|
Post by wcsoxfan on May 9, 2024 10:41:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on May 9, 2024 10:13:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on May 7, 2024 10:41:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on May 5, 2024 21:01:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 30, 2024 13:34:24 GMT -5
Greg Weissert's link appears to be broken (40-man and roster pages).
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 30, 2024 13:17:09 GMT -5
The 'Minor Notes' from 4/30 claim that Bello has an arm injury. (I think the writer was unaware the lat muscle is the side of the back).
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 23, 2024 18:46:43 GMT -5
May be the last time Boston acquires a player from Oakland as well
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 23, 2024 11:53:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 14, 2024 19:40:36 GMT -5
Pretty spot on with the exception that the work on the glenoid probably delays things a bit. If anyone is interested Mike Reinold and Kevin Wilk are major PTs in the overhead athlete world and often will post on Instagram various athletes training with them. Wilk had a bunch of content with Whitlock. Did you read the first link? It's a study which concludes that rehab should begin immediately after the glenoid surgery. Not sure if this changes the timetable much, but it could theoretically take 2-4 weeks off of the recovery.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 14, 2024 13:06:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 9, 2024 11:21:50 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, this was very informative. For those not wanting to read the entire article: - ~50% of first-time shoulder dislocations result in a Hill-Sachs Lesion - 93% (or up to 100%) of patients with recurrent instability have a lesion. - <20% of cases rehabilitation alone is recommended (after 2-6 weeks of immobilization) There is a long list of possible issues and procedures if surgery is necessary, so even if we assume a Hill-Sachs Lesion is the issue (which seems likely) it's too early to speculate on process and time table (without more info). Fingers-crossed that Story is in the lucky less than 20%.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 29, 2024 1:15:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 12:42:08 GMT -5
Kennedy says 'once you know you have someone who is capable of success in Boston I think it's important that you ferociously go after them'. I can't imagine Grissom would qualify at this point, but that may be trying too hard to read the tea leaves.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 12:37:22 GMT -5
I suppose when laid out that way it makes some added sense but honestly to me I wouldn't give Crawford an extension at all. Just go year to year with him, I don't think he's proven enough at this point. His pitching motion looks to me like it will lend itself to increased injury risk and he's had one solid year at this point but to me is still an unknown. Not everyone needs to or should be extended and I know you aren't saying that is this case but that's just my two cents on Crawford and extensions in general. I certainly wouldn't be upset at a Crawford extension but also just don't see the point since to me it seems unlikely to me the upside of savings down the road when he is 33-34 years old with an extra year outweighs the very cheap contract he is going to have for the next several years. This is fair and likely illustrates part of the issue. For Crawford, he should be expecting to make-back a number close to what he would get through arbitration, but for the Red Sox, losing the ability to simply cut him and pay him nothing (if he gets hurt or regresses) is a large risk. Perhaps a shorter deal like 12mil/3yr - this would give Crawford some piece of mind, push about half of his expected 2026 contract into 2024 (for CBT) and leave the Red Sox with essentially team options (arbitration) for his age 31 and 32 seasons. As long as his innings aren't an issue (career high is 143.2 in 2018) I'm very optimistic in Crawford becoming a mid-rotation starter - especially due to his 3.25 xERA from 2023 and low walk numbers from spring training.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 11:50:41 GMT -5
That is basically what they gave Bello, I'm not giving Crawford anything approaching what Bello got on an extension. Also as you point out, he's not going to be an FA until he's 33. He's a guy who I like, I think he will be a good pitcher to have for his controllable years but I'm not really seeing the point in extending him at this point in time. It may seem similar to the Bello contract, but you're substituting an arb-4 year for a league minimum year - in my mind that's ~14mil in savings. An apples-to-apples comparison would be 41mil/6yr; so would you be willing to give him 75% of what Bello is getting? If yes, then 54mil would be a ~1mil savings (I'm also assuming a lower team-option; maybe 15mil). The motivation for the team would be to use up some of the CBT dollars this year while lowering his AAV for years 4-6. If he takes less that would be great, but they are almost out of time, so they don't have a great deal of leverage.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 11:38:30 GMT -5
Problem with Rafaela is that players with defense-first profiles don't do well in arbitration. Unless the Red Sox are convinced his offense will come around, I don't see a way to make it work. Doesn't that just mean that he'd be looking at a smaller number? Yes, but it makes it harder to come to an agreement as the Red Sox know he'll likely be cheap through arbitration. Hard to imagine Rafaela's camp agrees to an extension based on the premise his bat doesn't develop.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 11:34:44 GMT -5
If Dalbec struggles, I wonder if Jamie Westbrook could get a look (assuming they don't want 6 outfielders).
