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 29, 2015 14:27:29 GMT -5
Agreed-- then why destroy the phone in the first place? Keep it in a safe somewhere so they have one less arrow to sling. Again, this is just meaningless drama. They have all of the information they need and destroying the phone doesn't prove anything. Yeah, my point is simply that whether or not the phone was destroyed is really immaterial, it just looks bad. So I agree, destroying it was dumb, but it also makes very little difference to the actual case- the NFL had access to all the information it should have needed, including Brady's messages to Jastremski or whatever his name is, and the records of those messages still exist. So, unless Brady's really dumb, which I don't think is the case, I think it's just the NFL scoring publicity points that don't hold up when you examine the facts of the situation
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 14:12:35 GMT -5
As for Hanley, his athletic ability has suffered greatly with all of that extra mass he has put on. Huge muscles do not necessarily mean huge power numbers. I would like to see him drop some of that heavy muscle and get back to being able to move faster in the field and on the base paths. I think that might be easier said than done, given his age, shedding muscle weight might be difficult to do without losing strength/power. Not the same sport obviously, so it might not translate, but think of Roy Jones Jr. dropping weight from heavyweight back down to light heavyweight- he was never the same. I also think he's athletic enough to play LF, he just loafs sometimes, takes bad routes and misreads the ball of the wall and in the air way too often.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 13:52:36 GMT -5
Yea but if you turn the phone over, that's no longer in you're control, and I wouldn't trust the NFL to abide by any agreement limiting their access personally You don't have to turn over the phone to the NFL. The Wells report suggestion of running keyword searches would have kept the phone in Brady's possession throughout (Wells was willing to trust Brady and his attorneys to run the search themselves). You could also have a trustworthy mutually-agreed third party hold the phone in escrow and conduct any necessary analysis. From the limited amount of knowledge I have of cellphone service providers' practices, that would still be possible without the phone physically existing, so the destruction of the phone itself becomes pretty irrelevant
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 13:46:54 GMT -5
Only a naif would trust the NFL with the sensitive info that was undoubtedly on that phone. There are a whole host of potential ways to mitigate the risk of leaks. Some were discussed in the Wells report (e.g., only turn over texts which included certain keywords). Others easily come to mind. Yea but if you turn the phone over, that's no longer in you're control, and I wouldn't trust the NFL to abide by any agreement limiting their access personally
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 13:43:33 GMT -5
You can talk about this all day, but there isn't anyone alive who could have predicted that Hanley and Pablo would have the lowest WAR of anyone in the majors this year or that Porcello would have been one of the worst starting pitchers in the league. I really don't know how you avoid disasters like that. I mean part of me thinks if the Red Sox signed Nelson Cruz instead of Hanley, it would be Cruz that would be the worst player in the majors and Hanley would have 3 WAR on another team. How is this happening? I don't think prediction is the problem. I think it's something else. Honestyl, Hanley (on paper) seemed like the better player. Younger, better athlete, better overall track record as a hitter, no steroid use suspension. Lots of red flags for Cruz, only a couple of effort/personality related ones with Hanley
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 12:52:38 GMT -5
He should have just said "no, I have personal information on there that I know will be leaked". They already have the phones of everyone involved who he may have called or texted so there is no need for his phone.Yea that's the other aspect that makes no sense. It really seems like the NFL is conjuring up controversy over discipline so that people forget about the fact that at least 5 guys who were either in, approaching, or not far removed from their athletic prime retired this year, including some who hadn't made much money at all (Chris Borland, Anthony Davis). I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but the NFL is just so shady and this whole thing has been so senseless and dragged out that I have to think there's some kind of ulterior motive. Or just mind-numbing incompetence of an order that hasn't been seen before
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 10:42:25 GMT -5
Even conceding the entirety of the above, you should absolutely still retain the phone (a) in case it could be used as a bargaining chip (e.g., the NFL might say "if you give us the phone, we'll eliminate the suspension") and (b) in order to avoid losing the P.R. battle (which, as the Rice saga has taught us, means a lot). I mostly agree, although again, I do think that Brady, given his profile and the fact that he seems to like whatever privacy he can get, would be the type of guy I would expect to switch phones every few months anyway. I also am pretty sure it's impossible to lose the PR battle with Roger Goodell, especially in a case like this where the worst thing that could've happened is Brady telling some dude to let some air out of a few footballs. Especially cause Goodell just suspended Brady for the same amount of games as Greg Hardy
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 10:13:28 GMT -5
