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 WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 2, 2015 14:12:43 GMT -5
It's great to see Moncada hitting better now but I was looking at his Cuban numbers tonight and they don't seem all that different than the numbers Iglesias was putting up at the same age in Cuba. If anything, I vaguely remember Iglesias at least hitting for a higher average in Cuba at about the same age. I get the speed difference and the potential power difference but I'm not so sure Moncada was any better an overall prospect when signed. I see that he was projected to be a number 1 pick if eligible for the draft but I just don't see it overall. Iglesias had a major league glove from day one. Moncada didn't light up Cuban baseball. He wasn't a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination. He was a great athlete but a lot of great athletes never make it in baseball. I'm glad we signed Moncada and hope he works out but the kind of money we spent was inappropriate to me. It was something like this: We were going over the international spending limit on Espinoza etc...already. Moncada was also available. We might as well sign him. This sort of convenient logic can really mess a team up. The money spent on both Moncada and Castillo looks inappropriate to me. The potential power difference? Moncada has 5 homers in Greenville alone, albeit one was an inside the homer (not cheap by any means though), Iglesias had 6 all of his minor league career. There is no potential power difference, Moncada hits for more power now. At the end of the day Moncada has lit up Greenville and should be onto Salem all while not playing baseball in a year. As for your last few sentences you seem pretty indecisive. "I am glad we signed Moncada but the kind of money we spent was inappropriate to me." The money doesn't impact the major league budget so in the end we spent money for a potential player that may hit better than Iglesias but not as advanced with the glove. Iglesias is one of the best shortstops in the game. If Moncada develops the bat like some think he will and reigns in the defense, he will never be Iglesias, he is going to be worth much more the contract they gave him.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 1, 2015 19:15:19 GMT -5
It will be interesting if the Red Sox have to pay extra to get a high profile guy here with all of the huge recent disappointments going on. Who wants to sign on for that? Obviously money talks, but I think good teams also make players want to play for them. Given the Lucchino news could have an entirely new baseball operations team with a model after the Dodgers/Cubs. Although not sure who a slam dunk candidate is to be the Epstein/Friedman of that model however.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 1, 2015 18:55:47 GMT -5
Well Red Sox nation, you won't have Larry Lucchino to kick around anymore. Always had hoped that eventually Theo would wind up coming back in Larry's role. Guess not. Too bad. Obviously I would sincerely doubt it is Theo given what he has going on Chicago, but it is very clear no one is filling the baseball ops role that Lucchino had. At least not yet as Kennedy won't have those capabilities. As FTHW stated interesting that Lucchino is out as maybe it is true he had a larger hand in the free agent debacles we have had in our recent splurges.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 31, 2015 15:21:07 GMT -5
Yes marginally they were across all the major batting statistics. So my initial statement was wrong in terms of hitting the ball well enough, however to me that doesn't exactly correlate to fly balls and the average those balls traveled.
This year did we have in Fenway balls say 378 ft. that were just against the wall all while last year those balls went 382 ft. If that analysis was put together sure that makes sense however it seems to be a fruitless exercise to try and put together something like that which clearly varies year to year, in some cases significantly, and not sure one could point to player skill causing it.
The plain and simple is we had good players previously perform way below their anticipated performance. There could be several causes, maybe some luck, but cheap homers I don't think would get into that IMO.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 31, 2015 15:03:17 GMT -5
Nightengale says no Sox moves. Oh well, there always the year after next year. What exactly would making a move do for next year? It isn't like Ross, Chapman, Kimbrel or Carrasco got moved, a.k.a. what everyone wanted us to go out and get. The one complaint is De Aza wasn't moved and now Farrell will probably trot him out way too often and not give JBJ the reps needed to make an informed decision on if the adjustments he made this year translate to the MLB. Outside of that everyone we had talked about wasn't traded and one would imagine if there is a possibility they get dealt it will be there in the offseason. All while allowing us, hopefully, to see what the younger arms can do in a small sample at the major league level.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 31, 2015 14:58:48 GMT -5
Having better luck will help. As of now the Sox have hit 5 homers that would have been homers in fewer than 5 parks, while giving up 15. At Fenway, they've hit 2 while giving up 8, on the road, it's 3 and 7. By comparison, the Yankees have 19 cheap home runs and have given up 13. The Orioles are 13 and 3. The Diamondbacks, 2 and 4. # of cheap Fenway homers in past years: 2014: 11 2013: 6 (4 by Pedroia); gave up 5 2012: 9 (3 by Aviles) 2011: 13 (gave up 18) 2010: 15 When the season is over I'll do a complete breakdown by team, home and away. And I think I'll expand that history, showing RF Fenway, LF Fenway, Road, for hitters and pitchers, and go back to 2006 (when HitTrackerOnline debuted). To me this doesn't make sense and is just a broad stroke thinking this is an outlier. Is it possible the guys we have just don't hit the ball well enough to have enough chances to accumulate cheap homers all the while our pitchers aren't nearly as good as they have been in the past which results in more fly balls and are prone to a higher probability of cheap homers?
