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 Jan 17, 2017 14:38:24 GMT -5
I think you're underestimating how good Goldschmidt is. He stole 32 bases last year as a 1B, and the year before he put up a 7.3 fWAR season. He's one of the 3-5 best 1B's in baseball pretty much any way you look at it, and probably a top-20 player in the majors. Maybe next year when he has a year less of team control and we might be able to put together a more convincing offer (maybe if Dalbec takes another step forward, or Groome dominates, or some such thing) but for now I can't see it, although we might make them think more if we included Pomeranz or Rodriguez Yeah maybe you have the right idea about a deal if it was going to get done. Eduardo Rodriguez, Swihart, and Sam Travis would probably be closer to what it would take now thinking about it. I'm not sure if I do that kind of deal to be honest. That's a tough one to think about. I think if Swihart and Travis play exceptionally well in the first half, then that might get the deal done, partly because I can't really come up with a team that has the prospects and the kind of window that would make sense to deal for him. Unless one or both of the guys really pushes their value up substantially though I can't see the Dbacks not insisting on Devers unless there's no market out there at all
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jan 16, 2017 13:52:35 GMT -5
My main point was to look at the Dozier market and use it as a example to why Goldshmidt doesn't hold as much value as everyone else thinks here. I think you're underestimating how good Goldschmidt is. He stole 32 bases last year as a 1B, and the year before he put up a 7.3 fWAR season. He's one of the 3-5 best 1B's in baseball pretty much any way you look at it, and probably a top-20 player in the majors. Maybe next year when he has a year less of team control and we might be able to put together a more convincing offer (maybe if Dalbec takes another step forward, or Groome dominates, or some such thing) but for now I can't see it, although we might make them think more if we included Pomeranz or Rodriguez
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jan 16, 2017 13:33:41 GMT -5
I think the pitching staff on this team is the type of staff that 100+ win teams have. The lineup should have 6 hitters (Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, Pedroia, Benintendi, Ramirez) that range from above average to excellent, and hopefully Sandoval can provide league average production, which I think is a reasonable expectation given that I don't think anyone's ever seen him in better shape. I think there's a decent chance that Hanley really takes to DH and he actually improves on last year.
I also think that people are overlooking the possibly or even likelihood of Bogaerts, Bradley and Betts continuing to take steps forward. If Mookie adds a little and shows the ability to drive the ball the other way with a little more authority, there's almost no way to pitch to him. I think this is the year that Xander puts it all together for a full season, assuming that Farrell gives him rest at appropriate intervals. I think .300 and 25+ homers is a probability all things considered- even with the way he fell off the second half of the year, he finished at .294 and 21, with a 3.2 percentage point jump in walk rate too, and he'll play the entire season at 24. Bradley is entering his statistical peak as well, and he cut about 5 points off his k rate last year- I think if he gets it down to 20%, he probably winds up at .275, and there's no reason to think that he can't provide similar pop. On top of all that, given the way Benintendi plays and the fact that he now has some good major league experience under his belt, I'd be pretty surprised if he doesn't give us a very solid year.
Catcher is the one spot that concerns me, but I'm still bullish on Swihart in the long(ish) term. Maybe he needs more time to work on his defense- we'll see if that's the case in time, but even if he does, I think he should be considered a viable depth option for the corner infield spots. He's an excellent athlete by all accounts, and even if his bat doesn't exactly match the typical profile, I think he'd give us perfectly acceptable production if nothing more. He was a top 30 prospect in baseball a year ago at this time if memory serves, and that talent didn't just disappear. In the meantime, I think between Leon and Vazquez we should get top tier defense so as long as they crack the mendoza line, take a few walks and plant a few mistakes in the monster seats, I will not be complaining. In my mind, the only thing that can derail this team would be the injury bug running wild. That's not to say that I expect them to win it all necessarily, but I will be very surprised if we stay healthy and someone else wins the AL East
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Dec 31, 2016 12:30:22 GMT -5
Was it just me or did he seem a little conservative with some of his ceiling projections? I would've thought that Groome's "upside" was that of an ace, given that he was seen as arguably the top overall talent in his draft class. I also thought most scouts have graded Dalbec and Devers' raw power more like 65-70, particularly Dalbec?
