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 mattpicard on Nov 17, 2014 16:38:52 GMT -5
Kelly, who couldn't get to 100 innings last year, a "reliable-enough #4 type", while the former top prospect who had an excellent 2013 but a weak 2014 in 183 innings is "no sure thing." Miller has a 111 ERA+ in 370 career innings and is headed into his age 24 season. Miller's downside is probably a #4 and his upside is a legit #2. Again, over the last two years he he's averaged 178 innings, has a K/BB of 2.28, and a 19.9% strikeout rate. Kelly's upside is a #3 an his downside is a long reliever. My initial question was asking who the Red Sox have who has a similar value to Miller. So, back to my hypothetical - If you post on a Mets forum, and the Red Sox traded Bogaerts for someone excellent, and people were all "why didn't the Mets act here." And the response was "well, the Mets don't have an equivalent to Bogaerts." And the reply to THAT was "Ruben Tejada, look at how he had a similar 2014." And in terms of rate stats he did, in less playing time. But Ruben Tejada is almost certainly worse than Xander Bogaerts. Just like Joe Kelly is almost certainly worse than Shelby Miller. That's not a fair way to quote me. I said that Miller is "no sure thing to develop into an effective #2," not that he's no sure bet to be a successful MLB starter while Kelly is. No one, myself included, doubts that Miller is a more valuable asset than Joe Kelly, and that he has a higher ceiling. But you're mentioning Kelly having a "significantly higher" BB%, when he doesn't at all, and his 111 ERA+, when Kelly has the exact same career numbers for both stats. Yes, Miller is still quite young and has an impressive career innings showing under his belt, while Kelly has neither quality. Yes, Miller has struck out more guys (although his K% plummeted this season). I'm simply saying that, thus far, they've performed similarly (in addition to the ERA+, I'll add that Kelly's career FIP- is 109 and Miller's is 110). Also, not sure it's fair to dock Kelly's durability because of a hamstring injury. I'm excited to see what he can do in his first full-time season of starting. Out of curiosity, James -- forget value and age, what are your projections for each of them in 2015?
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 17, 2014 13:35:24 GMT -5
They have the same exact career BB% at 8.7. What makes him an established starter? One highly impressive season as 22-year-old followed up by a very lousy one that saw him post the 7th worst ERA-FIP and FIP in the game? I'm not trying to say Joe Kelly is a better pitcher, but you're exaggerating the difference between them. Miller has a lot of promise, and the two year age difference means a lot, but he hasn't shown enough yet to guarantee that he'll be a significantly better pitcher than Kelly over the next few years. Miller's 2014 FIP was only .32 higher than Kelly's, and their xFIP is even closer. Given that Miller threw more than twice as many innings, that he is two an a half years younger, that Miller was undoubtedly better in 2013, and that Miller was considered a top prospect coming up, and that he has the much better stuff according to scouts... I can't give a guarantee that Miller is better than Kelly, but I can guarantee that every single GM in baseball would value Miller more. Since the start of 2013, among pitchers with 200+ innings who are 26 or younger, Kelly has the third lowest fWAR and the second worst K/BB. Miller has struck out 19.9% of batters over the last two years, Kelly is at 15.3%. Arguing that Miller and Kelly are similar in value based on 2014 would be the equivalent of arguing that Bogaerts and Ruben Tejada are similarly valued because they hit similarly this year. Fortunately, we have more information than that. And sure, maybe Bogaerts busts and Tejada ends up more valuable over the next five years. But I really don't have any reason to predict that, just like I don't have any reason to think Kelly is as good as Miller. As do I. Trust me, I was as disappointed as anyone that it was Kelly coming back in the Lackey trade instead of Miller. I'm just under the belief that Miller, despite the obvious appealing characteristics he has over Kelly, seems like no sure thing to develop into an effective #2 starter, where as Kelly, in my opinion, seems like a reliable-enough #4 type with some untapped potential for improvement. My first post was merely trying to say they performed quite similarly in 2014. But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kelly once again trump Miller in fWAR in 2015 (OK, maybe trump isn't the best word when we're comparing 0.6 to 0.2).
