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 fenwaythehardway on Feb 6, 2019 11:36:48 GMT -5
I get wanting a quicker pace, but I really don't like that 3 batter minimum rule. What happens when you put a guy in that clearly doesn't have it? He gets in trouble with 3 straight batters, probably working at a lethargic pace, not getting any outs, and then there is a pitching change anyway? This would decide a lot of games and I don't think would have a substantial enough effect on pace to be worth it. I mean, how often does a guy "not have it" to the extent that he gets pulled after his first batter? A manager almost always gives him one more batter anyway, and then if he really doesn't have it they go into full sandbag mode to give the next guy a chance to warm up. What this really does is eliminate relievers who come into the game to pitch to one hitter, ie the lefty specialist. Those guys have been on the decline anyway, and no one enjoys having them as part of the game really, so I'm all in favor of banning them outright.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 5, 2019 13:19:14 GMT -5
That’s awful. I can’t blame the Sox for increasing the netting this past year. It’s uncommon but as we can see it still happens. I know it's a freak occurrence, but just put the nets everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 4, 2019 12:40:39 GMT -5
People spend too much time thinking about Devers' body. If they are, they should be heartened to hear that he's actually taking better care of his body now. He's eating right. He'll be in the BSOHL!! And I think in this case, with further strike zone maturation, it will matter. Devers could break out big-time this year. And his defense will be fine as he gains more experience. He's managed his weight as a professional since he was 16. He's now 22 and if anything taking his training more seriously than ever. He's never going to be the most athletic guy on the field but he's perfectly capable and most likely will be for quite some time. It's a little like people still complaining about Chris Sale's mechanics after his third year as a starter or whatever. If you want to worry about Devers, worry that that hit tool has not come as advertised.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 3, 2019 14:57:44 GMT -5
People spend too much time thinking about Devers' body.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 1, 2019 15:57:18 GMT -5
And what do they rate them for pitch calling? Not sure where that's listed, or if it even is listed. In any event, pitch calling is a) impossible to quantify with any real confidence and b) not going to save anyone from -55 run offensive performance. I will give Vasquez credit, I know the numbers are terrible but he had some good at bats in the post season. Even his Steamer projection has him getting back to .256/.306/.368, which still isn't great, but it's tolerable from a good defensive catcher. The other two... yeeeesh.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 1, 2019 12:06:47 GMT -5
Honestly, how badly can you underrate a unit that hit a collective .202/.254/.293 last year? But pitch framing.. I know you're joking, but just to put some numbers on it, Baseball Prospectus does credit them for 21.2 pitch framing runs above average, third best in baseball. At this point however I will advise the reader to hold onto their socks lest they be knocked off by this next stat: Fangraphs rates them as (seriously, brace yourself) 54.3 runs worse than average offensively.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 1, 2019 11:26:16 GMT -5
You're severely underrating Red Sox catchers. Honestly, how badly can you underrate a unit that hit a collective .202/.254/.293 last year?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 31, 2019 12:13:51 GMT -5
If you're successfully convincing me of anything here, it's that I need to make sure my MLB.TV subscription doesn't renew this year. You do that. The current CBA is a joke and it needs to be addressed. Until it does, people just shouldn't expect anything out of the ordinary.You'll be shocked to learn that I frequently raise strong objections to the expected behaviors of individuals and institutions.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 31, 2019 11:39:37 GMT -5
I don't want the Red Sox to spend more this offseason because it'll fix baseball. I want to them to spend more because their bullpen sucks and they can f-ing afford to make it better if they want to. It's not complicated. Every single team could address some weak spot in their team with a free agent signing. Basically none are doing that. Why do you expect the Red Sox, who already have a comparatively gargantuan payroll, to be the one to do it? If you're successfully convincing me of anything here, it's that I need to make sure my MLB.TV subscription doesn't renew this year. Every single team could address some weak spot in their team with a free agent signing. Basically none are doing that. Why do you expect the Red Sox, who already have a comparatively gargantuan payroll, to be the one to do it? Combination of factors. Their weak spot is rather big and yet had a million rather cheap options to fix it. Fixing it could likely make them tops in predicted wins in the whole league. Hence it would make a big difference. Everyone thinks they reset the tax next year, which means losing a decent amount of talent. So this is your year. It's not like they need an ace that will take a massive long-term commitment. Any team should add players if they can move the needle and are in the Red Sox position. Heck the fact other teams aren't, just means you should do it even more. The only two arguments should be we really don't have the money based on revenue or the move just isn't worth it. Doesn't move the needle versus the cost. I look at the Yankees and their weak spots are rather minor. I look at the Dodgers, same thing. Can you say that about the Red Sox right now? Yeah, exactly. I'm pretty darn sure that this team could actually sign Machado and they would still be wildly profitable, but we're not even asking for that or anything close to it. We're asking for low-cost reinforcements at an obvious area of need, for a team that faces an extremely competitive division next year. And it's demoralizing to know that we're not getting that in favor of some fractional increase in profits.