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 joshv02 on Dec 12, 2013 15:00:15 GMT -5
Only because our expectations for Gomes were so low. Gomes was a horrible fielder last year - in Fenway or out. I've seen worse, but he was really bad. Drew and Victorino had a great defensive reputation and didn't play outside of the bounds of what the publicly available data would suggest. Napoli obviously made great strides at 1B, but they originally were looking to sign him as a 100-120 game C ( according to his agent), so I'm not sure how much proprietary defensive stats had much to do with his success - but we don't know either way.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 12, 2013 14:54:19 GMT -5
I'm astonished more people don't want to go over the cap. What brings you more joy, great Red Sox teams or Red Sox teams with great profit margins? Yeah, I don't really care if the Red Sox make a great profit or not. So, in the abstract, I don't care if they spend $300mm on their payroll. That said, they are going to have a budget of something, and whatever that is I care how they spend that money within that budget. I don't care what the limit is - only how effectively it is used. I agree - I don't see why people here care if that budget is $189mm or $289mm. It isn't their money.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 8, 2013 9:11:52 GMT -5
.286 includes his defense, .268 is his offense only. using minor league pbp data ... For a catcher. No problems there!
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 6, 2013 12:24:58 GMT -5
Hankees payroll: Rotation (42.40 AAV + FA) - Sabathia (24.40 AAV), Kuroda (16.00 AAV), FA, Nova (arb1, assume 1.00 AAV), Pineda (arb1, assume 1.00 AAV), Bullpen (7.50 AAV + FA) - Robertson (arb3, assume 4.00 AAV), Phelps (min, 0.50 AAV), Kelley (arb2, assume 1.50 AAV), Warren (min, 0.50 AAV), Betances (min, 0.50 AAV), Claiborne (min, 0.50 AAV) + FA LHP Lineup (108.87 AAV + FA) – Ellsbury (21.87 AAV), Jeter (17.00 AAV), Teixeira (22.50 AAV), Soriano (17.00 AAV), McCann (17.00 AAV), Gardner (arb3, assume 4.00 AAV), FA 3B, Suzuki (6.50 AAV), Johnson (3.00 AAV) Bench (22.10 AAV) - Cervelli (arb1, assume 1.00 AAV), Ryan (2.50 AAV), Nunez (min, assume 0.60 AAV), Wells (18.0 AAV) This assumes Rodriguez is suspended for the entire 2014 season. Total AAV is 180.87 plus the cost of three free agents (a solid #2/3 starter, a LOOGY and a 3B), plus 17.00 AAV in benefits/40 man roster, less 36.24 AAV the team is owed from other teams. That leaves approx. 27.50 AAV to fill out the roster and remain under the luxury tax threshold. That's basically what I have (+/- a few of the various guesses, some rounding differences, etc.). So, they can likely sign Tanaka or Choo, but not both, if they want to stay under 189 AND if Rodriguez doesn't play in 2014. I could see Tanaka and Drew or Infante, and some silly trade for Headley. That lineup would be fairly awful, though - potentially below average production from RF, 3B (assuming no Headley), 2B (assuming no Infante/Drew), SS, DH. And the staff would be good, but with some question marks (Pineda, Nova's HR rate, Sabbathia's trajectory, Tanaka's translation, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 6, 2013 11:32:55 GMT -5
The MFYs lose Cano but they have ton of money to spend now. The Yankees showing physical responsibility??? How much money do they have to spend before the luxury threshold since Kuroda just took 16 million? Assuming a hard cap of 189 (which is not likely): With normal assumptions for arb, benefits, and filling out the roster - roughly 25-30mm, assuming they don't have to pay a penny of Rodriguez's contract. That goes down if the suspension is less than a full year. Assuming no hard cap of 189: One billion dollars.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 6, 2013 10:26:11 GMT -5
Assuming 25 for Cano, 16 for Kuroda, 10 for benefits, 5 for misc 40 man players, 8 to randomly fill out the roster (I was getting lazy), then they would be just about at 189 +/- a handful, if and only if they don't pay a single penny of Rodriguez's contract. If the suspension is dropped to 50 or 100 games, then it seems pretty unlikely. Even if not, it seems pretty unlikely, though not impossible, but then they'd have no 3B, Jeter at SS, Ichiro at RF, and no Tanaka at SP, esp since his AAV will be higher than expected with the new bidding rules.
