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 ctfisher on Jul 8, 2021 16:34:30 GMT -5
By Dalbec "getting his act together," do you mean improving on the .330 wOBA/105 wRC+ he's put up over the last two months? That in itself is better than Kiké's been, so you'd be making offense at first worse in exchange for... making defense in CF worse. And of course an average offensive performance from Duran would be significantly better than what he projects to. I believe I was talking about the Dalbec who hit .200 in May, .237 in June and is hitting .214 so far in July. I was talking about the Dalbec whose OBP are .243 in May, .280 in June and .214 in July. I am talking about a Kiké who is hitting home runs at roughly the same rate as Dalbec. I want Dalbec to succeed. He is potentially a very solid power hitter. But he is not arguably hitting better than Kiké. As for Duran, if you believe he is a less than average hitter, then you have a massive disagreement with his ratings as our number two prospect and number 29 in MLB. Where are you getting Duran as the #29 prospect in baseball? Haven’t seen that anywhere - best I’ve seen is MLB’s top 100 has him at 86
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jan 29, 2019 15:50:10 GMT -5
FWIW - Woj's piece indicates Davis/Paul will begin informing teams LAL is the only team he'll re-sign with when he becomes a free agent. Well there you have it friends, now let's move on and aim at Randle or Vucevic. I really hope the Pelicans trade him anywhere but the Lakers just to mess up this ridiculous collusion. Trade him to Phoenix. Rich Paul doesn't rule the NBA, don't give in New Orleans. I think that's pretty meaningless honestly - pretty transparent effort to get himself to LA, but if the Pelicans don't deal him there, it seems unlikely that the Lakers are going to wait out 2 years of free agency to get Davis, and unlikely that Davis would want to commit to 4 years with Lebron 36 (I think?) by the time he could get to LA. Unless LA basically throws the entire kitchen sink at NOLA, I bet Davis stays put until the offseason in which case I'd much rather we keep our powder dry. I think Randle and Vucevic are good players, but I don't think they move the needle for us - we just need to resolve whatever lingering chemistry issues are around, hope hayward plays himself into something resembling what he was a couple years ago, and keep our options open for Davis. Hayward has admittedly looked terrible recently, but given that we've won 6 of 7 with the only loss a close one to Golden State, I think we're starting to round into form and messing with the roster now might be a mistake even without factoring in how it might affect an AD deal
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jan 28, 2019 16:53:57 GMT -5
I really, really don't want to see Tatum going anywhere. We are seeing a spectacular game in its infancy. I think if they try to insist on Tatum being included we say no, flat out. I think the most likely scenario is probably an offer built around brown, the Memphis and SAC picks, and then a sign and trade of rozier, assuming that he probably would be more expensive than smart (and a worse fit for us anyway). Presumably we’d probably have to find some additional salary filler to get the deal done, but I think that’s doable, and if it were me, I’d certainly be a lot more excited about that offer than some mix and match of the lakers relatively mediocre young guys (though admittedly I may be biased)
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Nov 9, 2018 10:26:10 GMT -5
So you think Cecchini and Marrero are equal to Cassas and Groome? Those were the guys ranked 10th and 12th at this time in 2014. Sure I look at other teams prospscts, but lets not act like a guy going into his age 31 season with one year on his deal will cost a Sale package. That is what your saying if your talking about demolishing our system. Like it would take 4-5 top ten guys, including Chavis and Groome as the main pieces. Is that what you think? I wasn't being literal. I mean just go look at the list of prospects in 2014 and compare it to now. I'm saying that other teams could easily beat Chavis and Groome by giving up back end of their top 10 and not think twice. But for the Red Sox, they would lose their top 2 prospects, so yeah that would gut the system. I think it's a pretty big stretch to suggest that there are many teams that could top a chavis & groome package and not feel it - that would maybe apply to the top 3-5 farm systems in the game, and typically, those teams aren't going to be dealing prospects for win-now players with a single season of control. I also think the idea that their farm system is completely gutted and wildly shallow no longer holds up the way it did a year or so ago - they've had a couple of reallhgood drafts, some good player development, and some very promising signings out of Latin America the last couple of years, and it's easy to imagine that, with a couple of good performances from guys like casas, Flores, Diaz, howlett, etc we actually have a consensus top 15 system by the end of the year, and that ignores the guys that look poised to be major league contributors possibly like ockimey and chavis
