|
Post by widewordofsport on Apr 23, 2013 15:34:36 GMT -5
It's a different thread, but Brentz/Workman/Bogaerts are obvious, and maybe Ranaudo. I don't think anyone else on the list is a 'must'. Cecchini is too far away, and Hazelbaker will really have to play his way into "can't lose him for nothing" status. Almanzar is a long way away from being a 40-man lock, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Apr 23, 2013 15:32:03 GMT -5
sox4life - Exactly why I think he's trade bait. Just because he is improving as a hitter doesn't mean his attitude/defense has come along with it. Seems to me from reports that it hasn't, but what the Red Sox do with him this year will speak to whether that is true. I think you sell high, simply because to put him on the 40 man, Boston would have to go with fewer than 20 RH relievers or 6 catchers on the 40 man, and that just would be crazy.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Apr 23, 2013 14:26:51 GMT -5
I'm still at the point of chalking it up to getting his diabetes under control. Let him hit till summer, then package him for someone who can help the big club.
Problem being I don't see many holes on the Red Sox that could be filled by trade... they either need players with superstar potential, or young prospects nowhere near the 40 man roster. Almanzar isn't getting you your 1B or RF of the future, so maybe they just let it ride and hope.
I personally can't see a kid who spent five years in A ball all the sudden hitting in the majors. Though I thought that last year about A+ vs. AA, so what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Sept 4, 2012 17:14:05 GMT -5
Would they have done it in Boston? I actually think when he's back, CC will at least hover around his career averages, but I'm not sure he would have in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Sept 4, 2012 14:39:09 GMT -5
Actually I take that back mostly. If you take OPS for a typical IF's batting line, and take away 25 singles, and make them walks (meaning OBP the same, but BA down) the OPS drops dramatically.
Like I said, I hate OPS.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Sept 4, 2012 14:29:01 GMT -5
"OPS is a silly statistic, because it over-inflates the importance of SLG while understating OBP's pre-eminence."
While I am fully on board with the anti-OPS charge, as it is an uninterpretable stat with no baseball meaning, is this really true? I'll have to run some numbers on it, but I'd imagine that for Aviles, IsoD (additional bases gained) and IsoP (representing the propensity for additional bases gained, but more valuable bases) provide about relatively equal contributions to OPS.
|
|