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 31, 2019 8:47:05 GMT -5
You should never go full stupid when you're spending money regardless of how much you're making. Paying Pablo Sandoval close to 20 big ones so he can go on a slurpee spree elsewhere obviously plays a part in them not having that money to spend on a reliever right now. "Yeah but they have that money" - until eventually they don't. They operate in a budget. If it's a fully agreeable and "right" budget, it's another matter. Don't expect one team out of 30 to tell the rest of them to go f*ck themselves to appease people who think professional athletes don't make enough money. That is not a big crowd. I don't want the Red Sox to spend more this offseason because it'll fix baseball. I want to them to spend more because their bullpen sucks and they can f-ing afford to make it better if they want to. It's not complicated.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 18:29:31 GMT -5
To your issue with by far the highest budget in baseball. Mmmm... nope, not working.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 18:08:38 GMT -5
The thing is, I doubt the Red Sox are actually a particularly high spending team, relative to their actual ability to spend. Good thing you aren't a fan of any other team with a lot more revenue than the Red Sox, of which there are several. None come within $40 million of the Red Sox. I really hope fans of other teams don't read these complaints about the Red Sox not spending nearly enough money. We sound worse than old Yankees fans now. Maybe the answer is to be smarter with spending money, not dumber.The answer to what?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 17:51:55 GMT -5
I called their budget "ridiculous" and "self-imposed", which I think should address your question... Good thing you're not a fan of any other team in baseball then. The thing is, I doubt the Red Sox are actually a particularly high spending team, relative to their actual ability to spend.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 15:25:00 GMT -5
I just said I think he can be a solid middle innings guy next year for all of $3m. Why wouldn't you sign a guy like that, other than the completely ridiculous self-imposed "budget" that the team is apparently sticking to? Absolutely wild how many fans are actively advocating against improving their teams because they're apparently super worried that John Henry might be late on one of his his yacht payments (he won't be). ... So while you go wild not picking up "Holland" I would go wild if they had a chance to pick up someone better in July but didn't because of budget. Apparently below in bold you said something two pages prior that I strongly agreed with but it seems like I took it wrong. I don't think Holland moves the bar much and as a result it's not worth risking losing more quality in the future. I don't trust anyone's pov that they aren't on budget. Because if they aren't on budget then I'd think they would be in on Kimbrel which I would love for a 1 year deal or if they don't care about 2020 etc - throw more at him. As you say "improve the team"- Kimbrel would do that. But imo they are on a budget. ... I called their budget "ridiculous" and "self-imposed", which I think should address your question... Absolutely wild how many fans are actively advocating against improving their teams because they're apparently super worried that John Henry might be late on one of his his yacht payments (he won't be). I don't think the fans here are really advocating for it. When you're owner basically says "budget, budget, can't spend more money," then I think the fans just take it as a reality or matter of fact that it's going to happen. I'm sure all of us would want to see Bryce Harper here if the Sox had the option. That is just using a example for spending even more. The Sox don't have that option because John Henry sets limits on spending across the board, which kind of stinks. Contracts, payroll, spending. It all has a certain limit Henry doesn't want to cross. Just to be clear, they absolutely do have that option.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 15:06:37 GMT -5
People sometimes have short memories. It's been 25 years (a full generation) since there's been a work stoppage. I knew under Bud Selig's watch he was determined to never have that happen again, but that's no longer the case. Things have changed. This is a fight for a new generation and unfortunately I think it could be a long one. And I do wonder if at some point the MLBPA will part ways with former player Tony Clark and hire themselves a shark like Donald Fehr.They haven't replaced Clark, but they are staffing up... blogs.fangraphs.com/the-mlbpa-has-a-new-chief-negotiator/