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Nov 8, 2018 12:12:19 GMT -5
Since Heyman just tweeted something about Goldschmidt getting a ton of interest, I wonder if it's appropriate to bump this thread up. He's a rental, so the cost shouldn't be outlandishly stupid. Bobby Dalbec or Michael Chavis for Goldschmidt. Would anyone do that? Add- Moreland going back to Arizona on top of Chavis or Dalbec as a dump. Maybe you could start there - I would imagine you'd have to include Hernandez and maybe another lottery ticket type to really get any kind of conversation started. He may be a rental, but he's an MVP-caliber player so I can't imagine he'll be wildly cheap. I can't really see us winning a bidding war, but if dombrowski decides he really wants to double down on this core and blow out the farm again, I think we might actually be able to get it done - not sure I'd be all the way on board, but next year would probably be a lot of fun anyway
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Sept 21, 2018 0:48:36 GMT -5
The question about shots/touches to me isn't really going to affect the team negatively this year, but I do think you have to game out what the longer term looks like. The guy I'm concerned about is brown, because he looks like a guy that could average 20+ if he were really turned loose already, but it seems likely that they're going to ask him to defer to all of kyrie, Tatum and Hayward
I'm not worried he'll be a malcontent or locker room problem, or won't embrace his role - I'm worried that, when he gets the chance, he'll bolt for a chance to play a bigger role offensively. It's not a stretch to imagine that he might make a play knowing that being an all-star somewhere else with his skill set would probably make him enough additional endorsement money to offset the difference between the max we could offer and what anyone else could, and also knowing that he'd be a free agent again, probably by the age of 28. It's a longer term concern, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be something you try to address.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Sept 20, 2018 11:40:00 GMT -5
Is it really a question of Horford, Rozier or Brown will complain about not enough shots? Horford, isn’t even worth addressing. Rozier has gone out if his way to put that question to bed and Brown isn’t a primary scorer. And yes, you want Hayward to pass; that’s a big part of his game. He’s more a 20 point guy; not a 30. You’re also missing the main question, which is can this team won a championship. It’s already a known they can win a lot of games. I don't really think it'll be an issue, but saying Brown isn't a primary scorer misses the point to me. He's not our primary scorer, but after Kyrie went down last year, he did play that role quite often. Tatum might've been more consistent, but Brown was the youngest Celtic at least in decades, maybe ever, to score 30 in a playoff game and did it twice. I think you have to make sure you get him shots and don't take him for granted, because 2019-2020 is his contract year and he's going to want to get paid like a star wing, not just a good 3 and D/Trevor Ariza type, and likely play a bigger role too
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 25, 2018 12:02:30 GMT -5
Oh ok so like less important stats but ones that are more in line with your pre-existing biases. Solid analysis. Everyone has bias once they decide they like or dislike something, including you. I'm not sure how Eovaldi's HR problem is going to disappear moving from Tampa to Boston. And his home stats in TB are far better than his road stats. If you think that means nothing, then go ahead and let your bias decide that. He's thrown 57 innings on the year and more than a third of the homers he's given up came in one start in Houston. Take that out and he's given up one more homer on the road than at home in about twice as many innings - im pretty skeptical that the trop helped him keep the hall in the park much
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 15, 2018 18:25:19 GMT -5
