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 dcb26 on Mar 27, 2024 11:02:20 GMT -5
I feel like the "The Red Sox don't need any more SP depth" side of this discussion is just assuming that all 6+ starters are created equal and automatically awful, rather than acknowledging that you can actually have a better rotation throughout the year by signing someone better - and while it may effect some players more than others, no, it doesn't automatically torpedo someone's season to switch between starting and relieving. I legitimately have never seen a "more than 5 potential MLB starting pitchers is too much pitching" argument before.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 24, 2024 19:23:40 GMT -5
I think the long-term prospects for the organization are stronger than last year, but that the team in the majors this year is a little worse. That said, I'll predict 83 wins as I think last year's record was influenced by excessive bad luck, excessive underperformance, and the manager quitting on the team with a month and a half left in the season. There is a lot that *could* go right this year, which should make them fun to root for and hopefully to watch. My skepticism comes from the fact that too many of these sound a little too much like "well, how bad a SS could Hernandez really be? It's not like he could singlehandedly tank the entire season" from a year ago. I don't think this offseason was handled very well, but there were definitely a couple of moves that look good, and I'm very happy to see that they didn't deplete the top prospect depth for quick fixes. I'll always root for the Red Sox to win, but especially in 2024 I'll be looking for a good draft, solid performances from the young players in the majors, and continued development from the minors; given that, the Red Sox could be in a very enviable position a year from now, despite all of the media noise that will suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 23, 2024 20:12:21 GMT -5
I seriously doubt they would sign a guy like this and plan to keep him on the 26-man roster if they loved everyone previously projected for the bullpen. The end of Spring training, after a long time to evaluate the players on the periphery of the roster, is a time I'm most willing to trust the team's judgement of their players. If there was a spot they already weren't sold on and think there's a chance of fixing Anderson, cool.
Unless of course they just want someone as an emergency option for the initial rough stretch of games and are ok with optioning someone else for a couple of weeks to make that happen.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 22, 2024 17:12:51 GMT -5
I think offensively and defensively they'll be a solid enough squad, somewhere between average to above average with maybe even some possibility for more as you point out with mixing and matching. There's some interesting pieces on the roster I agree. As with every MLB squad though can they pitch well enough? I think there is enough upside to say yes it's possible but I'm not sure I'd bet on it yet and they're an injury or two away from potentially having a disastrous pitching staff. I just think that line of thinking is too worryful. Most teams are 2-3 injuries to starters away from a potentially disastrous rotation, nobody has 8 or 9 reliable starters laying around. If George Kirby and Logan Gilbert get hurt, the Mariners will have a tough season. If Bailey Ober and Joe Ryan get hurt, the Twins will have a tough season. If Gerrit Cole ends up needing TJ and Marcus Stroman gets hurt, the Yankees will have a tough season. If Max Fried, Chris Sale, and Charlie Morton get hurt, the Braves probably have the lineup to withstand it, but they’re gonna have a bad rotation. It is what it is. If everything else hits and they’re really just a reliable starter away from contention, they can afford one at the deadline. I would like another depth option, too, but I understand ownership and the FO not wanting to spend on an addition that isnt a clear upgrade on what they have. I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here, but do you have anything to back up this idea that recent contenders haven't had any better pitching depth than the Sox do this year? I believe otherwise but fully admit I'm too lazy to do any sort of deep dive and so don't have anything to back up my opinion other a couple of random examples from memory. For the hypotheticals you gave, yes, any team that loses it's two best pitchers is going to have a worse rotation, especially if at least one of them is a true ace type - but I think the Sox are pretty well screwed if they lose even their four or five starter at this point, and that to me points to a concerning lack of depth, if you want this team to compete.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 15, 2024 11:18:11 GMT -5