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 29, 2015 22:16:28 GMT -5
We'd be better off developing guys like Owens and Rodriguez than selling them away. Carrasco? Sure. Gray? For a reasonable price. But we're better off building a contender internally than trying to sell of our prospects to compete in 2016. The issue is not all prospects are going to turn out. Sure it is nice to envision a roster in 2017-2018 of C - Vazquez/Swihart 1B - Pablo 2B - Pedroia SS - Xander 3B - Devers LF - Betts CF - Margot RF - Bradley SP #1 - Rodriguez SP #2 - Owens SP #3 - Johnson SP #4 Porcello SP #5 - ? However the odds of all those guys panning out is highly unlikely and if they did that they would probably misevaluate on some and be stuck with black holes who have limited trade value. It comes down to the impossible science of sell the prospects you think won't reach the potential for established players and hope the prospects don't hit the ceilings and attempt to keep the guys who will reach the ceilings. Obviously much easier said than done.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 29, 2015 21:41:05 GMT -5
This seems to be the night of lopsided trades
Morosi saying Matt Harrison, who Rangers fans despise and is owed $20MM or so, is going to the Phillies.
All while the Phillies give the Rangers cash. Damn wish Hamels wanted to play in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 27, 2015 10:47:43 GMT -5
I'm going to go ahead and take the other side here. Bogaerts is a fine player, but Sydergaard is probably better right now. Bogaerts is playing over his head this year, and is about as bad of a hitter as you can be with his excellent batting average. He's certainly a good player already with great upside, but until the power comes I wouldn't see him as untouchable. Thor is already pitching like one of the best in the game, and his larger present value combined with his extra years of team control make up for the extra risk that comes with being a pitcher, in my mind. What makes you think he's playing over his head? Just BABIP? There's also a clear path for Bogaerts to go from being a very good player to a super star, if he starts walking and hitting for the power that he has throughout his career. He's already shown the ability to improve the weaker aspects of his game dramatically (strikeouts and defense). Not saying that's necessarily going to happen, but it seems a much more likely step forward than any Syndergaard could make at this point, and they're already about equal in value. The extra years of team control are big, but I don't think they outweigh the volatility of pitchers, or the potential future value differential. I think it is presumptuous to just assume he starts walking and hitting for power that he has throughout his career. Jmei posted this in the Bogaerts extension thread but at the MLB level he hasn't shown the ability to hit for power as well as limiting strikeouts. Is it possible his adjustment over the offseason to improve his plate discipline and put the bat on the ball more often zapped his power? You can see the changes in the swing, is it easy for that to be tweaked where he doesn't lose the ability to hit for contact but also generate power? I don't know if we can answer that.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 26, 2015 22:23:34 GMT -5
Xander Bogaerts BA on 7/26/14: .237 Xander Bogaerts BA on 7/26/15: .317 Hopefully he can keep the contact rate and start to drive the ball with power but ultimately know that isn't a certainty as the Fangraphs piece showed.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 21, 2015 10:19:52 GMT -5
I didn't mean that as a defense, in my opinion he should be fired. One year of great chemistry/roster moves doesn't excuse three horrendous years of which I am sure you agree.
