|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 9, 2014 6:46:23 GMT -5
You would think so, yes.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 8, 2014 8:20:47 GMT -5
I never thought I'd say this, but I want no part of Hanley. Definitely not at five or six years, anyway. Hypothetical: at any given price, would you rather have Hanley or Sandoval? Does price include years? Then I guess Sandoval due solely to age. But I'm not crazy about either of them. Give me Headley or give me death.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 7, 2014 17:12:18 GMT -5
I never thought I'd say this, but I want no part of Hanley. Definitely not at five or six years, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 3, 2014 11:38:48 GMT -5
Whoa, when I read that Moncada was subject to the IFA Pool I assumed we couldn't sign him. Nice.
It's definitely in his interest for us, NYY and TB to a lesser extent to be involved. I imagine his people will be pushing to get him unblocked ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 7, 2014 11:13:31 GMT -5
Unless I'm wrong no one has actually reported the Red Sox have serious interest in Sandoval. I think it's just people who overrate Sandoval connecting the dots.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 28, 2014 19:28:23 GMT -5
I don't know where you got this idea that Tulo is Ozzie Smith (you are probably overrating him a bit as a hitter too) but the fact is he's a 5-6 WAR player. That is well within Xander's reach in terms of ceiling. Don't overreact to one MLB season in which he was the average age of an A-ball player. If you think Xander will ever play Shortstop at Tulo's level when he first came up you are sadly mistaken. It's a good thing I said nothing of the sort, then. But you seem to think that this means it is impossible for Xander to be as good as Tulo in terms of OVERALL value (which of course is all that matters). That's where you're completely wrong, unless like I said you are putting way too much stock into 2014 and have lowered your view of Xander significantly. At his best Hanley himself was every bit the player Tulo is despite being much worse defensively.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 27, 2014 15:46:39 GMT -5
my point was more on what may have been unrealistic expectations for XB's age 21 season, than making a straight comparison, w/ a frinedly reminder that putting up that many ABs at age 21 is atypical...that being said, XB's age 21 season measure up well, statistically to Tulo's age 21 (and age 23) season...and I don't underrate the durability "tool", even if it is the "only thing"... ...he hasn't given back any money to the Rockies, so it certainly impacts what they've paid for in they're eval of return/value on his contracts. My point was that Xander may well become a very good hitter. But that there is no way ever he will be anything close to Tulo at SS. Xander might become something like Hanley a bad defender who can hit. But Hanley was a much better athlete at the same age although Xanders make up is better. Xander may end up defending better than Hanley but I don't think he will ever hit .340 and sure will not steal even 30 bases in a year. I don't know where you got this idea that Tulo is Ozzie Smith (you are probably overrating him a bit as a hitter too) but the fact is he's a 5-6 WAR player. That is well within Xander's reach in terms of ceiling. Don't overreact to one MLB season in which he was the average age of an A-ball player.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 26, 2014 11:00:22 GMT -5
Yes, and daily inspirational quotes (the new market inefficiency).
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 26, 2014 5:36:24 GMT -5
The shift is not because of Devers, they're just getting young players acclimated to doing it, that's what instructs is for, no?
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 21, 2014 11:33:04 GMT -5
Still not mathematically eliminated from the #1 pick!
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 20, 2014 9:43:01 GMT -5
Well, for starters Bogaerts is probably playing in Colorado in that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 17, 2014 19:55:16 GMT -5
They'll get two elite prospects plus two or three guys the caliber of those you're discussing for Stanton. So the whole point is a bit moot.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 17, 2014 19:39:17 GMT -5
I can't describe how much I would rather sign Headley for one year or even two than Sandoval for five. The idea that Headley is in "decline" so instead we give a longterm deal to a guy who makes Prince Fielder look svelte is funny though.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 14, 2014 4:28:17 GMT -5
Yes, the best way to get him back to major league readiness is to continue having him not play in major league games for as long as possible.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2014 6:37:24 GMT -5
My only preference is a college pitcher who projects as an ace. Otherwise whatever I'll just hope he is awesome. "A college pitcher who projects as an ace" gets taken 1-1 almost for sure. Well, we already shut Pedroia down. A nice 10 game losing streak to end the season is not impossible. Keep hope alive!