I'll not entirely opposed to taking a QB on the middle of the 1st. Not a fan of it, but I'm not entirely against it. I think a reminder of where QBs were picked and the reality of the situation. So while middle 1st is irritating. Anything after that is a massive gamble based on history. If we're painting in broad strokes rather than analyzing individual players, wouldn't it stand to reason that what should be a historically great QB draft should have better QB talent after the first few picks as well? Especially if you do look at the specifics this year and see the QB strength isn't so much one uber-prospect (yes, Williams is a great QB prospect, but he alone isn't what is making the QB position look so special in this draft) but the number of QB's who could legitimately turn into franchise players. I will be really interested to see how high some of these QB's go - do 5 or 6 really go in the top half of the first round, or is being the proverbial "5th best QB in the draft" enough to drop someone simply on the basis of the players who went earlier.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 15, 2024 11:08:15 GMT -5
So much talk about QB sitting if we take one, but who are you taking? There's a massive difference between Maye and Daniels. There's a massive difference between Penix, Nix and McCarthy. If you're taking Daniels, Nix or Penix but don't want them playing year one at all you probably shouldn't be drafting them. One of the biggest pluses of that group is way more experience than your average QB that gets drafted. Even Rattler has more experience than your average QB drafted My preference is Maye if he's there, or Penix if they go MHJ or trade back. I generally agree with your point, but no matter which (if any) QB the Pats draft I still want them on the bench for a while. Even if they have tons of experience, they still need to learn a new system/terminology/coaches/teammates/etc. I think there's a far greater chance to be hurt by being thrown into the fire than the opposite. Not saying "absolutely don't play at all in year one" but force them to really earn any game time they get.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 14, 2024 14:58:08 GMT -5
I wouldn't change my mind about any opening day assignments based on spring training stats. This. To the posts and question above, his PA's have been solid in my opinion. A lot of walks and getting deep into counts, so you could call that passive, but not like some others accused of the same where he looks unable or unwilling to swing. I can think of 3 or 4 K's he's had off the top of my head that were VERY questionable calls ("it's spring training for umpires too" etc. type of situations.) I wouldn't say it's a 100% certainty he makes the opening day roster - I've been thinking about the possibility of him starting the season in Worcester too, and you would like to see more contact and/or power in his PA's - but I certainly wouldn't say he looks lost or hopeless or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 8, 2024 15:29:49 GMT -5
This is the kind of "risk" I want to see the Red Sox taking more of, and that I think their financial strength should allow them to continue to take. Yes, there is absolutely a risk that the Red Sox pay Bello more than he ends up being worth or that they would have paid him if they went year to year. But - how big a risk is 10million AAV to the Sox? Not saying it's nothing, but even (especially?) if the Sox can't compete with the highest spending teams anymore (and I'm skeptical of that, although its more realistic than some fan expectations of how they should spend) they absolutely should have the payroll to support these kinds of deals going sour in a worst-case scenario. Meanwhile, the upsides are obvious, and extend beyond just having Bello on the roster. More like this, please.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 6, 2024 11:05:43 GMT -5
I was going to say "between rage at mentioning Criswell's name and the ridiculous conversation about releasing Giolito, things are really getting silly around here right now" - and then I realized it was the same person. Not saying this is outright trolling, but probably easier to just not engage further.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 15:16:06 GMT -5
Valdez is fun to watch hit (against RHP, anyway.) There are a few scenarios (reports about his improved 2B defense are legit, or figuring out how to hit LHP, being the most obvious ones) where he has a very successful MLB career.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 11:17:51 GMT -5
Desperate attempt at a glass-half-full take: This year was unlikely to be great anyway, but if Giolito pitched well he would have been gone at the end of the season. Now maybe he gets healthy this year, comes back next year, and contributes to an overall more competitive team next year? Sorry, that's the best I've got - I was already starting to feel like the Sox were being followed by a raincloud after Grissom got hurt
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 10:47:44 GMT -5
Heck, it's not even hypothetical, since Szymborski published 80th percentile outcomes: for Montgomery it's 4.0 WAR and a 3.35 ERA. But he also has a 20th percentile outcome of 1.8 WAR and a 4.56 ERA. No sensible team is going to look at distributions like this and decide to pay for the 80th percentile outcome. The Red Sox (or anyone else) could conceivably have much rosier projections that ZiPS, but I doubt that's actually the case because if it were he'd be signed by now. Also the public projections are really tightly clustered - all between 2.7 and 3.1 WAR and a 3.95-4.10 FIP - which is more reason to think that teams are probably not far off from those projections.