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Dec 22, 2016 16:59:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Dec 22, 2016 16:36:01 GMT -5
I feel like it's worth pointing out that Dombrowski's first draft has been, based on the early returns (which obviously might mean nothing but it's all we have to go on) pretty successful. He's just as aggressive there as he is targeting big league needs. We don't know if cherington or another gm would've gone after groome at 12 considering that a lot of teams were spooked, and Dalbec appears to be rather better than people thought at least. He also hasn't had a chance to add international amateurs yet either.
He's always been very good in general at evaluating talent across pretty much all levels as far as I can tell- he built great teams through the draft and young acquisitions in Florida, and did an excellent job targeting his guys and holding on to the players that really panned out in Detroit as well. He has gutted the system to a point, but kept the players who combined high floors with high ceilings (benintendi and devers, among others). He also has essentially eliminated the need to make similar deals for th foreseeable future- the starting rotation is set for a couple years at least it would appear, we have a number of cost controlled bullpen arms, and the young position players are also under contract on team friendly terms for some time. Despairing over a potential 'lost dynasty' at this stage is kindof ridiculous. Trades, injuries, unexpected breakouts or huge regression will clarify the picture but for now, we have a team that should be one of the 2-3 best in baseball for the next 2-3 years, with a core of young players that should be able to form the backbone of a legit title contender for years after that.
I get the lost prospect angst, but it would be great if we could check some of the hyperbole at the door, and recognize that dombrowski has, perhaps with the exception of the pomeranz deal, paid what turned out to be below market prices for top end talent, which I'd have to say is commendable
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Dec 12, 2016 3:13:21 GMT -5
Not happening. Scott Boras is JBJ's agent. That means nothing. Boras clients have signed team friendly deals before. Can you name one not named Strasburg (whose deal might not be team friendly at all given all of his arm/elbow issues?) I'm pretty sure Boras is on the record essentially telling his clients never to sign extensions ahead of free agency except in what might be described as extreme circumstances, and I certainly can't remember a Boras client who signed for a hometown discount
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 4, 2016 15:33:00 GMT -5
I laugh when Dave O'Brien tries to say Red Sox fans are so knowledgable, considering it's the same fan base that criticized JD Drew so much and thought Trot Nixon was better. To be fair, that wasn't very scientific. Drew kinda seemed aloof, had a pretty bad first year on what was a big contract at the time and was perpetually hurt. Trot Nixon was the kind of hard nosed guy that Boston fans (all fans really but particularly Boston ones) are predisposed to love, like pedroia. Drew had none of that to him, and it irked people
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 4, 2016 10:03:01 GMT -5
And there's prima donna Russell Westbrook signing a 3 year extension in OKC, which in my mind means the only viable star player we can target in the trade market, or even in free agency next year, is boogie cousins (I know he's not a free agent, but if Sacramento wants to max out his value, they should deal him this year and the way they've drafted the last 2 years makes it seem like they're gearing up to do so). Unless Durant reopens the bidding after this season, Chris Paul is aging and I'd rather have IT cheap and flexibility, griffin isn't really a good complement to horford, not sure what the Bulls are doing with butler but they don't look like they're planning on dealing him, and I can't really think of anyone else that is a legit target
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 3, 2016 0:56:53 GMT -5
Ehh much as I like cousins in theory I don't think he fits next to horford, I think if they can get durant they should stand pat, maybe try to find some solid veteran big or another shooter, but Thomas durant and horford along with the rest of the guys under contract should make a pretty lethal line up with a real solid bench
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 22, 2016 8:24:41 GMT -5
