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 Feb 24, 2021 23:01:38 GMT -5
Pretty sure Pedroia lost weight right after he was drafted or maybe after his first pro year as well. Was never a problem for him after that. Pedroia actually had to lose a lot of weight after his debut in MLB. See this article from spring training in 2007. Reminded me of a comment Millar supposedly made to Francona when Millar saw the Sox in 07 Spring Training and saw how much weight Pedroia had lost and Schilling had gained - "Looks like your ace ate your second baseman" or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 24, 2021 22:54:17 GMT -5
Was really just referring to guys who are described as playing multiple positions — great — with the caveat that they can’t hit — er, not great! I just wonder at what point that means you kinda suck from many spots on the diamond. It’s just funny to me because we never say of a great hitter that he can play subpar D at multiple positions. Hell, I bet you could stick JDM at 1b, and all three OF positions. Would he suck? You bet! But he’d hit! Just cracks me up that there are no hit/utility D guys but not raking/multiple bad D-position guys. Not a huge point. If a guy is a bad defender but has a bat good enough to be worth a spot in the lineup, why would you move him around? You find the defensive position they're least bad at/they do the least harm at, and leave them there. There's very little utility in playing bad defense, so there's rarely a reason to have them play multiple positions. That said, it doesn't mean bat-first players who get time at multiple positions don't exist - in relatively recent Red Sox history, Eric Hinske and Cody Ross come to mind; Kris Bryant and Kyle Schwarber seem to be following this path now, etc. If Dalbec's 3b defense continues to decline but his bat plays up he could be in this conversation soon, too. Same with Chavis, if he hits. Whether Fowler would have any place in the Sox org is another question entirely, but in general no reason not to add defensive depth if they think they might need it.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 11, 2021 8:15:23 GMT -5
Go ahead, talk to me about rationality. You order 5 pizzas and pay for them online. The delivery guy shows up at your door with two pizzas and tells you the other 3 are in the car, he couldn't carry them all at once. You proceed to scream at the delivery man that you paid for more than 2 pizzas and he and his company are all terrible. Who is being irrational in that sitiuation?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 11, 2021 8:03:26 GMT -5
Well, it is part of a chain of easy come, easy go guys that seem like they are going to be a real boost or provide depth. I am happy to make the moves. I do not waste my time thinking about what a .3 WAR guy will bring. If someone like that actually does something, great. But we had a list of these guys as long as my arm last year and hit on pretty much none of them. Which is probably league average. With pitching scarce, I feel like multiple-time designated, released, etc types probably are what they appear to be in virtually every case. You're right that if you're expecting more than a slim chance at a fraction of a win from the last guy on the 40 man, you're expecting too much. This is not a Bloom problem or a Red Sox problem. It's also ok for people to wonder if there is some untapped potential in these signings. You don't have to pay attention to these moves, but please (obviously not a mod, just a humble request from someone who is trying to remain able to enjoy reading this board) stop the condescending bs toward people that do. Making inflammatory comments about something you don't actually care about or have interest in, just to frustrate other people, seems like the definition of trolling to me.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 11, 2021 0:50:55 GMT -5
Honestly can't tell if you're just trolling at this point. Trolling seems a bit extreme. But people were counting that in the “moves that may help” category. You're mocking "people" for thinking there was a non-zero chance at upside from a relatively unknown player, and you think trolling is too strong a term? I appreciate that the Sox are once again a team that is always looking to upgrade. For everyone who's so keen to attack these type of moves, would you rather they didn't make them? "Eh, he's only projected to be a .3 WAR upgrade, why bother" or "sure there's someone better out there now, but maybe people will think we're dumb for bringing in and then releasing a guy who never played for us, so let's just stick with the current roster."