It is going to take creativity to get out of this and clearly Cherington's work with creativity has more often than not led to the franchise being worse off.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 21, 2015 10:03:17 GMT -5
I cannot remember the last time I gave up on this team before Aug 1, and with all the games vs. the AL East in Sept I didn't think this would be the year I would do so, even with the rocky start. But right now I am very close. These guys are just playing putrid baseball. Sure, they are only one 8 or 10-game winning streak from being back in it, but does anyone here realistically see that happening? In January I posted this response to Borisman and LarryCook where they were opining about moves the Sox would make if they were out of it in July: forum.soxprospects.com/post/127324I'll stick by that. They need to clean house in baseball ops. There have been some completely justifiable decisions and free agent acquisitions, and a few good trades. But there have also some very bad decisions, free agent deals and several bad trades since 2012. Cherrington's the GM, this is his vision, and team has been a mess 3 out of 4 years. If I am an ownership group spending upwards of $185 million on this team in each of those years - even if I agree with the team-building philosophy that has brought us to this point - it has become pretty obvious this baseball ops leadership's methods and philosophy are not working and it's time to move on. Ownership is committed to using their resources, but the philosophies and methods of this baseball ops group, for whatever reasons, are not working. It becomes more and more obvious that 2013 was an aberration. If this team was a player we're talking 3 less than replacement years and one All Star outlier. The leadership and vision from baseball ops to on-field management has not translated from the analysis and planning to performance. They keep saying they want to be the Cardinals, but they've been looking more and more like Toronto, Baltimore (before Duquette), and Texas lately - though they are spending between $60-90M more a year than those teams. Cherington certainly has to be evaluated as like jmei said in another thread there decisions were made regarding player projection that has turned out tremendously bad.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 20, 2015 20:31:52 GMT -5
This is where patience and forward thinking is needed. The Sox are not going anywhere with or without Cueto, Hammels or other possible additions. Time to "cut bait". We are, realistically, years away. Accept that fact and engage plan Z. Really IMO everyone excepting Swihart, Betts and Bogaerts are available off the MLB roster...sorry Pedey...heart of the current Sox. If Pedey is moved, Betts goes to second and Bradley assumes the CF throne. Castillo is a year away....if he gets here. Devers , Margot, Moncada are several years away if they make it. I have checked with my primary physician, ....I can wait. Please call "Trader Danny" to fix this mess. Years away from what exactly? If the plan is to rid ourselves of all potential free agents and go with a home grown roster as much as possible sure but everyone on this forum, although we all love prospects, know that isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 5, 2015 20:00:44 GMT -5
That fangraphs spreadsheet is fascinating. So many teams clustered slightly above or below .500, especially in the AL. That being the case, I don't see how they can do projections with much confidence, considering that trades made this month could make the difference for any number of teams. For example, the Sox now are hitting fairly well, in fact, among the best teams in the AL, and there still are holes in the lineup. The pitching still is problematical, both starting and relieving. But if the Sox somehow came up with another good bat, a couple of good starters and a couple of good RPS, they could become a formidable second-half team. That doesn't necessarily mean the post-season because any of the teams ahead of them could improve equally, or more. And the cost in prospects to make these improvements would be significant. If the Sox are at or above .500 come deadline time, there is going to be real pressure to make some major moves. Somehow come up with another good bat, a couple of good starters and a couple of good RPs? Is this the offseason or the trade deadline?
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Mar 18, 2015 9:54:05 GMT -5
Of course there is a business model. It is valuing each case independently, evaluating the risks/rewards, assigning how much money they deem acceptable to take on the risk while possibly seeing incredibly upside.
As opposed to the old business model which when George was there was go a dollar higher on everyone we want.
In this case the new model lost out on a prime talent, while the ladder would have likely got it done.