I don't think Sullinger is a particularly bad player, but he's never proved that he's willing or able to stay in good enough shape to be anything more than a decent role player/marginal starter maybe? Even if a QO isn't much, what's the point? If someone throws a big offer sheet at him were not matching, and there's little sense in tying up cap for a guy that realistically we probably don't really want a whole lot. He certainly hasn't done too much to endear himself to the front office/coaching staff conditioning wise
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Mar 25, 2016 15:29:15 GMT -5
Quick question: I was at the game yesterday in Fort Myers, noticed Kelly sitting 91-95 all game, mostly 93-94. Is the gun down there slow, or has this been where he's been at all spring? I would've thought that by now, they'd all be ramping up to full velocity, and Kimbrel was all bteween 96-98- is this a new approach, slow gun or just taking it a little easy in spring? For what it's worth, he did look great yesterday, even if it was against mostly minor league/bench players
|
|
|
Pedroia
Aug 21, 2015 15:59:49 GMT -5
Post by ctfisher on Aug 21, 2015 15:59:49 GMT -5
I don't understand the obsession with moving Mookie back to second base. Especially with people outside of this forum who'd never heard of him before he moved to the outfield. He's a really good outfielder and still has the potential to be even better. And then what happens in two years when Moncada is ready? We move Mookie back to the OF? I thought we learned our lesson about jerking around your franchise players with Xander last year. Well I think the idea is to get Jackie Bradley's glove into the outfield next year full time, which probably won't happen unless either Mookie or Hanley changes positions or we get rid of Hanley or Rusney. I also think Mookie moving back to 2nd wouldn't be at all similar to Xander moving to 3b; Mookie came up playing middle infield, if he were going to struggle with a position change, it would've been moving to the outfield. That being said, I don't think Pedroia at 3b makes sense, because then we have to work out what to do with Sandoval, and I'm not in favor of trading him at the absolute lowest possible trade value
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 20, 2015 11:50:54 GMT -5
I find it super unlikely that he would offload Betts or Bogaerts- they were borderline all-stars at premium positions this year at 22. It would make 0 sense, and is certainly not in line with Dombrowski's track record. The only deal I can remember in which he surrendered a young, established big leaguer was the deal for Price, but he actually upgraded in that deal. Don't think we're going to be shopping around for a better shortstop any time soon. I think the guys most likely to be traded in any major deal are Swihart and Margot, and possibly someone like Owens. I'd say Devers is on the list as well, though I hope he's not. I doubt Espinoza would be traded, because however positive the scouting reports, he's still 17 and in the GCL. Way too much risk to headline a deal, way too much potential reward for us to deal him at this stage
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 13, 2015 13:38:42 GMT -5
Not to mention we have in-house solutions at 2B now and in the future and we have several holes to fill. You put it in parenthesis but I think it's the central aspect. I'm not a believer in Hanley to 1B - notably because I think he will need an adjustment period and will feel it's not worth putting in the work when he's going to be moved to DH once Ortiz retires anyway. Better leave him in LF for one more season. But then we've also got a significant investment in Castillo and I still want to have the best defensive CFer in the majors. I suppose you could barely squeeze Mookie in there if you decide that JBJ and Castillo form a platoon, but really the most convenient thing would be to just move him to 2B. In a way, it's really hard for Mookie-the-outfielder and JBJ to both be starting players monthe same team because they both lose too much value if you move them to a corner. I don't agree that moving mookie to a corner costs him a ton of value. Carl Crawford was an extremely valuable defensive player in left field for the Rays for years. No reason Mookie couldn't play left with Castillo in RF, Bradley in CF and us with the rangiest outfield in baseball. I get that having the monster minimizes the impact of a speedy left fielder, but even so, I think that would be fine. I would much rather see Mookie in a corner, Pedey at 2b and Hanley at 1B next year than deal Pedroia and keep Hanley in LF
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 13, 2015 10:01:01 GMT -5