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 8, 2014 11:03:43 GMT -5
I wouldn't bat an eye (although I'm not super high on Owens or Swihart). If it's all three of them, that would be tough to swallow, but still probably worth it. No way in hell. The only reason why it's ok to spend $30 million a year on a player is because you have very good cheap options at other positions. Trading all 3 of those guys probably means visiting free agency more often and/or going with worse options and/or getting into a pretty bad position with team salary pretty quickly. We have a young, cheap catcher already in the majors and several young, cheap pitching prospects (maybe none as good as Owens but that is certainly arguable, and he's not seen as an ace ). I like Mookie as much as anyone, but he's basically limited to RF for us, which makes him more valuable elsewhere, and you'd essentially be replacing him with Stanton. Of course it's going to hurt to give them up, but I think we're in a position where it won't hurt as much as it could.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 7, 2014 19:09:22 GMT -5
Everyone should just brace themselves now, because if a deal for Stanton happens it will be based around Betts AND Owens. If you're lucky it's Swihart and Owens. Piles of mediocrity will not convince Miami to deal Stanton. I wouldn't bat an eye (although I'm not super high on Owens or Swihart). If it's all three of them, that would be tough to swallow, but still probably worth it.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 6, 2014 16:36:41 GMT -5
Xander is still much more valuable than Mookie If he Hits! Because that is where his value is. If he doesn't hit he isn't as valuable as JBJ or Vasquez. They are at least plus defensive players. He meant value as in "what is he worth right now, today, in a trade", not what they could be two years from now. Although the latter is the primary reason why Xander is more valuable.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 6, 2014 16:30:46 GMT -5
To me what they better worry about is having one lefty in Nava who it seems everyone wants to trade. With the mix of fielders plus Holt than Nava might just service as they have to have at least one outfield lefty (off the bench anyway). Seems as though out of all the talk no one wants to look at that aspect. Nava as the only lefty has been mentioned, so it is being talked about. I think Nava as the 4th outfielder is one of the better bets in this conversation. What I think will happen in order of confidence: 1. Castillo will be one of the three starting outfielders. 2. Nava will be one of the five outfielders. 3. Cespedes will be one of the three starting outfielders. 4. Betts will be one of the three starting outfielders. 5. Craig will be one of the five outfielders. 6. Victorino will be one of the five outfielders. 1A. Stanton will be one of the three starting outfielders .
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 5, 2014 6:46:15 GMT -5
It's true. We are doing a laudable job of sucking.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 5, 2014 6:38:35 GMT -5
Could this get it done/ Would you do it? Stanton for Owens, Workman, Marrero, Webster, Johnson, Middlebrooks, Rijo No. That's quantity over quality to a ridiculous degree. You could easily argue that the best prospect in this deal is a future middle of the rotation starter.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 4, 2014 18:55:09 GMT -5
He also played in the highest offensive era in history. Although he did have four seasons with a wRC+ over 140.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 1, 2014 10:46:59 GMT -5
Just wanted to point out that Clay Buccholz has a sub 2 BB/9 while being caught by Christian Vazquez. Kid is so good that I might actually buy that Shields/Clay/Kelly can be our top of the rotation next year.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 1, 2014 6:21:32 GMT -5
If we're gonna qualify things to that level, we should just ignore his stats this year altogether. And I'd be fine with that, btw.
I'm certainly not someone who thinks statistical performance is all that matters for prospects, especially at lower levels, but I'm also not a fan of dressing them up just because he pitches for my favorite team's organization. Ball's numbers this year are not impressive, at all. And he may end up being a very good major league pitcher. I don't think those are mutually exclusive statements.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 31, 2014 12:15:44 GMT -5
You guys are overlooking one important aspect of this trade. Improving the rosters of teams we will be facing in September should be a big goal for us right now.
|
|