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 12:14:02 GMT -5
They probably do, but so what? When your strategy is to throw stuff at the wall a nd see what sticks, you want to throw as much stuff as possible. I don't see how bringing in Holland or a Holland-like substance of some sort makes this team worse in any way. I think you can kind of throw his St. Louis numbers out for last year, though. He signed late, wasn't ready for the season, and Mike Matheny was so insistent on using him as a closer despite repeated blowups that St. Louis was forced to release Holland just to end that nightmare (notably, Matheny was gone not long after). Holland was a much better pitcher with Washington once he had a chance to get his feet under him. None of which is to say that Holland is a relief ace at this point in his career, but there's no particular reason to think he can't be a solid middle inning guy next year. I'd certainly have taken that chance for $3m. Why bother if you think you have better than Holland? Why waste money if you don't think the guy is that good? They seem to be under some type of budget too so why not wait until July with as much money as possible? Anyhow, you don't know what sticky pitcher will perform even if he makes the team. The Sox have issues with their bullpen and at 2b if Pedroia is done again and it appears they are under a budget. If the Sox don't think Holland is that good and they have a budget they shouldn't go after him. 2B might be more of a priority. I just said I think he can be a solid middle innings guy next year for all of $3m. Why wouldn't you sign a guy like that, other than the completely ridiculous self-imposed "budget" that the team is apparently sticking to? Absolutely wild how many fans are actively advocating against improving their teams because they're apparently super worried that John Henry might be late on one of his his yacht payments (he won't be).
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 11:12:07 GMT -5
From the article: Now 33 years of age, Holland is not the same pitcher that once featured as one of the game’s most dominant relievers. Indeed, he last pitched as a true relief ace back in 2014. He blew out his elbow in the ensuing campaign and has never fully regained his velocity.Just my opinion but I'll wager the Sox have in-house options superior to Holland. They probably do, but so what? When your strategy is to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks, you want to throw as much stuff as possible. I don't see how bringing in Holland or a Holland-like substance of some sort makes this team worse in any way. Holland walked over 6 per 9 last year. I'd only be signing him if they had no one at AAA better than him. I think you can kind of throw his St. Louis numbers out for last year, though. He signed late, wasn't ready for the season, and Mike Matheny was so insistent on using him as a closer despite repeated blowups that St. Louis was forced to release Holland just to end that nightmare (notably, Matheny was gone not long after). Holland was a much better pitcher with Washington once he had a chance to get his feet under him. None of which is to say that Holland is a relief ace at this point in his career, but there's no particular reason to think he can't be a solid middle inning guy next year. I'd certainly have taken that chance for $3m.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 10:54:11 GMT -5
Yeah, ok, the Red Sox are officially not signing anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 8:46:35 GMT -5
You can give your opinion, but stop talking like you know facts. You have no clue if I'm wrong. The guys I wanted or want could be awesome and Pearce could suck. This is Baseball players have up and down years all the time. Your contention that we don't really know how good any of these players are going to be seems at odds with your willingness to argue about them forever.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 8:00:55 GMT -5
Buy all the $1 guys, pocket the other $22, and raise ticket prices. And demand $500m in taxpayer money to build a new stadium or else the team is moving to Vegas. Bonds (5) Trout (5) Betts (3) Rolen (1) A. Rodriguez (5) Utley (3) McGwire (1) E. Martinez (3) Posey (3) Pedro (2) Jansen (2) The pitching staff feels like cheating.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2019 16:52:05 GMT -5
In fairness, I think the honing of the craft is at such a high level now that 2-way player development IS largely fruitless. There’s big risk you just end up with a person mediocre at two things instead of good at one. BUT, I also think that there’s an inefficiency there that’s exploitable. Ohtani as a starter is, I think, a tremendously rare exception. But as you said Gerry, a 2-pitch (or even “1-pitch”, a la Rivera/Jansen/Britton) reliever is another story. And that’s a tremendous roster flexibility help. So I don’t think it hurts to look at guys with big arms like Dalbec or Casas as relievers, and give them reps out of the bullpen. I think success will depend on natural ability to command, and having an outstanding FB (in terms of location, movement, AND velocity), and not needing to really *refine* a second/third pitch, but already having an adequate (45-50) one. I think there obviously needs to be significant buy-in from the player, but I also think that the “out-of-hand” dismissal of 2-way development is a mistake. It just needs to focus on a small fraction of players who are capable and WANT to do it. With the way the game is continuing towards increased RP usage, this is an exploitable roster spot saver. Here's something: blogs.fangraphs.com/has-position-player-pitching-reached-its-peak-or-nadir/Position player pitching is still pretty rare overall, but between the ever increasing pressure to fill innings that starters no longer pitch, and the proof of concept that Ohtani represents, I think you're going to see teams start to take a more serious look at two-way players.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2019 13:05:42 GMT -5
