point. I'd prefer Schwarber because of the need for power on this team, but I would do a deal for either of those players. The only thing you'd be risking for the Sox is if Schwarber could actually play first base and can hit over .250, if he can he's a 30-40 homerun bat. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure we have enough info to call it a chronic condition. If you hurt your knee and never really fix it properly, then I wouldn't say when you reinjury it the injury is chronic. I'd just say that's what happens when you don't get something fixed the first time.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Oct 25, 2017 23:34:53 GMT -5
umassgrad, moving down 10 spots isn't a death sentence. Agreed. But doing so in order to upgrade your fourth outfielder to Rusney Castillo is almost certainly not worth it. That's my point. And I was responding to the nonsense point about Sale in particular that you've now dropped. If an outfielder tears an ACL in Spring Training and Castillo is going to start, and he's the best option available? Sure. Giddyup. If he's going to get the 276 plate appearances Chris Young got? Screw that. Also how the hell is this in the 1B thread? I'm splitting this out. While I disagree with his point, it isn't a nonsense point. If you're going all in, there's a defendable logic to say "let's really go all in... money be damn." That's the point he's making and it's quite clear.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Oct 23, 2017 0:08:27 GMT -5
There's a difference. He's not saying don't run. He's saying there are times when sprinting like it's going to be a close play isn't worth it. Run hard out of the box, yes. Sprinting like it's the 9th inning of game 7 on a 4-3 groundout in the third inning in April, meh. Again, not saying one shouldn't try to run hard, but there's a point of diminishing returns. Ok I'll grant a hard smash directly at a first or second baseman fielded cleanly is a different situation but I didn't see that nuance outlined. Most balls hit to third or short result in fairly close plays at first for a determined and not slow-twitch runner. Running hard for 30 yards once or twice/game shouldn't be overly taxing and puts a lot of pressure on the fielder. The fielder has to pick the ball cleanly and make a good throw. We see lots of thrown balls from the left side wide or in the dirt at least partially the result of exigency. If we can applaud the runner going first to third on an outfield single resulting in a close but safe call or where he might force a hurried, off-target throw, then I am more than willing to champion the batter as outlined. Agreed. Running hard may be diminishing marginal returns, but there's also an extremely low opportunity cost involved in running a few extra feet faster.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Sept 7, 2017 21:54:23 GMT -5
They needed the 40 man spot. Also, Martin isn't LH, and Abad types are a dime a dozen. So are Kyle Martin's He is like Abad bcz he can do long relief which Boston is lacking. Since when did abad become our long reliever?
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Aug 21, 2017 2:56:23 GMT -5
Who do you DFA when Smith comes back? Fister? Boyer? Selsky? Velazquez? EDIT: Elias? Why on earth is Velazquez even on this list?
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Aug 16, 2017 21:54:50 GMT -5
Moooooookie!!!!
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Aug 13, 2017 23:09:03 GMT -5
Went to UVA Law. Wearing my UVA t-shirt at Bowie today, usual "scoutfit" be damned. I just got back from csville a few hours ago. I got my PhD there and a buddy of mine was defending his dissertation on Friday. Truly horrible events this weekend... Heartbreaking.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Aug 10, 2017 22:59:19 GMT -5
It's Steve Selsky time!!!!! Free Steve Selsky!! Free Steve Selsky!!
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Aug 6, 2017 18:10:31 GMT -5
Henry Owens with 7 ks in 5 innings!! 🤔😃 Also 6 walks.... 😞🤢😵
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Aug 4, 2017 22:43:12 GMT -5
Yes!! This is me right now!! Mitchy the kid!!
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Aug 2, 2017 22:21:06 GMT -5
I'm failing to see how this is neither "fake" nor "biased," but whatever. It's fake and biased. Further Dan Shaughnessy is still hyping the so called "story" and the lie has been picked up by national media and is being splashed about. The fact is this latest twist is the best proof yet of who the real jerks are in this situation. And Eckersley is at the head of the pack. On a more happy note, this whole thing reminds me of this (below): "Mr. Simpson, your silence will only incriminate you further!!!"
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Aug 2, 2017 22:12:39 GMT -5
It's absolutely fake in that in portrayed an event that did not happen - that Price was mad about getting wet. He wasn't. You're both wrong. It's not fake and it's not even biased. The video is the video, it is real and has no qualms. It was cut by a person who works for NESN and it looks like Price was unhappy while his teammates celebrated so some people looking for click-bait made headlines making it seem like he was unhappy when clearly he was just reacting to the chill of the water. Please don't bring 'fake news' propaganda into a sports forum. That's despicable. The video was real. But the cut of the video definitely is biased. Here is a cut done by sports center (it's a bit longer). Look at the last frame (last second). Hit pause and you'll clearly see him smiling. All nesn had to do was show one second of additional footage and this is a non-story. Given all that's happened I have a hard time believing they didn't purposely cut their clip to create a fictional narrative of what happened. /video/1
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Aug 2, 2017 10:19:48 GMT -5
I'm not the biggest Price fan but the media is literally trying to make crap up. If you click on the sports enter clip contained within the link, the very last frame is of Price smiling. If you hit pause on that last frame, it's even clearer.
|
|