Experience at 2B, 3B, RF, LF (1 game each at SS and 1B), but has never had a big league regular season at-bat. Hit .286/.405/.486 with 6bb and 8k in 41 PA in spring training. Last year hit .294/.400/.496 with 67bb and 81k in AAA.
Only 5'7", seems similar to chase Meidroth (although he's 28). Not on the 40-man, which makes it a bit tougher. I always enjoy seeing guys like him who have played well enough to earn a chance get a few big league at bats, even though it typically doesn't work out long term.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 11:20:34 GMT -5
If they get an extension done before opening pitch, so they can add it to the 2024 CBT, it would make me feel far more positive about the offseason.
Crawford seems like the easiest call. Has proven he's a solid big league pitcher and will be 33 for his first free agent season, so he may be motivated to take the money now. Perhaps 54mil/6years with a team option gets it done (the super 2 status skews the numbers a bit).
Problem with Rafaela is that players with defense-first profiles don't do well in arbitration. Unless the Red Sox are convinced his offense will come around, I don't see a way to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 20, 2024 11:09:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 20, 2024 10:37:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 19:08:59 GMT -5
Did Cora change his mind? Rafaela being the starting CFer but also getting a few reps in the middle infield to stay fresh at those positions is not inconsistent. They were set to have a meeting regarding Ceddanne's future this weekend, my assumption is that they had it early on Friday, in which case this shows a change of plans by Cora as a result. It's possible I'm wrong and they haven't had the meeting yet, in which case it would be very odd for Cora to announce a change (he had played exclusively CF during the spring) right before a meeting regarding his future. So I'm making the assumption that the meeting occurred and this was part of the decision they made. You're making the assumption that the 2B/SS time is simply to 'stay fresh' at those positions. My assumptions are based off the posts/articles by Brown over the past two days, have you read/heard anything that adds to this?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 17:00:03 GMT -5
To break up the Rafaela service time talk and since I didn't see it posted yet. Cora said Rafaela would play some 2nd and SS next week. I don't think it'd be in his best interest to break camp as a utility guy since he needs everyday ABs but it's at least possible. And just like that Cora changes his mind - likely due to the organizational meeting previously mentioned by Ian Brown. This opens up more space for Refsnyder (assuming Rafaela makes the roster) as having 6 OF-only (aside from Refsnyder at 1B) guys didn't make sense from a long-term roster construction standpoint. It also may mean that Vaughn Grissom will be out past opening day.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 15:36:01 GMT -5
Cora has been pretty clear that if Rafaela makes the team then he's the starting CFer. So it would likely cut into the playing time of the Abreu/Duran/O'Neil trio.
Even if the Red Sox leave Rafaela down for 51 days, he would acquire super-2 status unless kept down for an additionally 38-57 days (top 22% of service time recipients; varies based on season). There's still good value, but 4th year arb players don't typically provide huge discounts off of free agent rates.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 11:28:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 10:58:19 GMT -5
The power has really picked up for Rafaela with 2 doubles and 3 homers in his last 8 games (23 PA).
On the flip side, after compiling a very exciting 7 walks in his first 5 games (18 PA) he hasn't drawn a walk in his last 9 games (25 PA) while striking out 7 times (28%).
He also hasn't stolen a base in his past 9 games, but that's due to never reaching 1st (0 singles).
I would prefer the walks over the power, but at least the power isn't taken time to develop as it did last year.
|
|