It sounds to me like the main difference is how much we each trust in the specifics of the ZiPS projection - not trying to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you place more weight in the specific WAR estimate than I do. I also don't disagree with the general point - I personally think Montgomery may be due for a down year next year and don't think signing him to more than 4 years is a particularly good idea, so I'll make this my last post on the topic. As to why I don't think the ZiPS projections should be the sole source of information for deciding Montgomery's future: The last 3 years are the only years in Montgomery's career in which he was not either a rookie, a reliever, or pitching in the covid season; looking at those 3 years, ZiPS projected WAR's were 1.5, 2.5, 3.0 for 2021-23 respectively. His actual fWAR in those seasons were 3.2, 2.7, 4.3 - ZiPS projected only 68% of the WAR he achieved. Additionally: Montgomery never underperformed his ZiPS projected WAR as a starter, is not at an age where you yet expect massive year-to-year drop-off, and has as recently as last season overperformed his ZiPS projection by a fairly major amount (+1.3 on a 3.0 projection.) Again, not trying to say he's destined to be great for the next few years, but I think its easy enough to imagine a scenario where Montgomery feels like he can pitch well in 2024 and then get paid, or where a team feels like he may be a sound investment for the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 0:26:05 GMT -5
Short of getting hurt or committing a crime I'm skeptical there's anything McGuire himself could do to significantly increase or decrease his chances of making the opening day roster. (My point being that they know who he is by now and its really up to the players around him to determine whether he looks like the best option.) Yeah, maybe so, but I'm thinking they may swap him out for Perez. He hasn't looked strong behind the plate. Not that Perez has done anything in the games so far. But as you say, they may have already made the decision one way or the other. I thought Perez had at least a pretty legitimate shot prior to the start of the Spring too - having seen him play a bit, and the shape he's in etc. I'm now very skeptical. Wouldn't rule it out but I'd certainly bet on McGuire, who seems like an incredibly safe option to be...fine
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 0:15:54 GMT -5
Those ZiPS projections I mentioned above... 2024: 2.9 2025: 2.4 2026: 1.9 ...got me to thinking. The Red Sox undoubtedly have their own projections for Montgomery, but assuming they're not too far from this... why would the team have any interest in Montgomery for 2026 or later? They might already have a full rotation of cost-controlled 2+ WAR pitchers for 2026 in Bello, Crawford, Whitlock, Houck, and Fitts; why add another guy on that tier for $20 million+?
Which also puts me in mind of Alex Speier's suggestion that a Red Sox offer to Montgomery might be right around what they gave Giolito - i.e., 2/40 or so. Which would be just about what ZiPS suggests Montgomery ought to be worth. So a) it seems pretty likely that the Red Sox are offering Montgomery a two-year deal. But b) they're still getting the most buzz for their engagement with him, which means no one else is going much beyond that offer. Prediction: this ends with something like a 2/45 deal for Montgomery, whether with the Red Sox or someone else. First year is $25 million, then an "opt out" and a $20 million second year. But the team could just offer the QO if he opts out and Montgomery might well accept it. So it's essentially a 2/45 contract but Boras can claim the opt out is there so that Montgomery can test the market next year "when more teams will be willing to spend for elite pitchers."
I think the answer to this is largely similar to the answer to your previous question about why he might get roughly the same contract offer next year as this year - because his projected value, and WAR projections etc. - will go up if he has another good season. If he puts up something like 3.5+ WAR in 2024, ZiPS isn't going to project him for 2.4 in 2025 etc. - he's not at that "fall off a cliff" age yet, and has never put up a fWAR lower than 2.6 as a starter, and there arguments to be made that he's better now than he was earlier in his career. Another good year and his value likely goes up - but he's another year older and on the wrong side of 30, which very roughly puts him back where he stands now, imo. I don't really disagree with the general concept here, and I know you said "...assuming they're not too far from [the ZiPS projection]..." so I'm not trying to make this some "you're wrong" response; but if you're taking the ZiPS projections as an expected outcome, rather than simply the most likely out of many possible outcomes, I think that's dangerous. As far as how the Red Sox project Montgomery, I hope they have a system like this that aggregates a whole lot of data and tells them an expected average outcome - but I also hope they have a system that is more subjective to the individual player and their specific progression, and those two things could project different paths forward.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 4, 2024 16:38:27 GMT -5
I was just getting ready to post that I feel like McGuire's seat is getting hotter every second and he rips a double down the line. Short of getting hurt or committing a crime I'm skeptical there's anything McGuire himself could do to significantly increase or decrease his chances of making the opening day roster. (My point being that they know who he is by now and its really up to the players around him to determine whether he looks like the best option.)
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 4, 2024 16:26:03 GMT -5
By this logic they shouldn't sign any multi-year free agent until they're already competitive though, and seeing as you have to be willing to take on risk in any FA deal, I don't know why they would object to a deal like this. You pretty much are not going to get a better free agent pitcher on a deal with less risk than a guy like Montgomery on a pillow contract.