I do need to watch more out of Ayton, but he's a center. In he modern NBA, he needs to hit his Embiid ceiling or he's a limited role player. He could even be someone like KAT, who is great and puts up big numbers, but the flaws in his game flat out kill his team. I'm not a great amateur evaluator and again, I badly wanted Bender over Jaylen, so I'm probably wrong here and Ayton is the next huge All-NBA uber talented dude. But my reasoning here is that given his size and position, he has a considerably smaller margin for error than someone like Doncic or Porter or heck even Bagley. That's not really true though - Capela, Gobert, and Deandre Jordan are all very good NBA starters who aren't anything like Embiid aside from defense and rebounding. The Tyson Chandler archetype is still very useful. I guess that isn't entirely relevant to Ayton because the general point with him is that he does have that Embiid-type upside - touch, range on a jumper, big time athleticism, NBA body. He doesn't have the defensive credentials, but he also doesn't have any of the injury questions. It definitely seems to me that guys like Doncic do tend to have their question marks exaggerated at this time of year because they don't have the elite athleticism or measurables that are really projectable, and if I were running an NBA team then I'd probably think of them as being neck and neck at the top of the board. If I were going to swing for the fences though, I'd take Ayton every time and I wouldn't feel like I had to worry much about whiffing entirely
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 3, 2018 9:09:44 GMT -5
Given the way the offense has performed so far with no pedroia and the fact that there's almost no way Vazquez/Leon and JBJ hit this poorly, it seems like a bad idea to deal away 5 prospects for one guy who probably isn't going to move the needle between this team being really good and great. If you could build a deal around Chavis and a solid relief arm, I'd do it, but they probably wouldn't given the question marks around Chavis. Certainly for now it seems way better to stand pat, give the bottom of the order more time to get on track, and re-evaluate in a couple months.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 1, 2018 9:15:04 GMT -5
I honestly don't know whether to laugh, cry, or stop spending time here. The last time Steven Wright was healthy, he was a legitimate All-Star starting pitcher. Hector Velazquez has, surprisingly, been a bit better than average this year. There will be indeed be room for just one of them to fill the role of mop-up reliever ... until any one of eight guys gets hurt, at which point there will be room for both.Even if Velazquez projected to be better than Wright, which is unclear at best, the notion that you would DFA an All-Star before seeing whether he could, you know, do that again at some point in the future, in order to (maybe but quite possibly not) upgrade the position of mop-up reliever, when you could send the other guy down to Pawtucket, thus keeping both your #6 and #7 starters in the organization .... Really, folks. Meanwhile, it now looks like Xander leads all MLB players with 50+ PA in wRC+. I think that's a pretty harsh criticism of everyone here. Wright was an All-Star 2 years ago and that was the last time he was good. He's almost 34 years old and there's no guarantee that he comes back to even be worthy of a major league spot even for a non-contending team, let alone on a team with a lack of roster options and at least 3 other #6 starters who are probably as good as he is if not better. Losing Wright on a team that has Velazquez and Johnson already pitching long-relief with Beeks in AAA is not the end of the world, even if Wright was an All-Star 2 years ago, which was also the last time he was worthy of being in the majors. In fact, it would not shock me at all if he cleared waivers and we could keep him anyway. Wright has thrown a grand total of about 30 innings since 2016 and given that he's a knuckleballer, i think the fact that he's 34 is pretty much irrelevant. If his fastball goes from 86 to 84 it's not gonna hurt him. Maybe he just lost it, but it probably makes sense to give him more than a month to figure it out, cause he pretty clearly does have a higher ceiling than velazquez. And even if you don't buy the ceiling argument, it would seem to make sense to see if wright can establish any kind of trade value given that Velazquez has options and is unlikely to swing a bunch of games in the short run
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Mar 7, 2018 9:43:00 GMT -5
Given that the Yankees just added stantons contract and have to be thinking about judge, severino and other young talent long term, it would be pretty shocking to see them shell out what would have to be at least $600m over the next decade for machado and Harper (quite possibly more given their respective ages). They'd be looking at $90m annually just for Stanton and those 2, plus $17m annually for chapman for the next several years, judge hits arbitration after next season I believe - it just doesn't add up, especially if they want to add a top tier starter as well (typically those guys aren't exactly underpaid).
