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 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.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 27, 2024 15:21:51 GMT -5
Its not "thought experiment". If you think you sign a free agent to a six year deal and think you're going to get six years of value in an even distribution you're kidding yourself. There's a long history of players signing long term deals, performing well at the front end and then being a drain or an albatross toward the end. Oh the team may or may not get overall value but its not likely to be evenly distributed. I'm not saying opt outs are awesome for teams, but I am pushing back against the thought that it cant work for teams too or that its necessarily bad for a team. I'd like to see Montgomery sign a deal with the Sox for 5 or 6 years and opt out after a couple of productive seasons and then have the money to replace him or allocate elsewhere as needs can change on a team over time. If Montgomery were Pedro Martinez the opt out would suck for the team. But hes not, so hes more easily replaceable should he opt out. I just think you’re trivializing the process of replacing a player once they opt out. Three years down the line means three more years of inflation driving salaries up. If he opts out then that means he’s looked like one of the ones who would’ve continued providing value on the backend, and then you’re stuck trying to find a replacement. That replacement is likely to be cheaper and worse, or more expensive. I can get behind the idea that the downside risk is often overblown and they can be planned around, but I’ve never heard a convincing argument that player opt-outs are anything but a negative from the team’s perspective. Replacing a player who opts out has noting to do with whether the opt-out was "good" or "bad" - its a new situation which needs to be judged on its own. An opt-out is good for the team if the team would, at the time of the opt-out, prefer not to have the player on the remainder of their contract, and the player chooses to opt-out. This is rare, which is why opt-outs are player friendly, but there is no argument for "opt-outs are by rule, 100% of the time, bad for the team" that doesn't assume perfect decision making and the benefit of hindsight on the player's part, or something else equally unrealistic. All of the arguments I see which say opt-outs are "always" bad for the team either assume perfect decision-making on the player's part or associate unrelated events (the player's next contact, how the team replaces them, etc.) with the opt-out itself.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 24, 2024 11:03:43 GMT -5
Never saw a realistic fit for Hoskins so I'm not upset about that. Seems like he wants to play 1B, which makes sense, and unless he happens to be one of those guys that really does hit better as a DH than when playing the field, he wouldn't have made a ton of sense anyway. Related, Soler being a better hitter as a DH is one of the primary reasons I hope they add him.
Taking stock of the offseason in general, I mostly agree with the frustration at this point. This isn't to call the ownership cheap, they can not spend another cent and still wouldn't be "cheap", but it really feels to me like the entire org is lacking direction. Going into 2024 reminds me a little bit of going into 2021 - a team that was disappointing the previous year but very obviously projects to be better without making any major additions. But, the context is so different - 2021 was the early phases of a rebuild, it made sense to wait and see. 2024 *should* (I believe) be the early phases of a competitive window, or at least it certainly could be. They have a good-not-great roster which doesn't need much to make it a strong contender for a playoff spot, so why not add to it? I just don't see thew downside - if they implode again, the kind of players they add can be dealt at the deadline etc. etc. or worst-case scenario aren't going to be on the payroll long term. It really seemed going into this offseason that they truly intended to build up the team and compete in 2024 - I'm not making too much of any one quote but just looking at all that was said and done. Then in the early parts of the offseason we had talk from Breslow about improving the rotation, adding a RH bat, and likely making trades to improve the club - so what happened? It certainly seems to me like either they had a plan for this offseason and it (has, to this point) failed, or they had no plan at all.
That isn't surprising with Breslow who is not just brand-new to this job, but one of the least experienced head executives I can think of. This isn't a criticism of him, I think he has the potential to be excellent at his job, but did it seem to anyone late in the 2023 season or early this offseason that the org's plan was "eh, 2024 isn't really a big deal, let's just call it a throwaway year to give Breslow a chance to learn" ? Like I said, I think this team can still be good-to-better in 2024, and I completely agree with what brisox posted recently about enjoying the chance to watch the young players and prospects grow. However, it really does seem to me like things are dysfunctional at the higher levels right now - the strange timing of Bloom's firing, getting snubbed repeatedly by PoBO candidates, the reported lack of alignment between the members of the front office, the way this offseason has played out, etc.