I also don't know how a second guaranteed year helps you mitigate risk unless it's only a two-year deal, which it wouldn't be. If your worry is about there not being enough upside for the Red Sox if he's good, I would argue that a solid year of Montgomery in 2024 and an extra second-round pick is plenty of upside, and the downside if he gets injured or falls off a cliff is already being priced in in the form of lower committed dollars and years than a pitcher of his caliber would typically command.
You have this backwards. If you want to reduce my statement to absurdity, it would be "don't ever sign free agents with one-year upside and multi-year downside when you aren't currently competitive" and to be clear - I'm not even saying that. You clearly see more upside for Montgomery in 2024 and less downside for him in 2025-6+ than I do, which is fine. Although personally I feel like he's due for a down year in 2024, overall he seems pretty safe as far as age 30+ FA pitchers go, but I still don't think that mitigates the potential risk to the next couple of years. Put simply, my point is that I don't think you have to strain too hard to see why the Sox might not be in love with having only one guaranteed year for him if it carries multi-year risk. To the other point about why would Montgomery even want a pillow/opt-out contract? Well if you (or he) think he could get, say, 4/90 either this year or next, then taking a one-year high-AAV deal now and signing the longer deal next year is very likely worth more than getting 4/90 now and then whatever he could get for one year after that.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 4, 2024 14:10:42 GMT -5
Regarding Montgomery, I don't think it’s the money as much as not giving the opt outs and the number ot years. They don't just want him for 1 year, but I'm sure Boras wants the opt outs, hence the protracted time it's taking for him to sign. Other teams may not want the opt outs either, who will give in?? I think they 100% would want him for just one year. Throw out nearly all decline risk, get a good pitcher for 2024, still don't pay the luxury tax, and likely pick up a 2nd round pick if he walks. If anyone doesn't want a pillow contract it's Montgomery, since he would have to contend with the QO next year, would be another year older, and probably isn't capable of a better season than his 2023. He wants to get paid now. I disagree - not that they wouldn't take him for a year for free, but Montgomery doesn't move the needle enough this year to drastically alter the outlook. If they offer him something like 3/75 with opt outs, then if something catastrophic happens that's a real burden in years where they likely will be even more competitive. I really think they need at least two years before an opt out for it to make real sense, unless the aav is just incredibly low
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 2, 2024 13:52:56 GMT -5
Yeah, you can absolutely coach speed and arm strength. There are inherent factors/limitations, or put another way there's a limit to what coaching can do, but those are both tools that can be improved with coaching and often take a some time to show the full benefits. And even more than speed on the bases, range in the field can and typically is improved through coaching and experience
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 26, 2024 11:29:17 GMT -5
Expectations for Monty's contract are sky high elsewhere on the internet. I saw 5/130 with multiple opt outs. Boras really is a wizard. He sets the expectations so high that you can agree to a player friendly contract and your fans will still come away thinking you're a golden god of negotiating. I saw an old MLBTR article the other day saying that he was demanding 7/210 for JD Martinez the year we signed him. Exactly this, it's the same thing over and over again. Stage 1: player is valued at [X] dollars. Stage 2: Boras demands 2.2 times [X] dollars for player, fans go insane with rage at Boras. Stage 3: Player signs for 1.2 times [X] dollars, fans mock Boras for being a failure. Player (and Boras) profit.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 26, 2024 11:08:37 GMT -5
I wonder if a lot of the holdup at this point is about when the opt-outs come up. Assuming Montgomery isn't getting the full contract he wants, he would obviously want an opt-out after year 1, whereas the Sox are likely signing him more for 2025 and 2026 (not to say 2024 is a lost cause, but realistically they are more likely to make a deep postseason run in the next couple of years, I think.) A guaranteed 3 or 4 years would be great, and I'd feel about the same for 2 years as I would for 5 - which is "ok, fine" assuming the money isn't insane. Not that I'd mind having Montgomery in 2024 but I don't really think it's worth it for the Sox to give him an opt-out after the first year.