I think Brady and the Pats will lose in court. Time will tell. Why? Saints and Peterson won. Gotta say, the phone thing IS fishy. Even if you're getting a new phone, you don't have to throw the old one out. I still have my last two. Although that's more out of laziness than anything. Well his explanation kinda makes sense, if I were him I'd be worried about anything coming out- look at all the pictures that have come from hacked celebrities that make their way on to the web. If it weren't for the fact that he apparently destroyed it the day he was interviewed by Wells, I'd assume he's just trying to keep nude Gisele off the web. None of it makes sense anyway though, he clearly wasn't going to turn his phone over, so I'm not sure if it makes any difference
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 9:45:04 GMT -5
Turner is still a young guy. He's developed well under Stephens and could be a very good piece of this squad especially if his price to resign is low. I like his game a lot and think he's more valuable to this team than Avery Bradley. Way more versatile and will probably be cheaper. Plus Rozier can hopefully replace Bradley. Wasn't a fan of the Bradley extension to begin with and regressed a lot last year. His defense was not very good and he's supposed to be great. It was good but that's not acceptable from him. Well his game we can agree to disagree on, but I don't think he's more valuable than Bradley, especially cause he can't really shoot at all, especially from deep, or even long 2s. If Bradley is allowed to play a less prominent role in the offense, which he probably will this year, I imagine that his defense will recover somewhat. Also, Turner is a definite minus defensively, just doesn't have the lateral quickness to stay with guys. He's also 26 and will definitely be looking for a raise next year which I wouldn't want to pay him. He's fine at $3m/year, when he's asking for $7-$8m next year they should let him walk
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 8:21:20 GMT -5
Why would you walk away from Turner? Cause you could probably get some value for him and he's annoying, I hate that they run the offense through him so much, I'd much rather see the ball in Smart's hands. Basically the same reason the Sox just dealt Victorino: move an older guy who's average at best to allow younger guys to develop
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2015 14:21:01 GMT -5
Sandoval at 1B? People complain about Napoli already, and he's been a better hitter than Sandoval this year, not to mention that his defense is way better than Panda's would be. I don't entirely disagree, because I think there's a better chance that Sandoval bounces back somewhat and returns to being a useful player next year without adding a position change, but I don't buy that he'd be worse than Nap at 1B. Fangraphs has Nap as a wash (0 DRS) this year, and Sandoval has the reflexes and hands to be (potentially) a very good gloveman at first. I think switching him over there might encourage him to care less and eat more though, so I'd rather keep him at 3B
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2015 14:04:40 GMT -5
No one will claim him. Nap's pro rata salary is almost $6mm. If they do, let him be claimed. There's no prospect return coming worth anything close to $6mm. Serious question: at this stage, is the $6m worth anything to us? It's pretty much a sunk cost, doesn't matter if we pay it or not. I'd eat all of Nap's salary if it got us anything at all in return. I don't remember where we are with the luxury tax now admittedly
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2015 13:06:31 GMT -5
I don't think there's any chance San Diego does that deal without at least a couple of decent prospects attached. At least Shields can be a decent Major League player at present, Craig is hitting badly in AAA. I also don't really like the idea of paying Shields ~$20m per year to be a back-end starter, which is what I think he'd be pitching half his games in Fenway, where he's never pitched well
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2015 12:49:26 GMT -5
We need to trade Margot ASAP! Before his value falls. Midseason top 50 have him at 24, 14 and 41 WOW! I will admit he had some good numbers in 2014, the power he showed got me thinking maybe I was wrong about him and he was going to be a Mike Cameron type player. But this year the power is gone, not only the HR but he's not even hitting doubles that much. Its all upside with him. I know he plays good D and can steal some bases, I'm just not sold on his bat being good enough to think he is 14th best prospect in all of the minors??? I'd say he is a top 100 guy but I would have him ranked in the 50-100 range. I just don't see a Boegarts, Betts or Swihart with him. He reminds me of Jackie Bradley, not as good at D(but few if any are), much better at stealing bases, not as good of a hitter, but could develop more power in time. If he can be the center piece of a Hamels trade I do it in a heartbeat. Also lets not kid ourselves we will need to include at least one more top 10 prospect. If its someone like Brian Johnson I can live with that. I could live with Johnson as well, but I wouldn't give up Owens, Devers, or Kopech off the top of my head. As for comparing Margot and Swihart, I don't think they're that far apart. Margot already would likely be a well-above average defensive CF, Swihart is currently a poor defensive catcher. I like Swihart, but I'm absolutely not convinced he becomes an all-star catcher like some people seem to be, and I definitely wouldn't lump him in with Bogaerts and Betts, who have already fulfilled a good deal of their potential and are actually both younger than Swihart. Margot has a ton of triples this year, and he's struck out at an absurdly low rate. He's also 20, and listed at 5'11 170. Power could very easily come, especially as he already shows some and is supposed to have excellent bat speed. I wouldn't be heartbroken if he got dealt especially because his value is about as high as it could get, but I don't expect him to fall in terms of value. He's rated that high primarily because of his present skill set, not because people are expecting him to also develop 25 HR power all of a sudden, and he's proven to be pretty resistant to extended slumps, partly cause he makes so much contact EDIT: Margot also has an ISO in the .130s at both stops this year, which isn't incredible, but it's certainly serviceable for a guy with a good glove and very good speed