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 17, 2014 12:39:52 GMT -5
Miller is two and a half years younger than Joe Kelly. Heck, he's four months younger than Matt Barnes. Also, 2013 counts. Miller met some resistance in his second pro season, but he's a 24-year old who is already an established starter, who has stayed healthy enough to throw 350 innings the last two years, and still has the stuff that made him the #16 prospect in baseball two years ago. His walk rate is significantly lower than Kelly's. They aren't close. They have the same exact career BB% at 8.7. What makes him an established starter? One highly impressive season as 22-year-old followed up by a very lousy one that saw him post the 7th worst ERA-FIP and FIP in the game? I'm not trying to say Joe Kelly is a better pitcher, but you're exaggerating the difference between them. Miller has a lot of promise, and the two year age difference means a lot, but he hasn't shown enough yet to guarantee that he'll be a significantly better pitcher than Kelly over the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 17, 2014 12:22:52 GMT -5
Who is the Red Sox equivalent of Shelby Miller? If the Braves were focused on established, cost-controlled starting pitching then the Red Sox weren't going to be players. Joe Kelly (and I do that comparison without looking heavily into stats). Seriously, they're closer than you'd think. Nearly identical in FIP, K/9, and WHIP in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 17, 2014 12:18:50 GMT -5
Disappointed the Red Sox weren't more aggressive in matching that offer (for Heyward). Yeah. Jesus. The Braves could definitely gotten more than that. And of course it had to be the Cardinals.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 13, 2014 17:55:01 GMT -5
RT @buster_ESPN I think the @pgammo alternative idea for adding a BOS LHH makes sense: pursue Adam LaRoche, market Napoli. At first, I wanted to say absolutely not. But, consider our current situation with the plethora of RHH. There's reason to be legitimately concerned about our lineup being a little light against the common-handedness pitcher. A little 2012-2014 comparison between Nap and LaRoche against RHP's: Napoli: .802 OPS, 13.2% BB%, 31.0% K%, .208 ISO, 121 wRC+ LaRoche: .849 OPS, 13.6% BB%, 18.3% K%, .215 ISO, 131 wRC+ Now, Napoli is a superior defender, by far, but LaRoche is extremely sure handed and throws well. His range flucuates, and he hasn't had a negative DRS since 2009, but UZR has graded him as below average several times (with some great seasons sprinkled in). Also, we have a perfect platoon-mate in Allen Craig, who has no trade value and thus won't be getting moved. Because, if LaRoche is going to play more than 10% of the time against a LHP, I have no interest in moving Napoli for him. Playing Devil's advocate here but this would dissuade me from signing LaRoche: Nava: .827 OPS, 9.8% BB%, 17.2% K%, .137 ISO, 130 wRC+ (2012-2014) Nava also is probably a comparable defender to LaRoche (he's been league average in limited exposure). If you have Nava penciled in as a starting OFer right now then it makes more sense, but otherwise I think the whole lefty/righty thing is being a bit overblown. If the Red Sox trade their second best hitter I would hope they get something really good back - and I just don't see that happening. I do indeed have Nava penciled into LF, following a YC trade. He'd be a mighty fine #6 or #7 hitter, an area of the lineup that projects to be entirely right handed otherwise. Brentz, SHANF, Hassan, Craig are all suitable platoon options.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 13, 2014 12:40:21 GMT -5
RT @buster_ESPN I think the @pgammo alternative idea for adding a BOS LHH makes sense: pursue Adam LaRoche, market Napoli.
At first, I wanted to say absolutely not. But, consider our current situation with the plethora of RHH. There's reason to be legitimately concerned about our lineup being a little light against the common-handedness pitcher. A little 2012-2014 comparison between Nap and LaRoche against RHP's:
Napoli: .802 OPS, 13.2% BB%, 31.0% K%, .208 ISO, 121 wRC+ LaRoche: .849 OPS, 13.6% BB%, 18.3% K%, .215 ISO, 131 wRC+
Now, Napoli is a superior defender, by far, but LaRoche is extremely sure handed and throws well. His range flucuates, and he hasn't had a negative DRS since 2009, but UZR has graded him as below average several times (with some great seasons sprinkled in).