Two other thoughts: 1) I agree that the real window of contention is when the current group of prospects starts making an impact in the majors, but sometimes you have to force that window open, and there was a chance this offseason to improve the team going into that timeframe - not doing so compresses the time they DO have to improve the club and puts even more pressure on future offseasons. 2) This will be an excellent test of Cora - he seems great when the team is winning, and like he can keep the positive direction and energy going, but my opinion of him is that he is at his worst when things are down, and allows downward spirals to continue rather that pulling the team out of it. If he can motivate the team this year to ignore the noise and just go out and play, they have a real chance to overachieve, and I would feel a lot better about him going forward.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 21, 2024 12:07:34 GMT -5
I'm still bullish on Whitlock as a starter and I hope he gets another turn in the rotation this year. I think he has the ceiling of any pitcher in the org. Same. It's just exceptionally unlikely for a reliever to be that valuable or that much of a difference-maker, so I'm for giving him yet another chance to start. It's what I'm hoping to get/enjoy from 2024 at this point - a chance to give the players with potential more of a legitimate shot to realize that potential. From a competitiveness standpoint I'd feel a lot better about a team that didn't look like it was going to *rely* on e.g. Whitlock as a starter, but I'm certainly rooting for him and still see a lot of potential upside.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 7, 2024 16:00:48 GMT -5
Zappe may have the worst arm I have seen from a QB. He does everything else pretty well - moves in the pocket, goes through his progression, rolls out when he needs to, stays focused down field, delivers the ball with a nice spiral...and every throw of more than 10 yards is under thrown by at least 5 yards; every throw of less than 10 yards is wide by at least 2.
If that's fixable with a good throwing coach, he could have real upside, but I don't think it is
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 7, 2024 14:04:40 GMT -5
They may have found something with Alex Austin Literally came here to post exactly this. Teams keep picking on him and he keeps making plays.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 5, 2024 18:15:28 GMT -5
Yea but is that his real ability or just a fluke? I really can't tell on him, the guy got pulled out of the rotation when they didn't exactly have the 90s Atlanta Braves level of rotation. Maybe he's unlocked something in the 2nd half that will be his true ability going forward or maybe he starts next season the same way he did last year and we're left scratching our heads asking what the heck happened? He also only started 8 games in the 2nd half of last season and 16 in total. A good chunk of those numbers are him coming in out of the pen as the bulk innings guy after the first inning or two and theoretically facing the top half of a lineup less times than a true starter does. His velocity went up a grade and he added a new pitch that by both new-age pitch modeling and old-school results was one of the best in baseball. It comes with some risk for sure, but there is real reason to think he’s unlocked something. The thing is, we say this about him every year - I'm not disagreeing with you, last year felt different to me, but would it still have felt that way if he didn't end the season on another good stretch? The one consistent thing about Pivetta's time in Boston is that every year there has been a stretch where people dream on him as an ace, and there has been a stretch where even this board is flooded with comments demanding he be moved to the bullpen or released. I generally agree with the idea of extending him, but more because I feel like its the kind of thing the Sox should be gambling on (big upside, and they should have the spending power to deal with the downside if he isn't great) than because I have any real degree of confidence that *this time* we are finally seeing the real Nick Pivetta
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 5, 2024 17:02:28 GMT -5
I always wonder, when I see park overlays and analysis of how a player would have performed in another park, of how different an approach the player would/could have had, compared to where they actually did play. There aren't too many places where a RHH is going to try and pull popups 300 feet down the line, but anyone who is able to transition their approach to do so is going to thrive in Fenway regardless of how they hit elsewhere, for example.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 3, 2024 20:31:45 GMT -5