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2015 11:47:10 GMT -5
Worth noting: Kelly is at or near career-bests in first strike percentage, zone rate, and swinging strike percentage this year. He's got a 4.18 SIERA and a 7.34 K/9 in 2015, which are career-bests. Also worth noting: Clay Buchholz, through his first five starts, had a 6.03 ERA but a 2.91 FIP and a 2.96 xFIP. In his next twelve starts, he had a 2.20 ERA, a 2.49 FIP, and a 3.25 xFIP. Dismiss advanced stats at your own risk. Advanced stats at what put this team together Nobody claims they're infallible, but if you take the blinders off, they are the most predictive measures we have. This isn't a new thing. If you look at the correlation year to year between pitchers' FIP and ERA, it's stronger than ERA year to year. So sure, you can screw up if you disregard everything else, but just because the front office relies in part on advanced metrics doesn't mean they're wrong. Every team uses these stats to some extent, many more than the Sox. In short, that's a terribly weak argument
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2015 10:56:02 GMT -5
If the Phillies can get C Jorge Alfaro, RHP Luis Ortiz and OF Nick Williams (all prospects being discussed as possibilities along with Chi Chi Gonzalez and Luis Brinson) for Hamels they will have done well and should pounce on it. Seems like we are here. PHI asking for the following as the foundation of the deal (BA midseason top 50) [BP midseason top 50]{Sickels midseason top 75}: TEX - Alfaro (NR)[34]{just missed} or Williams (NR)[21]{26} LAD - De Leon (20)[42]{20} MFY - Severino (17)[28]{16} or Judge (13)[13]{30} BOS - Margot (24)[14]{41} SFO - Susac (PP) and Beede (NR)[just missed]{66}++ ARZ - Shipley (NR)[32]{NR} or Blair (NR)[NR]{48} and Owings (PP) Depending on what else we'd have to give up, I'd be ok with surrendering Margot for Hamels. If they were requiring any of the rest of our top-10 I wouldn't do it though
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2015 10:47:02 GMT -5
Come on man, I can see the allure of JBJ, but he has over 500 PAs in the MLB, while Rusney has little over 100 and was, at the time of his signing, a much better prospect than JBJ ever was. He's had a bad and injured 2015, but they shouldn't just flush away the investment. Or maybe they are showing him up for a trade as well. JBJ was ranked right around 35 pre-2014, in AA. I think your perception of Castillo's upside is off. Most sites had him as a Rajai Davis with maybe a little more pop. "Much better" seems like a gross overstatement, and it could be argued that JBJ was the better prospect, with more upside, at his peak. Before 2014 guys like Jim Callis considered him a potential .300/.380/.450 or so player (I recall a podcast where he though JBJ would be a better hitter than Ellsbury, just without the speed, and far better defense). I don't think Bradley was ever projected to hit for that much power, most people thought he'd top out around 12-15 bombs in his peak seasons. I also think Castillo was expected to be quite a lot better than Rajai Davis with a little more pop. They weren't the only team in on him at a high price tag, and there's a reason Rajai Davis has never signed a contract close to the one Castillo got
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2015 10:20:10 GMT -5
Sometimes a coin lands tails twice in a row. Fangraphs' projections regularly outperform Vegas odds and are as good a starting place as any. If you prefer anecdotes, the projections were far more bullish on the 2013 Red Sox than most. I would similarly be wary of extrapolating trends. Indeed, the impulse should be to regress to the mean rather than assuming a trend will continue. Plenty of veterans that most of us gave up for dead have bounce back years. Think Pujols, Rodroguez, Ethier, etc. To be honest, I don't even look at this projections stuff (It's like believing in the anti wrinkle creams effects IMO)'cause I simply don't believe in it but if you do, good for you and I won't expand the discussion further on the subject so let's agree to disagree. On the other hand, the players you mentioned those guys have been athletes with great plate discipline, Sandoval is a hacker trapped in a body of Sumo-like body and his defense is gone south...just like the other guys you mentioned above. Different stories. They're all also at least 7 years older than Sandoval. I buy that Sandoval may never be a good defensive 3B again, but arguing that he's done as a useful hitter cause he's fat is stupid on the basis of one bad season. He's been fat forever, and it hasn't affected his reflexes, even in the field this year. Being fat doesn't stop you from having good bat speed, hand-eye, and reflexes, so it shouldn't prevent you from being a good hitter. Look at Ortiz and Prince Fielder too while you're at it
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 28, 2015 8:21:34 GMT -5
I was going with the notion that that would constitute a "big trade" and those don't happen a lot. I would think it's just as likely that they walk away from Jones or even Turner potentially then there being a multi player trade out there. At this stage of the offseason, most teams are going into camp with what they have. Maybe a tinker or two. I think it's highly unlikely they just "walk away" from either of those guys, they could both probably bring back a 2nd rounder each in all likelihood, although I do agree some kind of blockbuster is unlikely
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 27, 2015 14:39:46 GMT -5
I think I'd be pretty content with Owens, Swihart and Guerra for Gray, and I don't think that proposal gets laughed at by Beane. I'd be happier dealing Swihart than Margot, just because Swihart seems like he probably is going to take a couple of years to figure out catching fully, and Vazquez will probably be better for at least the near future. I also think Margot's path is much clearer. In two years, I can easily see a Margot/Mookie/Bradley OF, which would have to be one of the rangiest outfield groups ever, and I think we've seen how much of a difference good outfield defense can make to a team/pitching staff (look at the Royals and O's).