I think that's where machado ends up realistically, because he might come a little cheaper than Harper and they probably don't need another outfielder making an insane salary. I think they have to know they're punting on free agency for all of their young talent if they make a real run at both of them
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Feb 14, 2018 13:45:24 GMT -5
With Hanley needing 500+ abs in order to get his '19 opt. picked up any platooning will not get it done. How he deals with that will be interesting. Not being the every day DH could cause some early problems. FYI, Ramirez only needs 497 plate appearances for the option to vest. Last year he had 553, option vests at 1,050. And again, it's plate appearances and not at-bats. That said, he has reached that mark in just 4 of the last 7 seasons. Not to mention that the sox have a vested interest in his not getting those PAs unless he decides to rake again
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Oct 11, 2017 9:56:31 GMT -5
I think the idea that there's much risk in getting rid of Farrell is pretty overblown. I think it's been noted that Valentine was once-in-a-lifetime bad as a fit, and frankly I think that there's only a limited amount of impact a manager who's not objectively a complete ass can make. Talent tends to play, and I don't think any of us have ever lauded Farrell for his skill as a tactician - he was a clubhouse manager with a rep for having his players back. That didn't seem to do much good this year with all the price-eckersley/pedroia early season drama and the like, and we still won the division in spite of objectively bad management at times.
Someone who makes better tactical decisions and maybe has more of a rapport with position players would be my preference - I still think Farrell has really screwed bogaerts up by not giving him adequate rest and riding him through injuries the last two years and I don't want to see anything similar going forward. I love the idea of Cora who has always seemed like a smart guy, he's young for the manager role which might help him with the players, and honestly I can't see how he'd do much damage. Or maybe we can dust off Jim Leyland and see how he looks?
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 25, 2017 8:51:49 GMT -5
It seems to me that people are overvaluing that Brooklyn pick a little bit, at least as compared to the value of adding Irving long term. There's no sense in adding high profile rookies who still won't crack the starting 5 for us while core players age. If we made that nets pick next year, even if it were #1 overall, we'd probably be looking at 2-3 years optimistically before that kid is a legit top 3 player on a real contender. At that point, hayward is pushing 30 and about to need a new contract, horford is probably gone, and without this deal you either have a hole at the point or you're paying Isaiah $30m+. The way things shook out, we add a top 5 guard in the league who is likely (in my view) to improve while already being an upgrade on Isaiah, open up playing time for brown and Tatum (which I think is a very underrated aspect of the deal), and give up a pick that we didn't really need. We all knew at some point we were going to turn those nets picks into trade chips, and I'm not sure there was a better point to do so.
The cavs did well, but talking like we've allowed them to stay ahead of us for years is ridiculous. They probably wouldn't make this deal if they think lebron is staying - they didn't give up on the idea, but if I'm them I'm not sure I want to pay Isaiah to get torched every time you see a good point guard, and I doubt lebron stays unless they win another ring. Then you're looking at whether you try to re-sign IT and build around him, love and probably a high lottery guy, which is a middling playoff team in the east probably - basically us last year without the depth. More likely LBJ and IT leave, love asks for a trade and they have a total tear down, leaving us the east for the foreseeable future
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 4, 2017 11:42:08 GMT -5
If you're constantly pulling the ball, then that is a weakness. I disagree with this, if you are constantly pulling the ball that is not a weakness, but if all you can do is pull the ball than that is a weakness. Pulling the ball more than most hitters is only a weakness if Chavis can’t go the other way or is not good enough going the other way, by simply pointing out that Chavis pulls the ball a lot, you have not shown the Chavis has a weakness with hitting pitches the other way. My argument isn’t with what you are saying, but rather what you are using as evidence to support what you are saying: If over 45% of Steph Curry’s shots next year are 3 pointers, that does not prove that he is weak at shooting 2 pointers, show me that he shoots 25% on shots that are not 3 pointers and I’ll agree with you, but I’m not going to agree simply because he shoots a lot of 3 pointers. That comparison doesn't hold up at all though - if Chavis can't avoid pulling the ball consistently, he's never going to hit for average, because shifts will take away a