Also, we have a perfect platoon-mate in Allen Craig, who has no trade value and thus won't be getting moved. Because, if LaRoche is going to play more than 10% of the time against a LHP, I have no interest in moving Napoli for him.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 13, 2014 10:07:55 GMT -5
I'm curious to know why anyone would think that Hanley would magically be able to stay healthy upon signing with the Sox? Count me in, thinking that he would be a better player for the Sox at 3B than Sandoval, but not if he plays less than 100 games which has been the case in 3 of the last 4 years. Games played by year from 2006-14: 158, 154, 153, 151, 142, 92, 157, 86, 128. So under 100 games in two of the last four seasons. Let's review the non-trivial injuries: 2011: back (14 games missed); sprained left shoulder (52 games missed) 2012: nothing (minor hand injury forced him to miss 3 games) 2013: right thumb (24 games missed); strained left hamstring (28 games missed; returned, missed 3 additional games after a few games back); bruised right shoulder (8 games missed); left hamstring again (4 games missed) 2014: minor calf injury (3 games missed, 1 more a week later); right shoulder injury (8 games missed over three weeks); wrist injury (3 games missed); right oblique strain (14 games missed) So the bad news is that, yes, he's been quite injury prone lately. The good news is that not a single one of those injuries have really carried over multiple seasons. The right shoulder injury is his only ailment to impede him for more than one season, and in both 2013 and 2014, is was rather minor. It does cause concern regarding his throwing strength, but that's somewhat mitigated long term by the ability to shift him to 1B/LF/DH. Other than that, the left hamstring injury was alarming, but it was nice to see that it didn't bother him at all in 2014. So, I don't know. Would you rather have an injury ridden player who may miss time out of the blue due to a random injury, or one who has one or two specific ailments that have lingered significantly over multiple seasons?
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 13, 2014 9:33:51 GMT -5
Yeah. Forget below average -- he's basically been awful, coming off three straight sub-replacement level seasons by bWAR, and career worsts in 2014 in FIP/FIP-/K%/xFIP-. He's now 30, and failed for the first time to average 90 MPH with his fastball. He's got the worst ERA- in the game from 2012-2014 (35% worse than average), and only Edwin Jackson has had better luck with his results outperforming his FIP. Oh, and he pitches in a park that's, well, far kinder than what he'd encounter in Boston and the AL East. I don't need to keep going. I love the guy, but you couldn't convince me to take him even if San Francisco kicked in $10 million. Steven Wright, Matt Barnes, and maybe even Anthony Ranaudo would be better bets to positively contribute to our 2015 rotation. I was being kind. But I think I would have started him over Peavy, who even when he appeared pretty good with the Giants, still had a 109 xFIP- with them. And that's higher than Lincecum's 103. And really, Lincecum doesn't look that horrible at xFIP-. Eh, xFIP has its issues. Lincecum's HR/9 and HR/FB spike correlates perfectly with his dramatic decline in stuff/velocity. And while his home run rate is greater on the road, he's still been worse than xFIP's assumed 10.5% HR/FB rate for two years at AT&T, a park that kills homers. xFIP is just masking what nearly every other stat is screaming out: he's bad. So, yeah, I probably shouldn't have included it in my previous post, but it's probably worth noting that the stat most friendly to him now thinks he's below average.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 13, 2014 9:02:31 GMT -5