The Merrifield deal is far more a product of the system than what he "could have gotten." Pre Arb in '19, Arb in 20-22. Sure, he probably could have gotten more in totality by going year to year, but I'm not sure it would be THAT much more So apparently, the deal does a have a team option to buy out one year of free agency. Merrifield must really need the money and/or he really loves KC. You can go either way if this was a good deal, but with the way free agency is trending, it might be just good enough. He essentially only took a raise in the first 2 years of the deal and he took a pay cut by the last 2 years if he keeps producing in his 30's. For all the talk of the weakness of the free agent market, it seems to me that what the player's union should really be gunning for is A) a greatly increased league minimum salary and B) expanded rosters. Take the guys riding the AAA shuttle or the phantom DL and give them real MLB jobs higher base salary. Get more players to free agency sooner, partly by simply increasing the amount of service time that's available, and by giving them less of a reason to sign these team-friendly deals. And, the gains from this plan would go to players that actually need them in a more real way than the Harpers and Machados of the world. It's not that uncommon for guys to play ten-plus years in pro ball and maybe see parts of two or three MLB seasons during that time. For players like that, increasing the base salary really would make a difference in their lives that isn't just about how many fancy cars they get to own. AND, on top of that, teams would probably be more willing to spend a little in free agency if the alternative wasn't getting a bunch of pre-arb guys to play essentially for free.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 27, 2019 16:03:01 GMT -5
Given that there seems to be a bit of hesitation to give both Machado and Harper 10 year contracts, if they became available today for a 4 years, $40M a year deal, would anyone here pull the trigger on that for either? Ditto for Mookie? Assuming this isn't some monkey's paw wish where ownership turns around and guts the rest of the roster to stay at the same payroll, absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 27, 2019 11:20:03 GMT -5
I think the disconnect here is that you don’t think sub-par offense at first base is a problem for this team, and the rest of us do. I think one thing to think about is that it's likely the Red Sox don't quite get the historic output from the combo of Betts and JDM that they did last year. If so they need the slack picked up. This would be helped by improvement everywhere else which is possible, but 1b is one of those areas. You figure you can't get less out of the catching offensively. You'd hope that Pedroia is mostly back and that they can be at least better than last year. You hope that JBJ builds on what he did in the 2nd half, that Benni blossoms, and that 1b is stabilized so they're not searching like they did last year when Hanley wasn't what he once was and Travis wasn't the answer. Of course the biggest addition to the offense would be the maturation of Devers at 3b. The Red Sox really didn't address 2b (hoping Pedroia is healthy) or catcher (hoping for regression to the mean there somewhat) so keeping 1b stable is important. On a more basic level, runs lost or gained relative to average at 1B aren't particularly more or less valuable than runs gained or lost at any other position. Yes, relievers get the leverage advantage but it just isn't that big a deal.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 27, 2019 9:31:45 GMT -5
I'd rather have Pearce than Brach and Kelley, and I do think that Kelley plus Brach would cost more than what Pearce is making - not by a ton, but a little bit more. The real choice would be Pearce and one of Kelly or Brach. Having Pearce on the roster isn't preventing the Sox from picking up Kelley. Not having Pearce on the roster means that any early injury to Moreland and you're playing Sam Travis at first base. No thank you to that. Pearce has plenty of value on the 2019 Red Sox team. I'm not of the belief that Chavis is ready to play 1b at the major league level yet. I wouldn't expect him any sooner than the all-star break if then. And I don't trust Moreland to stay reasonably consistent throughout the season. So that's where you lose me. What happens if Barnes goes down? Braiser reverts back to his normal self? Nunez isn't great at first, neither is Swihart but at the same time they won't tank the team either. Injuries in the bullpen and the team could implode. Right now you could sign two guys in the bullpen using Pearce money. Still got guys like Holland, Kelley, Sipp, heck even Sergio Romo, even a Ryan Madsen could be huge for this team. Some of these guys are going to sign for peanuts, yet they bring a ton of veteran experience, along with a rather good chance they can be decent to good relievers, maybe even better. I think the disconnect here is that you don’t think sub-par offense at first base is a problem for this team, and the rest of us do.
|
|
|