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 27, 2015 13:36:34 GMT -5
I think contact was one of Bogaerts strength in the minors. He has elite bat speed and outside of 2014 has always made great contact. In the past he made it with more power, in time the power will return. He is adjusting to major league pitching. He always had strikeout rates in the minors straddling 20% or so, which is not terrible, but isn't great, either. He did bring it down to 17.2% in Pawtucket, which is a very slight difference from where he's at now, and he walked more then/probably took more pitches, which most likely explains the difference. Also, and I know this is a little flukey because he's had a lot of comparatively cheap doubles/XBH, but his ISO is only down 0.022 from last year, and his HR/FB has been cut in half. I think it's much more likely to be an adjustment phase, I don't know that he ever reaches his absolute ceiling, but if he can be a .300 hitter with good d at SS and 15-20 homers, he's a top 5 or 10 guy at a premium position, so I'd be betting on him over Syndergaard myself
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 27, 2015 13:24:23 GMT -5
“@jaysonst: #Pirates telling teams they’re likely to keep Pedro Alvarez - which would effectively end their hunt for other 1B upgrades” I think Napoli would make a good platoon partner for Alvarez if we ate his remaining salary, I don't think that keeping Alvarez would rule Nap out for them. He's still got an .823 OPS against lefties, Alvarez is at .188 BA and 0 homers
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 27, 2015 12:43:57 GMT -5
I haven't been thinking about his makeup or work ethic so much as his demonstrated ability to adjust and improve. I don't have any research to back this up, but I would bet players capable of making the initial adjustments tend to have more success at making further adjustments down the road. I could be completely wrong. Syndergaard also has performance downside though, he's been better thus far in the majors than he has been since A ball, I don't see that as a lock to continue either, although it certainly could, but major league hitters adjust as well as major league pitchers do and Thor isn't even 100 innings into his big league career. I don't think I'd do the deal either, but Syndergaard's AAA numbers at least were probably pretty severely distorted by pitching in the PCL, and he did lead the league in strikeouts while there. I'd be much more concerned with injuries than performance on his part
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 26, 2015 16:12:46 GMT -5
I wanna know why you think we don't have a chance next year.. Don't see any reason why we wouldn't The pitching and defense is still really bad. And of course, there is Farrell still around in all likelihood losing the games that are winnable. We also don't really even have a first baseman. Well we have a solid core with a bunch of guys that are gonna get better, and this roster is probably going to look significantly different next year. Not to mention I think there's a reasonably good chance that Farrell gets let go this offseason, I think he's a much more reasonable scapegoat than Cherington for this mess
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 26, 2015 14:56:43 GMT -5
I get Loyalty and Ortiz and Pedroia have earned it from the Sox, but it can't be blind loyalty either. Look at the Patriots, they show very little loyalty, but the team is better because they don't. As much as I want to see both player finish their great careers as members of the Red Sox, if the team is better off without them, we need to move on. I think this applies a lot more to Ortiz then Pedroia. I think a very good case can be made that going forward Hanley at DH makes the team better. If you could get a good package for Ortiz you have to think about trading him. Maybe just maybe a team like the Angles see Ortiz leadership and post season heroic as the missing miss and offers you a good return. Granted this is a Looong shot, but doesn't mean you don't at least consider it and see what's out there in a trade I think Ortiz has made it pretty clear he won't accept a trade, which means he's not getting dealt cause he's got 10-5 rights
|
|
|