He's been worse than an average MLB pitcher for 3 straight years with an $18 million contract. Yeah. Forget below average -- he's basically been awful, coming off three straight sub-replacement level seasons by bWAR, and career worsts in 2014 in FIP/FIP-/K%/xFIP-. He's now 30, and failed for the first time to average 90 MPH with his fastball. He's got the worst ERA- in the game from 2012-2014 (35% worse than average), and only Edwin Jackson has had better luck with his results outperforming his FIP. Oh, and he pitches in a park that's, well, far kinder than what he'd encounter in Boston and the AL East. I don't need to keep going. I love the guy, but you couldn't convince me to take him even if San Francisco kicked in $10 million. Steven Wright, Matt Barnes, and maybe even Anthony Ranaudo would be better bets to positively contribute to our 2015 rotation.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 10, 2014 15:57:28 GMT -5
Marc Carig ?@marccarig Mets announce they’ve signed Michael Cuddyer to a two-year contract. Well then. Translation: Mets lose 15th overall pick for Cuddyer. First headscratcher of the offseason. Good for Cuddyer, I thought that tag was going to kill his options. Now the need to get cespedes so they can fill their roster with HR derby contestants. Except, unfortunately for us, this will take them out of the running for Cespedes. They'll run a Granderon/Lagares/Cuddyer outfield, with Cuddy likely grabbing some time at first against LHP's. Pretty shocked about this signing. Can't wait to see what the AAV is.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 10, 2014 13:19:01 GMT -5
Your original post makes it seem like you think Steamer is projecting an increase in Sandoval's offense due to playing in a more hitter friendly park, like Fenway. But Steamer has no idea where he's going to play, and the increased wRC+ is park and league-adjusted such that the number should be the same no matter what team he ends up on. I think? Didn't we discuss this to death after the Cespedes trade? These stats are park- and league-adjusted based on a uniform offensive profile. A player with an unusual profile might do better or worse in a given park - a player excellent at avoiding popups, like Joey Votto, might thrive in O.co Colliseum, whereas a player with a lot of just-foul balls, like Cespedes, might do better moving to Fenway. A RH Pull hitter might get a lot of doubles at Fenway - those might be singles or HRs in another park. I would assume that Steamer projections for free agents are based on an average, neutral park. I know how park and league-adjustments work. I realize we're dealing with uniform offensive profile assumptions. I may have missed some of the conversation you mention, and apologize if what I'm writing about has been clearly explained somewhere. Your last sentence is what I'm curious about. wOBA doesn't contain any inherent adjustments, but Steamer's projections for the stats that comprise wOBA are projected with the park and league in mind.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 10, 2014 12:00:04 GMT -5
Steamer projections are based upon past performance. Past performance was affected by poor home and road parks, and a lack of conditioning. Obviously if those two things change for the better he would outperform the projection. Not too hard to understand And it's projecting a park adjusted stat.... Your original post makes it seem like you think Steamer is projecting an increase in Sandoval's offense due to playing in a more hitter friendly park, like Fenway. But Steamer has no idea where he's going to play, and the increased wRC+ is park and league-adjusted such that the number should be the same no matter what team he ends up on. I think? That projected increase in Sandoval's wRC+ is being driven nearly entirely by a substantial increase in slugging (and slight OBP boost), and thus wOBA, which is not park-adjusted. It sees him slugging .451, with his 2011-14 percentages coming in at .552, .447, .417, and .415. His wOBA is projected to be .344, his highest since coming in at .383 in 2011. Is Steamer just giving heavy consideration to his seasons three and four years ago? His walk rate in 2014 was at a career low after he BB'd more than he tends to in 2012-2013, so that makes sense for explaining a small amount of the wOBA increase. His BABIP has been extremely stable, making it appear that Steamer simply expects Sandoval to recapture his past power that's dwindled in recent seasons. Do Steamer wOBA projections, since the stat isn't adjusted, just assume the player has played in a single environment over his career and will continue to do so?