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 24, 2021 22:49:45 GMT -5
I mean, I don’t predict solely on those things. But taking the Jays as an example: they were an ok team last year — featuring a few major prospects who have that experience under their belts now — who don’t appear to have gotten worse in any area and are demonstrably better in, let’s call it conservatively, one. It seems almost like basic math to say decent team+ all star signing + young players likely on an upward curve = a better team. Do you start every team from scratch? If you're asking if I think a team's record last year, by itself, has anything to do with how it will perform this year, no I don't think it's relevant at all. By that logic the 98 Marlins should have won the World Series. I think you need to evaluate the actual team that's going to take the field. I see the argument "The Jays had a better record than the Sox last year and they have brought in better players in the offseason, so they should be that much better this year" - but that completely ignores why and how each team performed as it did. More importantly, it doesn't acknowledge the actual composition of each team in 2021, which seems really disingenuous (and I would argue that despite the Jays bringing in more/better players this offseason, when you simply look at who will take the field for the Sox in 2021, especially in the starting rotation, they may be the 'more improved' team.) Put another way (and I'm not saying the following is objectively true, call it opinion/hypothetical/whatever) if the Jays' winning record last year was somewhat due to luck, and the Sox significantly underperformed expectations and there's reasons to believe they will bounce back, doesn't that change the narrative somewhat? At least make it non-crazy that the Sox and Jays could be at least evenly matched?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 24, 2021 17:40:41 GMT -5
"The Sox were on a hundred-loss pace" "Toronto was a wild card team last year" Are we going to go back to evaluating hitters by rbi's and pitchers by wins now? Its not at all crazy to believe Toronto will be better than Boston next year. It *is* crazy to believe its crazy to think that Boston could be better than Toronto. Who won the World Series adjusted for whatever you want to adjust it for? Cause the dinosaurs who count wins and losses thought it was the Dodgers. Hey, if that's how you want to evaluate and predict baseball, more power to you - I've been confused how people could be so negative about the Sox chances in 2021 and this helps clarify
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 24, 2021 15:47:36 GMT -5
"The Sox were on a hundred-loss pace"
"Toronto was a wild card team last year"
Are we going to go back to evaluating hitters by rbi's and pitchers by wins now?
Its not at all crazy to believe Toronto will be better than Boston next year. It *is* crazy to believe its crazy to think that Boston could be better than Toronto.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 23, 2021 7:56:44 GMT -5
The guy has basically pitched one, maybe two full seasons in his career. ZIPS projects him to throw 70 innings this year; Steamer 139; baseball reference 123. Do the Sox need a guy who pitches 120-140 innings? I mean, I guess he could “platoon” with Sale. Yes? Isnt this exactly what's needed? Given what's out there and where the team stands now, the Sox need someone who can help them get to the second half of the year when hopefully Sale and some of the guys who need more time in the minors can contribute. It seems like a situation where a few good innings is a lot more valuable to the Sox than a lot of average ones. Sure, a pitcher who could give you a lot of good innings would be better, but a move like this would seem like a nice mix of supporting the team's chances of contending if things break right for them, while not overextending if they don't.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 24, 2020 20:31:15 GMT -5
I am complaining about the Bloom worship that seems to see in minor moves some hidden brilliance. Is there a single post in this thread where someone is saying this? I agree, claiming that this signing is a true stroke of genius is really stretching things - so I checked, and as far as I can tell, nobody is doing that.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 10, 2020 0:40:02 GMT -5
My two favorite places to see a game - Pawtucket and Lowell - gone in the same offseason. Fenway's great and all, but even while living in Boston it's been so much easier (and honestly more pleasant, never mind cheaper) to catch a game at either of those stadiums. Between this and some of the recent rule changes, the Sox and MLB couldn't be any more clear that I'm not wanted as a fan if they screamed it into my ear with a megaphone.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Nov 20, 2020 22:02:27 GMT -5
Jennings reported that Varitek, Walker, and Vazquez are all dying the same thing as lady year just with new titles. You have got to stop texting while you're driving drinking! ftfy
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 29, 2020 23:59:35 GMT -5
Its a good thing that poster who posts randomly for a bit, develops an obsession with a single player, attacks everyone who thinks there's any chance said player isn't the greatest player alive, and then gets banned, doesn't keep coming back.