I will be irrationally furious if they dfa Llovera without at least seeing him in Spring Training. His stuff is worth holding a 40-man spot for a while to see if they can improve his consistency. Given the volatility of relievers it's not hard to imagine him having a dominant year or two in his future. I am indeed now irrationally furious. I just think Llovera has an upside several other pitchers at the back of the 40-man don't. Sticking with the players with options is the logical move, but where the Red Sox are currently, gambling on upside would be a far better move imo.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 3, 2024 8:26:50 GMT -5
I will be irrationally furious if they dfa Llovera without at least seeing him in Spring Training. His stuff is worth holding a 40-man spot for a while to see if they can improve his consistency. Given the volatility of relievers it's not hard to imagine him having a dominant year or two in his future.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 28, 2023 15:07:07 GMT -5
Kim is a heck of a fit for the 2024 sox but I don't think he pushes them over the edge into competitor and he's an FA after this year. Therefore I don't think he fits in to the overall direction of the team right now. Which I guess is a long-winded way of me saying I don't think they should be trading for rentals right now. If the Sox don't plan to contend next year, I agree. If they plan to make other moves, and/or if they would try to extend him, I definitely think he's worth acquiring. I'm also very skeptical that the Padres would have any desire to trade him, however.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 28, 2023 14:54:01 GMT -5
Kim just seems to fill a lot of needs for the Sox: He's right-handed, elite defensively regardless of how much you think that's worth, plays 2B, gets on base, runs well, and pulls the ball in the air to RF. If the Sox acquired Kim and made no other moves, and Devers has another year like last year, Kim is likely the best player on the team. He's not going to take the team to the next level himself, but he could definitely be a part of it. If the Sox could acquire him, I would try hard to extend him, and if they did that would be very willing to make a number of the current group of middle infield prospects available in a trade.
Relevant to the current conversation, he's also just a convenient example of the type of player I'd be willing to move Duran for - someone who's enough better than the depth chart below him to make a meaningful improvement.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 28, 2023 14:34:11 GMT -5
List of the top 3 remaining position player free agents by fangraphs WAR projection: Matt Chapman - 2.6 Cody Bellinger - 2.4 Amed Rosario - 2.3 So... Rosario, anyone?
Amed Rosario is bad at fielding, doesn’t hit for power, and swings at everything. I’m curious why the projection system is high on him beyond “he’s only 28 and has had recent 2 WAR seasons before.” Getting traded for the artist-formerly-known-as-Noah Syndergaard is not a great sign. His projection is fairly similar to Tim Anderson. I admittedly forgot Amed Rosario existed, but I actually don't hate the idea at all. Depending on whether you look at UZR or or other defensive metrics, and how much you count years prior to last year, he's either poor, average, or really good defensively. Fangraphs/Steamer projecting him for a strong defensive season fwiw. Other than that, he's a RHH with a decent bat (doesn't walk but doesn't strike out a ton either) who should be relatively cheap. Not the worst middle-infield option I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 28, 2023 13:18:11 GMT -5
Plus or better speed is really fun to watch but...not all that valuable of a tool. It tends to get overrated by fans because of the entertainment factor I think. I'd rather watch a dynamic athlete with elite speed than some station-to-station base clogger too, but it's not necessarily a great way to build a team.
Specific to Duran and the Sox, if things break right for Duran he profiles to have, what, average defense, above average hit, plus to double-plus speed? That's really valuable on a rookie contract but I'm willing to trade it for better tools in other areas, especially because "cost controlled league-average outfielder" looks like a relative area of surplus for the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 22, 2023 9:01:39 GMT -5
At this point I'm out on Montgomery or Snell for anything over 5/110 In on Imanaga up to 5/100 Out on Stroman unless both SS and 2B look to be elite defensively In on Giolito if they think they can get him back to success, but would prefer a deal in the 2/30 or 3/40 range Feel more and more like a trade is likely, which is concerning but also interesting
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 22, 2023 8:51:56 GMT -5
The angst over the Dodgers is pretty funny to me. Well run team with likeable players who have made themselves an attractive destination and are willing to invest when the right players become available. And ask a Dodgers fan how unfair all of their "success" over the rest of the league has been.