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 10, 2014 0:50:02 GMT -5
The Red Sox need to let some of these guys figure it out in the majors at the back end of the rotation. They need to sign and/or trade for 2 top end guys and let the last 3 spots be had by guys in the organization. If they aren't getting it done and the rest of the team is strong then you can add the veteran starter in June or July. If the rest of the team isn't strong then it doesn't matter if the 5th starter is. Whoever they give the non Kelly and Buchholz spot to just need to be given a bunch of starts. I'm thinking Ruby should get the first crack with Webster second. Everyone is saying we should bring in 2 SP's, but I disagree. We need 1 ace, whether it be Lester, Hamels, Cueto, or Scherzer, not 2 #3/#4 starters. Signing Buchholz Kelly De La Rosa Workman/Wright/Webster/Ranaudo/Barnes/Owens/Rodriguez/Johnson This is the way I see the rotation filling out. One of the young guys will seize the #5 job in camp, while the others fill out the bullpen (namely Workman and Ranaudo), and the others battle it out in AAA. The big objections: - De La Rosa may very well be part of that batch of guys vying for the fifth spot. I can see why you're more comfortable with him than the others, but there's reason to hesitate going into the season with him penciled into the fourth slot of the rotation. - Buchholz, even with all the positives you can try to pull out of his post-DL 2014, has such a wide range of potential outcome for 2015 that relying on him as your #2 is just scary. #3, OK, but #2 is too high at this point. - Similar to Buchholz, you can be comfortable with Joe Kelly as your #4 guy, but #3? We hope, but again, that's pushing it. Agree with you on needing ace-type, but I really think they'd be crazy to not acquire a Latos-caliber pitcher as well. Owens and Rodriguez are too far away to think about them vying for a spot out of spring training, and the others are aspiring #4/#5 guys (maybe some could be a #3, but you can't count on that), so one or two of them emerging as such doesn't change the fact that your suggested rotation would be too flimsy in the 2-3 slots.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 10, 2014 0:45:05 GMT -5
I might be wrong, but as far as I know, this is not a thing that WAR (at least the Fangraphs version) does. Replacement level and positional adjustment do not vary based on how well the league hit at any given position. What you might be thinking of is the fact that UZR calibrates itself to league-average every year. So Alex Gordon didn't actually field much better this year than he did last year, but LFers as a whole fielded much worse, so his UZR score went way up. I agree that this is a flaw that should be corrected, but it has a much more peripheral effect on how WAR is calculated. Left the rest the same as I don't believe that UZR calibrates for positional adjustments but that there is a separate defensive metric which accounts for UZR and the defensive adjustment (as far as I know it's just called 'DEF') Right. UZR is made up of several components that calculate how many runs a player is above/below average at their specific position. The "DEF" metric is Fangraphs way of saying, OK you can look to UZR to see how valuable a player is compared to others at their position, but how valuable is he compared to all other fielders? That's why elite defensive corner outfielders like Gordon and Heyward rank behind guys like Pedroia, Simmons, and Lagares in DEF despite having superior UZR's -- they simply are playing a much easier position, and that needs to be accounted for when calculating overall value (ie. putting value into a form where players can be compared across positions. The adjustments Fangraphs uses may not be perfect, but they're necessary.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 9, 2014 22:24:11 GMT -5
if sandavol resigns with the Giants would trading some lesser prospects for freese of the Angels be a decent plan b for us? Pros: - Crushes LHP’s - Cheap and only a one year commitment - Wouldn’t cost top prospects Cons: - RHH / been below average hitting RHP two years in a row. 26.4 K% vs. them in 2014. - Below average defense - Will be 32-years-old for 90% of the 2015 season - Angels have a lack of depth behind him at third, so they’ll probably focus on dealing Kendrick, who, regardless, will net a greater return. He had a -0.6 bWAR season in 2013, while fWAR put him at 2.1. DRS hated him for the second season in a row, while UZR, which thought he was epically horrible in 2013, graded him out as average in 2014. Steamer sees him being worth 1.9 wins in 2015. I see a player who fits the team worse than a player in a similar tier in Daniel Murphy (Murphy is a LHH and more consistent, while also likely offering better defense). The matchup between teams (lining up chips/replacing the 3B coming to the Sox/potential for a multi-player deal) is also worse in this case than it would be with the Mets. If the big ticket options fall through, would he be a terrible option? No, and you’d want him out there on opening day over Cecchini. But if we have to give up anything we’ll miss even a modest amount, then we might as well run Brock Holt out there instead.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 9, 2014 21:01:37 GMT -5