What masses are wrong? It's more a realization of reality - the Red Sox aren't inclined to deal Pedroia no matter if the masses say get rid of him or keep him. The masses don't make trades. The front office does. The masses that thought we were not rebuilding. The masses thought that Pedroia cannot under any circumstances be traded because he's (input poor explanation of said favorites binky here) a "dirt dog". The masses that told me I could not predict his injuries going forward. What's sad is that it is over a year later and everything I claimed, time has shown to be correct. Several faces of the franchise have been traded since then and they always have been and there has been an injury both seasons since I made my claim. We explore ideas here all the time, including 'what can be done to fix the Sox'. I was ahead of the curve on this one. Often when someone proposes an idea that people are not emotionally ready to handle their knee jerk reaction is to ridicule it. Ok but you're also ignoring the fact that he played very well this year when healthy. So he pulled a hammy, you're nostradamus. It doesn't change the fact that he's signed to a very team-friendly contract that he will almost certainly justify even if he slips back to his power numbers from a year or two ago. We're not talking about crippling injuries that change careers here. And he's signed through 2020 and isn't particularly old, so he could very easily be an important player for us next time we contend, which could very easily be next year. Beyond that, it's really not like they couldn't deal him now because he's had a couple of minor injuries. If he played 140-150 games at the rate he performed this year, he's a 4-win player, and that's with much worse defensive numbers than we usually see from him. Despite your assertions, there's no reason that he couldn't be that guy going forward, given that he'll play almost all of next season at 32. He's had 2 seasons when he's played fewer than 135 games, and given that he's cheap and we have Brock Holt, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to trade him unless you can get a top of the line starter for him
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 12, 2015 12:41:51 GMT -5
Every time the whole "you don't have to be big to hit for power" thing comes up, the list of examples tends to lean really heavily on guys who are currently receiving social security checks or actually deceased. The game changes. I just sorted every batter who's had at least 1000 PAs in 2013/14/15 combined by isolated power. Of 34 players with an ISO of over .200 in that time, McCutchen is the ONLY ONE who's listed under 6'0". The list of elite power hitters in the game today is a parade of guys who are 6'3", 230 pounds. So yes, there absolutely is a physical profile for hitting for lots of power and Benintendi does not fit it. That's not to say he won't hit for any power, but realistically the best case scenario is slightly above average power. Which would be great for a plus-hit, plus-glove outfielder. Would Dustin Pedroia 2011 be a good ceiling for Benintendi? I would've thought that, given the power numbers form college and the fact that he's actually bigger than Pedroia, his ceiling is probably a little more power, maybe not quite the average, but I definitely wouldn't be complaining if that's where he ends up
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 12, 2015 11:28:22 GMT -5
I've noticed over the last few games that teams were pitching him inside and he's been pulling the ball a lot more and hitting it hard. The power will be there on those inside pitches. The power is never going to come if they always pitch him outside. But in exchange for that, he'll be a .300 hitter IMO. Not that it's an easy adjustment to make, but I think he really needs to develop the ability to drive the ball hard the other way, and the big thing outlined in that article is keeping his hands back, which you can really see with the Gomez video. I think if/when he demonstrates the ability to do that, pitchers won't keep basically only pitching him away as they currently do. He's obviously still a good player if he keeps playing short the way he has been and maintains the ability to hit for a high average, but in order to approach his ceiling, i think he has to develop at least some opposite field power
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 12, 2015 11:09:18 GMT -5
Who has better raw power? Chavis or Benintendi? Fangraphs has Chavis as a 60 and Benintendi as a 55 as of the draft
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 12, 2015 8:56:26 GMT -5