I do agree they value their players wrong and that can be said for the last 10-15 years.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Mar 18, 2015 9:11:44 GMT -5
Boras interjecting himself directly into front office decisions. He's must believe that's part of his role, I guess. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I don't think he believes it is part of his role, he is trying to get his client to free agent a year earlier and in his 20s instead of in his 30s given there really is no 'baseball' reason to keep him out of the big leagues. Simply it is to delay service time as part of the politics of Super 2 status. By trying to put as much public attention on the matter as possible he thinks that could make the Cubs rethink their decision, it won't. At the end of the day if Boras took an Evan Longoria-esque contract extension buying Bryant out of his arbitration years and first few years of free agency there is no chance Bryant is starting the year in the minors 'refining' his defensive ability. However that won't happen, much like the Cubs starting him in the majors likely won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Mar 18, 2015 8:56:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not buying that they assigned a value to a player and stuck to it. This is the one time they didn't have to do that and there were literally zero reasons to do that. There is no business model for 19 year old Cubans. The other reason why it was virtually zero risk for them is that they weren't tying up a 25-man roster spot. If Moncada busts, they don't have to keep him around like ARod. Absolutely they did. You are saying anything off the major league payroll should just go to the end extreme to get players. How is this any different than pre-draft rules when you could give a kid any bonus you wanted? They didn't take up a 40 man spot, it didn't count towards the luxury tax and yet every team (including the Red Sox) had some type of valuation on a kid and didn't sign every top guy that fell. Yes there are no business models for 19 year old Cubans but there is a business model on highly touted international free agents. As for the risk of course there is a risk. If Moncada busts they paid $60MM for a sunk cost. Yes you aren't keeping him around but it is still money spent and money allocated elsewhere that could have been spent on other players. Teams have budgets for non-MLB related payroll and I am guessing if Hastings came in and said I want $45MM the Red Sox wouldn't have gone that high for him IMO. I think they should have met the demands too but it is their new business model.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Mar 18, 2015 8:49:46 GMT -5
I'd be willing to go along with all of that, except for the noise we heard about their not believing the agent, and giving him one hour to take it or leave it. That isn't a negotiating strategy, it's an ultimatum, and it doesn't seem all that smart. And the payroll stuff isn't relevant in my mind. He wouldn't have had any impact their ML payroll at all. The additional dollars he might have cost them - in bonus and penalty - amounts to maybe 1.5 wins above replacement. That's so little additional risk as to be pocket change for the biggest of the big-market teams. So it goes. There will be other options for them, I'm sure. I'm just glad that they were decisive on their end, if that's what it was, and that the Sox were decisive on their - winning - end also. As to the ultimatum not being a negotiating strategy, of course it is. It is a hard line negotiating strategy that is very boom or bust. Either you bully the other negotiating party into making a rash decision and bullying them into accepting an offer at the price you want. The other end of that is you risk upsetting the other party and having them turned off by your negotiating tactics. That seems to be the case here, however you don't really know as they were $4MM off from the Sox. The noise about believing their agent on the numbers was the fault of theirs but it isn't like an agent has never lied about offers before, Hastings was up front and that was their biggest mistake not believing the top offer. You say the payroll stuff isn't relevant in your mind. I get that he doesn't have any impact on their ML payroll at all. However there is still a budget relating to minor league guys. Rightly or wrongly they are choosing a path of assigning value to every player. They deemed him worth $27MM, bottom line. Originally they were willing to go to $25MM and pushed it up. Is that not different than the Red Sox going up $4MM from $27MM to $31MM? They liked him, just didn't value him quite enough. It is so little risk but when you start sliding to meet demands it creates a sliding effect down the line potentially of well here is a few million and it starts to add up. I think they should have valued him higher as well but at the end of the day they are determining their new approach and it aided us this time around.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Mar 17, 2015 19:57:45 GMT -5
Norm as to their adamant refusal to go any higher on Moncada, isn't that the point of a new business model? Before the Yankees would say a few more million not a problem. Now they are assigning a value to a player and not going any higher. Is that right in this particular case?
Yes they are trying to rebuild their farm system but haven't they already done that on a bunch of lotto kids? Yes Moncada is more highly touted and I am thrilled he is a member of the Sox however he is still very risky and needs quite a bit of seasoning still before he is ready for the big leagues.
Yes there are incredible incentives to signing him but isn't the downside pretty large for a team trying to dwindle their payroll as well?
I don't think there system is incredibly weak and arguably in a year we will look back and it will be underrated at this time as they have talent there, however isn't the more prudent move for a not so stacked farm system at a time is to accumulate assets as opposed to betting big on one guy?
They spent a sizable amount liked the guy but weren't going to go whatever was necessary.
Their negotiating tactics were clearly hoping to fluster and bully a new agent which was not the right decision.
I don't see how they need to sit down and debrief, and try to understand how this happened. This happened because they weren't willing to spend the most money. That was a sit down and decision they made before Moncada. If they tried the ultimatum but instead offered $35 million I am guessing Moncada is in pinstripes. Even if they were very cordial at the end if they weren't willing to go to $30 million it seems like they didn't have a chance.