With the Astros apparently shopping Jason Castro now, would he be a good target for the Sox? I don't know a lot about his defense, but he seems like he could make sense as a LHH catcher to complement Vazquez. Michael Saunders of the Mariners is apparently being shopped as well, he seems like he could really fit as a LHH outfielder who can play all 3 OF positions with solid speed and power, especially given the entirely RH outfield. I like the idea of Saunders, I think he's a good change of scenery guy, but it would mean trading at least Cespedes and Victorino, and possibly/probably Nava. Yeah, I don't see the fit unless Nava departs. Betts, Castillo, and, if he's still around, Cespedes, aren't going to get platooned at all. You have a great LHH guy in Nava and several RHH complements (Victorino, Craig, Brentz, Hassan). If we weren't going to be starting two guys who could play center field, Saunders would be more appealing, but it's worth noting he's been pretty bad in center throughout his career by both UZR and DRS. That said, the Mariners are pretty stupid for tarnishing their relationship with him, and whatever team needing a LHH platoon bat in a corner would do well for themselves to get him.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 7, 2014 11:48:41 GMT -5
He's certainly better than Gomes and Manny, but he's still pretty bad. I remember watching him this year in left field, and he looked like he could barely move. He was noticeably better in right, though, and considering he can still throw a bit, he's not that bad there, especially if he's not in a particularly expansive outfield.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 7, 2014 9:34:57 GMT -5
Hm... I have another submission in that category. Let's say the Red Sox decide to spend big money on two pitchers but want to stay under the luxury tax limit. Would you consider a LHB, projected by Steamer to hit 99 wRC+, who is below average defensively at 3B but only makes the league minimum? The guy I'm talking about: Travis ShawCecchini? Was there supposed to be a pic there? If you're talking Cecchini, I don't take projections very seriously for rookies. They often seem pretty unlikely and definitely don't represent how much risk there is that they don't hit it. When in doubt, highlight.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 6, 2014 16:59:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 6, 2014 13:46:43 GMT -5
In your dreams. Leake isn't that great, but until Craig proves that he's at least half the player he was in 2011-13, he has no significant trade value. We're best off holding onto him for now.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 6, 2014 9:10:39 GMT -5
Would Murphy be ok as our 3B? He hasn't played there much. If so, definitely. Yes, third base is his natural position. Due to David Wright's presence in New York, he got pushed to second, where he's pretty bad (they originally tried him in left field, where he struggled mightily). In the minors, 196 of his 240 games came at third.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 4, 2014 9:01:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 3, 2014 18:53:06 GMT -5
And the twelve players who recived qualifying offers are...... Max Scherzer and Victor Martinez (Tigers), James Shields (Royals), Ervin Santana (Braves), David Robertson (Yankees), Francisco Liriano and Russell Martin (Pirates), Hanley Ramirez (Dodgers), Pablo Sandoval (Giants), Michael Cuddyer (Rockies), Nelson Cruz (Orioles) and Melky Cabrera (Blue Jays). Big surprise is Cuddyer, mildly surprised by Liriano and Cabrera the rest was expected. I'd agree on Cuddyer. The big reason isn't his hitting - he's been useful to Colorado - but his durability. He'll be 36 before the season starts, and he's only played in a little more than half the Rockies' games over that period - only 49 games last year. It's a bit to pay for someone who may just take it, and sit on the bench a good portion of the time. All that said, it probably pencils out money wise if he keeps hitting at a .900+ OPS clip. Very useful, for sure, but to commit over $15 million to a guy who may not even play 100 games, or start everyday? I would be pretty surprised if he reaches the two-WAR mark in 2015. Also, considering their other players, Cuddyer is a guy who really should be on the bench in away games vs. RHP's. Did some poking around and thought I'd share this: 9 out of the top 24 leaders in home BABIP in 2013-2014 are Colorado Rockies, including the top 4 (Cuddyer (.406), Tulo, Barnes, Stubbs). Coors never ceases to amaze.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 3, 2014 18:20:59 GMT -5
And the twelve players who recived qualifying offers are...... Max Scherzer and Victor Martinez (Tigers), James Shields (Royals), Ervin Santana (Braves), David Robertson (Yankees), Francisco Liriano and Russell Martin (Pirates), Hanley Ramirez (Dodgers), Pablo Sandoval (Giants), Michael Cuddyer (Rockies), Nelson Cruz (Orioles) and Melky Cabrera (Blue Jays). Big surprise is Cuddyer, mildly surprised by Liriano and Cabrera the rest was expected. Seriously, I can't believe it. The Rockies, who have Morneau, Dickerson, Blackmon, Cargo (plus Stubbs and Barnes for LHP), lock themselves into massively overpaying a to-be 36-year-old who is an awful defensive outfielder. Yes, he can still rake, but this isn't the direction the Rockies should be going, no matter how much the players and coaches love Cuddy. And poor Cuddyer -- this essentially traps him from going anywhere else at a decent rate. It was made clear that the Mets were seriously interested in nabbing him on a two year deal, but no way I can see them, or anyone else, really, giving up their pick for him.
|
|
|