Re: the draft, obligatory "Should the sox spread the money around rather than targeting the "best" player at 4?" question. Its obviously a higher pick than the Sox are used to but there's no guarantee that they're getting a franchise player. Its also a lot more money than they are used to having to allocate to the draft under these rules, and if they really trust their player evaluation, or if there happen to be a few players projected after the first round they think have a chance to be special, maybe it makes more sense to spread the money around and give themselves a few extra chances.
Not necessarily advocating for this, but I wouldn't be upset if they went this route either.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 21, 2020 10:24:27 GMT -5
As a fan, I definitely prefer to keep the long extra inning games. They are one of my favorite representations of the "it ain't over 'til it's over" nature of the game, which is a main reason why I have always loved baseball over the other sports. That said, I would definitely prefer ties (assuming they played at least a couple of extra innings first) to the runner on 2nd idea. One step above having a game clock at that point. A lot has happened with baseball in the last couple of years to tell me they no longer want me as a fan of the sport, but 12-inning ties wouldn't be a major problem for me.
I have to say though, to the situation where a team is worn down by a long extra inning game and burns through their bullpen and has to turn around and play a day game the next day - who wants to see that? I do. That's honestly one of my favorite situations in the game: A big series in the middle of the season where the Yankees just played 17 in Tampa the night before and are coming into Fenway - and they're the Yankees so somehow they managed to win that game and do it without using their two best relievers - but as a Sox fan we know if we can just get their starter out early and into the middle relievers, we could swing the entire 3-game series to our advantage in the first few innings? I love that. And I will be even more excited when the situation is reversed, to see if the Sox can overcome the extras and pull out a big win or two. And if all of that means I watch Hector Velazquez throw an extra couple of innings when he's not at his best? I'm completely OK with that. I like to believe that depth matters, and I don't need to see only the best players at their peak level of performance every night to enjoy the sport.
Again, I get it, and don't think 12-inning ties would be crazy or awful - but it's certainly not crazy to prefer to see the games played out, either.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 7, 2020 18:46:10 GMT -5
patriotswire.usatoday.com/2020/05/06/can-the-patriots-get-undrafted-wr-jeff-thomas-to-reach-his-potential/I watched about 30 minutes of film on him. You don't see guys as electric as him go undrafted very often. He needs to work on his routes, but wow he's very talented and electric with the ball in his hands. I totally disagree with the article in that he can easily be an outside guy, yet he can do much more. He's just very electric as an athlete, to go along with a 38.5 vertical and 4.45 speed. He would have put up better numbers if Miami had a good QB and a line that could block. All the athletes like him at WR went in the first three rounds of the draft. Now he'll either be a steal or the first player cut. I watched a lot of video on Thomas as well, couldn't stop once I got started. When he's on, he looks like he has 1st/2nd talent. It's not just speed and moves: he's strong for his size, can out-jump taller defenders, and looks to have a real knack for tracking the ball in the air. Still far more likely he never sees the field than anything else, but if he can move past the character/makeup concerns, the potential is real. There's a few of the udfa's, Thomas and J.J. Taylor especially, that seem extra-interesting this year.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 3, 2020 7:15:57 GMT -5
I voted for Diaz - after reading in the updated scouting report how much he has grown in the last year or two, I can really imagine that taking some time to adjust to (never mind all the other stuff a young baseball player in his situation had to adjust to.) Given the potential he showed before and how much he has grown, if he does make those adjustments, I think there could be some pretty impressive results. Could go the other way too, obviously.
Dalbec is a safe pick if nobody else in this list goes off this year, but I feel like I know what to expect from him and a Diaz breakout (re-breakout ?) could top that.