The two complaints I keep seeing that seem really off the mark: "The deferred money is a competitive advantage" - no it isn't. The Ohtani contract is a 10/460 contract and they are paying every bit of that the same as any other team would. People need to read up (there have to be 20 pages on this forum alone) on how this works.
"The Dodgers are proving money/finances don't matter" - they are proving how much it DOES matter. They are able to go on this spending spree specifically because they have been so disciplined with their finances while maintaining a top team.
I'm not going to suddenly start rooting for the Dodgers or anything, but I can certainly respect what they're doing without thinking it's unfair that my team didn't do it first (again?)
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 17, 2023 23:46:02 GMT -5
To the first bolded point: This would be the case whether or not there was an opt out, hence the neutral part. To the second bolded point: The chance of negative value is wiped out as well, it goes back to the question of whether or not you would want to sign the player to the remainder of their deal at that point. To the third bolded point: This isn't true, but I also think I didn't word what I said well. Neutral = "would have happened either way" e.g. player gets hurt and doesn't opt out and the deal is bad for the team - that is just an unfortunate signing for the team, the presence of an opt out had nothing to do with it and didn't make things worse. My point is that opt-outs are not always either good or bad for the signing team, and you really just need to look at the situation at the time the opt out occurs to consider how the team should perceive it. Opt-outs usually benefit the player, but benefitting the player the player is not the same thing as harming the team. More often than not the team does not benefit, but that's not some universal truth either. The thing is they are always bad. If the player opts out then whether or not you would have wanted to keep him does not matter because you could have traded him and gotten value in return. You can get lucky and have a guy opt out who then ends up being bad on his next deal for another team, but that doesn't mean the structure is to the team's benefit. I could go back and forth on this for days I think, but I'll just say that this logic assumes the team would have been able to predict the future and trade the player at the exact right time to get greater value than the value of their remaining contract, and also by this logic the team could just sign the player again and then trade them, but there are a whole variety of reasons that doesn't happen and many of them have to do with it being difficult to actually get full value for a player in a trade. I'll stop there to not derail things further. Specific to Yamamoto, I've had 10/300 with opt-outs after years 6 and 7 in my head for a while. Would be willing to extend by an extra few million and/or an extra year or two at a lower AAV, if that was the difference in signing him. I might even go further than that, although that admittedly has more to do with how much I've come to dislike all of the other available pitching options, than thinking the proposed deal itself would be a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 17, 2023 15:19:01 GMT -5
The only thing you need to consider with an opt-out is if you would want to sign the player to his remaining deal at the time the opt-out comes up. If yes, and the player opts out, the opt-out was bad for the team. Otherwise, it was neutral or good for the team. What am I missing here? If a player opts out of a contract and a team then gives the player a dumb next contract, that has nothing to do with the original contract and does not change its value. An opt out in general has zero benefit to the team in that it only protects the player against signing a contract that is below his future value, but offers no reciprocal value to the team. If the player plays below the value he will not opt out and the team is stuck overpaying him. Without an opt out, and the player out performs his contract, the team is getting excess value. If there is an opt out any chance of excess value is wiped out. Saying an opt out is neutral to a team is the same as saying that a team option is neutral to a player. To the first bolded point: This would be the case whether or not there was an opt out, hence the neutral part. To the second bolded point: The chance of negative value is wiped out as well, it goes back to the question of whether or not you would want to sign the player to the remainder of their deal at that point. To the third bolded point: This isn't true, but I also think I didn't word what I said well. Neutral = "would have happened either way" e.g. player gets hurt and doesn't opt out and the deal is bad for the team - that is just an unfortunate signing for the team, the presence of an opt out had nothing to do with it and didn't make things worse. My point is that opt-outs are not always either good or bad for the signing team, and you really just need to look at the situation at the time the opt out occurs to consider how the team should perceive it. Opt-outs usually benefit the player, but benefitting the player the player is not the same thing as harming the team. More often than not the team does not benefit, but that's not some universal truth either.
|
|
|