None of this is to say a deal with the Sox is a foregone conclusion, if this is the case then Boras is probably having the same conversation with several teams.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 12, 2024 7:38:17 GMT -5
24 - Mahomes - HoF 23 - Mahomes - HoF 22 - Stafford- HoF 21 - Brady - HoF 20 - Mahomes - HoF 19 - Brady - HoF 18 - Foles - Mediocre (play Butler, then likely Brady) 17 - Brady - HoF 16 - Manning - HoF (albeit that was a very mediocre version of him) 15 - Brady - HoF 14 - Wilson - HoF An elite QB is obviously going to dramatically increase the odds of winning, but that's not the same thing as taking them highest in the draft. Mahomes was 1/10 after the "can't miss" QB of that draft, Trubisky, went 1/2. We all know Brady's draft story. Wilson was 3/75 after Luck and RG3 went 1/1 and 2, Tannehill at 1/8, etc. (Foles was 13 picks after Wilson.) So only 2 of the wins in this list were by QB's taken in the first 9 picks of the draft. You can find an elite QB outside of the top couple of picks. As others have said, the crime would be to force that pick with a QB they don't completely believe in.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 8, 2024 19:47:38 GMT -5
A couple people made the point already, but I just want to emphasize: building around home-grown talent is NOT just a question of sitting around and waiting for Mayer/Anthony/Teel. The young talent already in or just arriving to the majors is actually pretty phenomenal. Like, look at this: C - Wong 1B - Casas 2B - Grissom/Valdez 3B - Devers SS - Rafaela LF - Duran/Abreu CF - Rafaela/Duran/Abreu RF - Abreu SP1 - Bello SP2 - Crawford SP3 - Houck SP4 - Whitlock SP5 - Winckowski, maybe Winckowski is iffy and I'm double counting Rafaela, but other than that they can field an entire lineup and rotation solely with pre-arb guys + Devers, every one of them by projections more or less an average major leaguer or better.* That's pretty wild! Not only could you not say this of the last several years - you couldn't say this of the 2018 team. Or any other Red Sox roster that I can recall.
*maybe not Wong, but I think the projections are too low on him, and in any case Teel is probably the safest bet of any prospect in the system to make it as at least an average major leaguer and he's probably only a year away
This point needs to be emphasized more often. I will add that having this many cost-controlled interesting-to-better players also allows the Sox to trade some of them while maintaining a cost-controlled core. If the Sox should be "waiting" on anything, I think its that - having an actual surplus of cheap, functional talent that they can trade from to improve specific areas of the team, without depleting the farm system. I'm not advocating some sort of "trade all the prospects approach" but just noting that this sort of system depth should allow them to start making trades to supplement the team and not depend solely on FA signings in order to target specific needs. I also thought they were going to do more of that this offseason, that they would sign a couple of FA who would make a couple of these guys redundant and use them in trades to further improve the team, but still think its the right approach long term.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 8, 2024 9:12:27 GMT -5
It depends on what you're trying to do - If you're looking at HOF candidacy or making a career evaluation then look at it seasonally or as a cumulative total. Otherwise the only way seasonal totals make sense is if you think injuries are under a player's control and/or predictive. If you're simply not willing to evaluate players on a rate basis at all you might as well just use traditional counting stats (which WAR is fast becoming, but whatever.)
Not saying to completely ignore injuries, but "they're equivalent on a rate basis but Story is often injured" is much more valid imo than simply "Xander is far superior"
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 7, 2024 20:16:17 GMT -5
I'm surprised to be saying this but I think this is a smart move. Clearly they have been looking for ways to "grow the brand" and re-engage public attention, and between the 2024 and 04 documentaries, this should be a good step. I'll also add that Netflix sports documentaries have generally been high quality - my biggest complaint has been that they might be a little favorable to the "host" team or player, which sounds just fine here. Red Sox have a chance become more publicly relevant (which should help with attracting players, not just revenue) and look good in the process. If they don't screw it up...
Or maybe I'm just looking to justify my interest in watching it. Either way, I'm intrigued.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 2, 2024 11:41:50 GMT -5
Also to everyone saying maybe he'll replace Kennedy, why would Theo want that job? You think he wants to think about maximizing revenue and marketing plans and all the other aspects of a team outside of the baseball? In whatever time he is dedicating to the Red Sox I hope he is only (or at least primarily) concerned with on-field matters. Yes, I absolutely do. If you read his quotes, and the articles about this, it sounds like that's exactly what he wants to do - grow the scope of his focus beyond on-field baseball concerns. I agree that this doesn't necessarily mean a change in Kennedy's role, but I see no reason to believe this isn't a chance for Theo to learn more about being an owner, which he has been up-front about being interested in for years. The realist in me says this is mostly PR for FSG than anything else - it's a part time role with vague responsibilities and he will be keeping both his consulting job and at least some form of participation with MLB rules committee. That said, Theo does NOT strike me as the type of person who would be content with being a puppet or a figurehead. I figure he will have a real input with FSG - how much of it has to do with the Red Sox remains to be seen, but its hard to imagine, at least at first, that won't be a primary focus.
|
|
|