Also, does anyone else feel like Devers should still be a choice? Joking, mostly, but he is younger than half the players in this list.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 4, 2020 22:40:21 GMT -5
The Sox traded away one year of Mookie and the last 3 years of Price (years many people hoped he would opt out of) for two players who reasonably project to replace them (not WAR for WAR, obviously, but in the lineup/rotation) while being cost controlled for the next several years.
Sure, the money they saved has to be used effectively for this to mean anything, but hard to hate this. If you really thought Mookie was going to be a Sox for life, I guess I get it.
Did think the Sox might get a 3rd player back by paying a good portion of Price's salary, feel like he was a little undervalued.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 22, 2019 13:28:45 GMT -5
It feels like watching Spring Training baseball, or a Cubs-Reds game. There's just no emotion behind it anymore. It's just watching for the sake of wanting to watch baseball. The last game I attended in Wrigley was a Cubs-Reds game, it was a blast...Im honestly not sure what your point is. I dunno, I'm plenty disappointed about how this season has gone, but still love to watch the game as much as ever, and enjoy baseball for baseball's sake.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 20, 2019 10:59:11 GMT -5
Again take with a grain of salt because it's not something I was paying close attention to, but I believe he looked about like he did in that video. Wasnt completely straight upright but not an exaggerated crouch either.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 19, 2019 18:54:36 GMT -5
Was Chatham still hitting from something of a crouch? That was something new I noticed in Bowie. It was my first time seeing Chatham so I don't have anything to compare it to, but yes from what I recall. Nothing that seemed exaggerated or that called particular attention, but he wasn't standing completely straight.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 19, 2019 9:56:17 GMT -5
Go Stank. Good to see after struggling in Portland for the last few years. Was at this game, a few thoughts for whatever they're worth: -Stankiewicz looked better than expected, reawakening my hope of at least the ceiling of an MLB 7th/multi-inning reliever. Fastball was 91-93 according to the stadium gun and was effective, getting a lot of strikes and several balls hit into the ground. He threw almost all fastballs in the 1st and looked dominant. In the 2nd he threw almost all offspeed and got hit hard, although a lot of the loud contact went for outs. After that he started mixing things and was generally effective. The offspeed stuff was 83-85 - I was up the first-base line and couldn't judge horizontal movement at all, but most of the more effective offspeed pitches that had batters fooled *appeared* to be sliders. -Deiner Lopez made a lazy play on a cut-off throw after a single in the 2nd, taking a sidearm swipe at the throw and letting it go by him into foul territory and send the runner to 3rd, leading to Toledo's first (unearned) run. It was brutally hot out there and its tough to blame players for not being max-effort, but it wasn't a good look and fans around me were not happy. -Chatham looked good at the plate, swung early and often but had a lot of solid line-drive contact and a couple hits. No noteworthy plays either way defensively that I saw. -Mejia looks even worse than his ERA, I had trouble figuring out how he was able to get anyone out. Fastball was 90-92 with little command, although hitters did look a little off-balance on his mid-80's slider. -Gorkys Hernandez has a rocket arm. -Dalbec didn't look impressive at the plate today, although in his first AB he got way under a pitch and hit what looked like a routine pop-up that carried to the wall in right-center - it was probably a mix of his power, the juiced ball, and the wind aiding it. In his next AB he was badly fooled by and swung over a breaking ball to strike out swinging, and threw his bat in apparent disgust. I missed his walk, and in his last AB he swung late on a fastball up but got the bat on it and hit a hard single through the right side. From the three plate appearances I saw he never looked to be in control of at bats and had some late reactions, but obviously is still very new to the level. In the field, he had one noteworthy play at third, a slow roller necessitating the "charge, barehand, throw on the run off-balance" routine - he performed it cleanly, although wasn't super-quick. The throw was very strong and got the out, although it was a little off-line and clearly appeared to pull Witte off the bag early. It was a solid play but my reactionary first thought was "well, not everyone can look as smooth as Devers does this year." -Houck was dominant, "only" one K but batters had no chance, contact was weak and into the ground. Fastball was 94-95 and got some ugly swings. Again I had trouble judging horizontal movement, but batters couldn't do anything with his pitches. -Kelley matches his scouting report on this site and what others' live impressions have been. Other pitchers with a side-arm delivery like his have been able to get by with his velocity by making a tweak to a breaking ball or something similar, but something will have to change for him to progress further.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 17, 2019 19:45:58 GMT -5