lot balls that might otherwise be hits, whereas if a team tries to smother steph curry 10 feet beyond the arc, they will be exposed because he's a well rounded basketball player, and he adjusts to what the defense is doing. Setting that aside, I can see what you're saying, but I think in this case you can't regard being that pull heavy as not being a weakness in his approach. If you pull the ball ~50% of the time, you'll lose hits to defensive postioning, but you also essentially have to give up one half of the plate to big league pitching - if you crowd it so you can pull outside pitches hard, how are you going to handle major league fastballs well located on the inner half? If you stand deep in the box, how are you supposed to reach the offspeed stuff low and away that's always the first line of attack when rookies come up? Again, none of this means I'm not impressed by the season he's had or that it's a fluke in some way - I just think it's highly unlikely he could hold his own offensively in the majors right now even if he were a viable defensive option anywhere. I also doubt you can find many hitters who have much success beyond an Adam Dunn type of guy with pull rates that high, and I hope that Chavis has a good enough hit tool that we wouldn't be looking at 200 ks a year and a Mendoza line average from him
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 4, 2017 9:47:55 GMT -5
That's all very well and I don't have an issue with his power being exclusively to the pull side, but I believe his batted ball numbers were cited earlier in this thread, and what would concern me is him pulling the ball 45%+ of the time. That's not going to be sustainable at the major league level. I definitely don't think he can't improve in this area, I just suspect that if he were in the lineup tonight he'd be eaten alive, and we'd see a lot of swing and miss and a lot of weak grounders rolled over to the left side.
Every time we've seen one of these pull heavy, rawer approach guys come up it's a common theme - they struggle until they adjust their approach to use the whole field. Think about pedroia and bogaerts - they both struggled until they learned to use the opposite field. The reason why devers and benintendi have been able (so far) to adapt relatively quickly to big league pitching (in my opinion) is they have more of an up the middle/opposite field approach, along with strong plate discipline for the most part
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 2, 2017 12:09:05 GMT -5
People are selling Chavis short on his hitting ability/selectivity. He's put up IsoDs in the range of .055-.070 everywhere he's played, even when he was struggling badly. It's not a 10% BB rate, but it's not Middlebrooks either. Chavis's performance in AA (another HR tonight and a triple slash of roughly .300/.350/.550) has been excellent, particularly after a slow first 30-40 PA. He's a reasonable bet for 35 HR/35 2b, and nearly a 1.000 combined OPS. His K rate has remained fairly stable, too...20-25% isn't particularly notable in today's game. That's pretty impressive stuff at 21. And, as noted, he's very different stylistically from Benintendi; I wouldn't read all that much into the difference in K/BB rates in terms of "advancement." Sure he's a different hitter stylistically than benintendi, but so is devers and you wouldn't have the same concerns because you see him being selective and using the whole field. It's a combo effect - if the k/bb numbers weren't great but the reports said he was driving the ball to all fields I wouldn't really worry about the approach, but I'd be pretty wary on that front with a guy who's pull happy and not necessarily showing great discipline. I don't think there's anyway to spin the way Chavis has played this year to make it not very impressive and promising, but I think he likely needs to move slower than guys like benintendi and devers for those reasons, leaving aside the questions about where he plays long term defensively.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 1, 2017 12:27:33 GMT -5
I think you can see from Chavis and benintendi's triple slash lines the difference - benintendi had a super advanced approach at the plate, high walk rates and an all-fields approach, while Chavis seems to still be developing a more mature approach. His walk rate is still relatively low, and by the sound of the recent scouting scratch is also a little pull heavy. Beyond all that, benintendi was always reported as having a plus hit tool and made a ton of contact, while Chavis doesn't fit that profile at all. Seems like he'll play out the year in Portland and, assuming AA pitchers don't figure him out, maybe start next year in Pawtucket. There shouldn't be any rush to get him to Boston - he needs to refine the approach, find a defensive home one way or another and he's actually pretty young to be doing what he's doing in AA right now, besides which id be pretty surprised if he could improve the big league team this year
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 1, 2017 7:45:36 GMT -5