Well, Margot's probably top-40 or better in postseason lists. That's about the going rate for pitchers with a year to play or less. Throwing in Porcello and paying $28M to do so to get one year of Strasburg seems like a pretty big overpay. Basically, they'd be giving away a #3 who'd cost pretty much what a #3 costs (with salary relief, about $13M a year) who's entering his prime and has four years of control. Or, they're giving away Margot. I still have hope for Strasburg, but less than I did, and I just don't see him doing a 1-year morph into the real deal all while deciding to forgo free agency. I think this is a trade that neither side would really want to do. We'd be selling low on Porcello, dealing away a very good prospect in Margot (who actually has ranked as a top-30/top-20 guy on midseason prospect lists), and eating money for a rental, and the Nats would be buying a guy who's pitched horribly this year and selling a guy with a ton of name recognition and potential, if nothing else. I think they could get a deal that makes more sense for them if they're going to deal for Strasburg, and if we were going to target him, I'd rather see if we could get him as a free agent, hopefully coming off another down year or something. Even Boras can't convince teams to throw a boatload of cash at a guy who's been hurt and inconsistent for most of his big league career
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 12, 2015 8:52:09 GMT -5
I think Moncada and Benintendi are our 2 best prospects.Their athleticism separates them from Devers IMO. They both split next year between Salem and Portland. Arrive in Fenway to stay around 4th of July 2017. I disagree. I'm not putting too much stock in Benintendi's numbers in Lowell. He's 21 years old. How would Margot or Devers be doing in Lowell right now? Until he produces in Salem, I'm not going to be convinced he's higher than Guerra on our list. I really think you have to factor pedigree into this, especially when it comes to Guerra. Yea he's having a great year, but if memory serves, the SAL tends to inflate power numbers, especially in Greenville, and the power Guerra has shown isn't at all in line with previous reports. I also think it's reasonable to ask what Benintendi would be doing in Greenville- I don't think it would be too much different now, given that he's had time to adjust to wood bats. I agree that Devers and Margot should definitely rank ahead of him, but I don't think it's as far apart as you're implying
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 11, 2015 16:46:10 GMT -5
How does a team rank near the tops in both hard and soft contact? What does that mean in terms of the pitching staff/defense? Well they're right around the middle of the league in hard contact, not really near the top. In terms of defense, it means, shockingly, that our defense is terrible, because they've been incapable of turning lots of soft contact into outs. And pitching-wise, my thought is that it's indicative of the kind of pitchers we have: Miley and Porcello, at least, are guys who don't have the stuff to get away with poor location. When they're on, lots of weak grounders, when they're off, they get shelled
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 11, 2015 11:01:43 GMT -5
So the Boston radio media is is trying to turn him into the Manziel of baseball. On a more credible note, his 15% IFFB rate needs to go down, especially considering that Benintendi is only in the NYPL. Hard to get away with that without hitting for a lot of power, which I'm not sure Benintendi will do in the majors. Seems like the best way to get him to adjust would be letting him see more advanced pitching for a couple weeks
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 11, 2015 9:05:34 GMT -5
I looked at the spray charts before I posted. If you look at 3 years, it looks a lot better than if you look at each individual year because there are just so many dots you can't get a hold of how many there are. 6 of his 30 home runs are to left this year. He hit 5 in 2014. In 2013, he hit a ton, but he's probably not that hitter now. Probably a lot of flyballs to left in Baltimore that would be off the monster or sneak into that first row though. I'm not sure I like the idea of signing him, but I don't think he'd be a disaster by any means
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 10, 2015 15:27:24 GMT -5
The more I think about the team going forward, the less sense having Hanley in the outfield makes. Either Bradley gets dealt this offseason, or we move Hanley to 1B. Admittedly, there seems to be some reluctance about that, but we're obviously not sitting Mookie so that Hanley, Bradley or Castillo can play, and platooning Castillo and Bradley makes 0 sense from a player development standpoint. It also makes no sense to throw money at a free agent 1B when Hanley doesn't fit at his current spot and we need all the cash ownership is willing to spend to improve the pitching staff. Not to mention that an Betts/Bradley/Castillo OF would clearly be pretty helpful to any pitching staff
|
|
|