I'm fine with JBJ for 2020 unless they get a good trade for him, but I'm fine with them cutting the chord after 2020. I do hope that Duran is ready by then. If not they'll need a stopgap. Duran really is the key to answering the CF question for the next few years. If he can give a Bradley-esque level of production in the majors, great, you move on to him unless a significant upgrade falls in your lap. If that's doubtful, then you have a decision to make, and will need to consider devoting significant resources to the position. Even if you believe Jimenez has a good chance at an MLB future, he's likely 3-4 years away, which means you're looking for more than a stop-gap solution. Bradley on a decent contract is likely as good as any other "budget" option, but it suddenly becomes a position to look for a long-term solution. For the record, I don't consider Bradley or Porcello as core players, depending on how you define the term, but believe they play "core" roles in the relative stability they bring (consistent defense and innings pitched, respectively) to very important positions.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 15, 2019 17:20:23 GMT -5
I'm so confused by so many supporting the go for it next year basically even if it means losing Betts for basically nothing. When so many people don't want to make trades that risk our future to go for it by trading our prospects. Given the recent trades it seems like a fairly safe bet that what you could likely trade Betts for would increase your Champonship odds over the next 5-7 years more than Betts for only one year. Baseball is just unpredictable like that and no matter how good Betts is, it's on the rest of the team. 1) People want to keep Betts for his whole career, and trading him away obviously reduces (probably eliminates) the odds of that happening. 2) I still don't think it's a "safe bet" that you can get a sufficient return in a trade. Yes, the Goldschmidt trade happened, there's a few other recent examples, I'm not saying it's impossible. That doesn't mean it's likely. 3) Not every decision is binary, and people are not automatically pro or anti prospect based on how they felt about the previous scenario. Personally, I think they have trouble making up for Mookie's production if they think he's a consistent 6-7+ win player going forward - but if there's an offer of 3 top-30 type prospects or something out there, they have to consider it.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 29, 2019 15:12:22 GMT -5
I don’t know but the Mets just gave up two top 10 prospects (not top 3 prospects) for a good MLB starter why do we have to give up our farm systems top prospect for a struggling reliever? Because a top 10 Red Sox prospect is not (automatically) the same thing as a Mets top 10 prospect. Not saying the Sox "have" to do this, but it's important to look at the quality of the players involved, not just their supposed rankings.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 28, 2019 6:03:37 GMT -5
The idea that Casas or Mata shouldn't be included in a deal for a player like Syndergaard or other elite non-rental talent is wildly over rating their value imo. I get what you’re saying, but I disagree. It all depends on control years. Syndergaard has only two left after this year, and his arb costs are going to jump. He’s also been completely middling this year. The Sox need to save $... Largely agree on Syndergaard, I'm not really advocating for him - I think he'd make a great Porcello replacement and then some, but may not be the best use of resources - my point was simply that there's no way Casas or Mata are such a sure thing that they should be viewed as untouchable in the right deal. Taken together, they're well behind what Moncada and Kopech were, for example (if Mata finishes the year strong he may be viewed similar to Kopech at the time of the Sale trade, but neither approach Moncada's prospect status at the time.) Being the most exciting/top hitting and pitching prospects in the system is not a good enough reason to refuse to discuss them in trades. Also, I'm sure this will be unpopular, but if you're looking for a cheap Porcello replacement, how about Rick Porcello? I wouldn't be surprised at all if you could get him on a 1 or 2 year deal at reasonable $ at this point, to hold down a spot until Mata or another young starter is ready to move into the rotation.
|
|
|