Does anyone remember what he traded to the Marlins for Miggy? No? Carry on. He basically traded a back of balls and an empty bucket of double bubble. Yeah, Miller is now a shut down reliever, but he was a wreck back then. For now, he is tied to what Devers does the remainder of this year to rationalize the Shaw trade. I believe he traded Andrew Miller and Camron Maybin... that was off the top of my head. At the time Maybin was the 5 tool super star center fielder in waiting and Miller was the flame throwing big left handed number 1 starter in waiting. Both top 10 prospects in the game not the Tigers system.... again off the top of my head so it's possible the facts are a little off... I purposely am not looking it up because it'd be cheating since you asked if we remember I don't remember the Scherzer trade tho That was the deal, and he also got dontrelle Willis at the time as well. Either way, you have to give dombrowski credit for dealing two overhyped prospects for the best right handed hitter of the past 10 years, without considering the fact that Willis was still a quality pitcher before he went to Detroit
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2017 10:37:21 GMT -5
No hip surgery for IT. That actually doesn't make me feel better about the situation. I'd rather just get this fixed. If this lingers all season, I don't know how you can give him a max contract or even close to it. Well that's fair unless he's healed with therapy and rehab - I'm not a doctor, but I'd imagine that's perfectly possible and I doubt he would say no to surgery in the offseason if he actually needed it to heal
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 14, 2017 8:14:07 GMT -5
That's interesting - losing Anderson will hurt... adding 2 guys who aren't great 3 point shooters to Harden who also isn't one in that offense they bombs away will be a weird mix He can't stay on the floor defensively at all against the top teams though, and all 3 of melo, harden and Paul are historically very good catch and shoot guys - Harden's percentages get pulled down by all the tough contested pull ups and paul has never been a big volume guy from 3, and melo also has a habit for putting up tough contested 3s, especially with the shot clock running down. I'm not sure how that team will look defensively, but they're going to put up absurd scoring numbers
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 7, 2017 13:52:38 GMT -5
Nadar looks like a guy who can play the 2 and looks like he can shoot. Can he? He is a big guy and isn't a great athlete. Not sure he can play SG. Been trying to find a scouting report but can't. Not sure about lateral quickness, but check his d-league and Iowa state highlights - he's pretty explosive vertically. He's probably a little heftier than most NBA 2 guards but I think he'd be perfectly capable of sticking with average 2 guards and his length might bother them as well/make up for any shortcomings in foot speed/quickness he might have (although offensively he looks like he has good footwork and a relatively quick first step so I'd be optimistic myself)
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 5, 2017 13:49:05 GMT -5
Noooooooooooooo. EDIT: Okay, serious response now. - Danny said he pretty much hangs up when people ask for Jaylen in trade - Jaylen was part of the pitch to Hayward (suggesting he's part of the plan) - If all end up what they project to be, Brown/Hayward/Tatum can play together. He gives you the 3 you need for the cap. The problem probably is what you get back forces another trade. BUT, he certainly would not have the problem of teams interest in trading for I'm that crowder, Bradley and smart present. I think it would fun to see what other clubs would offer to get him. How about brown, rozier and the draft pick they just picked up for porzangst. Just playing around. But you then would (likely, haven't done the math) have to make another deal to sign Hayward. Besides which, I don't think it really makes to deal jaylen, who has legit star potential by the look of him, because there's no one available around the league as far as we know that would be worth trading him for. Especially if they weren't willing to include him for either george or butler
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 5, 2017 12:19:53 GMT -5
I'd happily send crowder to the kings for cauley-stein - with hill, Randolph, crowder and the young guys (fox, hield, labissiere) they have a solid team, which does obviously hurt our chances of getting a really good pick in 2019. On the other hand, the lakers pick next year would have a better chance of conveying.
It's an interesting thought experiment to try to figure out which teams should be worse than the lakers next year, even though I do think LA will improve. The only teams that I think are good bets to be worse are Brooklyn and Orlando, Sacramento, maybe Chicago are the only other teams that seem, on paper, like they would be worse than the lakers and sending crowder to Sacramento knocks them off that list in my view. They also just offered otto porter the max so it's possible that we might be able to get a 1st down the road out of them too, maybe lottery protected? Never hurts to add extra trade chips
|
|
|