Unless they re-evaluate and say regardless of cost we are getting every IFA available to us until the draft this won't really impact them. Nor should it if they believe in their talent evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Feb 23, 2015 20:34:13 GMT -5
there never will be, but proven good starters are worth more than unproven, hyped kids. I'd love to see him turn out to be puig, but I just worry about the fact he can never tread water in triple a, or advance in several years. Which is when we'd likely stick him at third (given the semiperfect storm in which Napoli is gone, panda wants to dh, and Hanley wants to play first. None of these are givens. I just see so much happiness on the board about signing him and I can see the excitement. Id be ecstatic with Hanley at 1st, Moncada at 3rd, Pablo at dh/3b/fb, and betts rusney and whoever else out there in a few years. It just seems like it's askin a lot and granted that's only one scenario, if he pans out. Judt worries me so many people are hemming and hawing that anyone would dare have doubts bc we just signed the next possible superstar. This is the only forum I can vent my concern with mostly informative and constructive feedback. Edit:I wasn't suggesting a 19 yo old pitcher his age and talent level st that contract not sure where you got that from. I spoke of a proven ml starter, which it seems are much Harder to find than "young Cuban future superstars" jury is still out on the castillos,tomas', Moncada of this world and it takes me bsck to how highly viciedo was hyped. So your point is I want the Red Sox to go after proven good starters as they are worth more than unproven, hyped kids. However isn't there a problem with that stance? Most proven MLB starters (And I am guessing you are talking the top tier of aces) are going to get nearly three to three and half times what the Red Sox paid for Moncada. So this wasn't a well if we paid $60MM for Moncada we could have used that to sign a super star pitcher. The only one that went for that amount was James Shields. Do you want to spend frivolously on large 'proven' contracts? Given the injury history, particularly with pitching, you are one blown elbow away from a terrible contract and you go from wanting proven starters to where is the youth movement? The Red Sox have put together an offseason where they hope to blend both veteran signings with young talent. That way they aren't crippled if the veterans are injured repeatedly (See the situation in New York) or get burned by underperforming young talent. At the end of the day no one is disputing that Moncada is unproven. However the Red Sox have put together a collection of assets that have a better than not chance of at least a few of those guys working out quite well. Between Swihart, Betts, Moncada, Castillo, Bogaerts, Vazquez, Owens, Rodriguez and Barnes they have a handful of talent that is on the MLB level or very nearly there. Will all of those guys turn into superstar type talents? Very likely no if they did that then the Red Sox have a dynasty on their hands similar to what the Yankees did in the 90s. However proven pitching is difficult to obtain regardless of where you are at. Either you give up very talented assets in young prospects or you pay a boat load of money. If you don't have a great farm system option one is off the table and option two presents its own challenges given those contracts you are likely paying for the decline of a pitcher. I think you are being way too critical here.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jan 19, 2015 14:00:42 GMT -5
So if Strasburg is indeed available, which one goes Mookie or Xander? I can't imagine both going.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jan 18, 2015 21:28:45 GMT -5
Long-term, maybe. Escobar/Desmond is a pretty sweet double-play duo for this year, though. Agreed. I guess are the Nats going all in for this year or with an eye towards the future a bit? To me a Strasburg/Scherzer/Fister rotation is plenty good enough to win a WS. Why not attempt to get a prized middle infielder for the future that is a year away, presuming of course they could get one.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jan 18, 2015 20:03:48 GMT -5
They need middle IF.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 19, 2014 11:08:36 GMT -5
I like the move. Middlebrooks didn't have a spot here and yeah he could go to AAA but when do we reach the point of "He is who he is". To me it certainly has reached that point and this is a very good return and hopefully will alleviate some of the pressure on Vazquez and allow Swihart to develop at his own pace.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 17, 2014 21:19:28 GMT -5
I wonder what effect this change might have on Moncada's value. In some sense he is competing against the market of existing MLBers and prospects, but now there is a real prospect of having several top talents come in from Cuba. Does that somewhat drive down the market for him, as teams may be willing to wait for a new "big thing" in the market? Also, I wonder how quickly MLB will be to fold Cuba into the draft. If not, the whole international bonus pool will eliminate many teams from bidding in the future. As it stands now, the Sox will not be able to get any Cuban player starting July 2 2015 to July 2017. That hurts. Doesn't your last sentence (Which also applies to the Yankees) answer the question to the first paragraph? Teams that are overbudget already and are going to be locked out of the Cuban market in the next couple of years would be more willing to spend on a talent like Moncada. If the next big thing came along next year that would have done them no good in not going as aggressively on Moncada.
|
|
|