So, no.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 6, 2013 9:19:41 GMT -5
With Vazquez' defense, he just needs to OPS around .650 to be an MLB starter. Swihart, not Vazquez, was named the Red Sox minor league defensive player of the year. Vazquez has the better arm, but Swihart is the more complete defensive player. It depends on the composition of that .650 OPS. If he has a .290 OBP and .360 SLG, then he isn't hitting well enough to start unless he's Yadier Molina behind the plate. If he has a .325 OBP/.325 SLG, that is good enough to start. But it's pretty rare that a player who only slugs .325 will walk enough to put up a .325 OBP. Not impossible, for sure, but Gregor Blanco and Elvis Andrus were the only players (400+ PAs) who had a .325+ OBP with a SLG below .350. I mainly agree. Yes, there is a positive correlation b/w BB% and ISO. When ISO goes down, so does BB%. We don't know in which direction there is causality, if it isn't (there is a third attribute that cuases both), or if it is both/synergistic. In other words, when ISO goes down we expect that BB% goes down, and we don't know if (a) that is because pitchers don't fear the noodle bats with high BB rates, that (b) a causal effect of having a high ISO is the same as having a high BB% (i.e., a good eye lets batters hit the ball hard more often AND take more walks), or (c) that players with low SLG aren’t valued by baseball teams (there are only 19 players with 400+ PAs and a SLG below .350) [and incidentally, those that are have other ways to contribute – e.g., defensively] and what we are really seeing is survivorship bias in how GMs select rosters. What this means is that Vazquez could (a) be the exception along the lines of Blanco/Andrus, (b) develop more appropriate power, or (c) be someone in whom a team recognizes value enough to ignore the combination, or (d) flame out. The odds are always on (d), of course, but we don’t really know which direction it will go.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 5, 2013 14:12:54 GMT -5
Someone help me here: they already tendered Morales; I assume they cannot cut him without paying (at least a portion) of the arb award, right? Previously, you could cut an arb elig player and pay only 1/6th (then a higher proportion) of the amount if the cut took place earlier enough. I don't know if the new CBA carries that forward (and I'm not in a position to look)...?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 5, 2013 12:18:36 GMT -5
$5mm for a set up guy isn't bad. (Mike Adams signed 2/12; Affeldt 3/21; League 4/27.5[!]; Burnett 2/8; Broxton 3/21 - though, I suppose he may have irrationally been signed as a closer who never pitches, etc.)
And jmei will be happy, which is nice.
They signed a closer to non-closer $. That's nice.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 5, 2013 7:33:52 GMT -5
Also, just noticed these two: Billy Wagner comp for Henry Owens, Dennis Eckersley comp for Koji Uehara. The Billy Wagner comp is awesome for its complete oddness.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 4, 2013 9:06:23 GMT -5
I agree that there should be a mild presumption of competence amongst major league front offices, but they make plenty of mistakes, too. There was really no one who thought Saltalamacchia would get so little or that Hanigan wasn't worth a look at this price (pending the identity of the PTBNL, at least), on this forum or really anywhere else in the baseball blogosphere. Why do you think we were all so far off in our projections? RE: Salty, fwiw, Heyman's prediction article said: Agent: 3 years, $29M. GM: 3 years, $27.5M. Me [Heyman]: 3 years, $30M. So yes, he did sign for less than many thought. Wonder if he took a bit of a discount to play near home. I think the presumption should be stronger than mild, but certainly it is only a prior - not a stopping point in the analysis (and I'm glad you didn't take me to mean that), but merely a rebuttable prior. I think C is a very difficult position to predict contracts only b/c we can't (even semi) accurately predict real-life WAR there. For other positions, that is less true, and people outside the game have a better idea. I find it very unlikely that he took $10mm less money to play near home. Rather, I think it more likely that Heyman talked to an N of one, and that N didn't bid. For Salty, I mentioned this elsewhere, but there are multiple valid comparisons offensively and the real question is his defense. Contracts in baseball are about predicting future production, and teams use multiple methods – a method is to compare similar players. One comparison is John Buck, who entered free agency at a similar age (after 29 vs. after 28) with a similar 3 yr weighted OPS+ (105 vs 107 albeit in fewer PAs), and a similar reputation on defense (bad, though he allowed many fewer SBs by having fewer attempts). He signed for 3/17 three years ago, which, with inflation of 5%, pegs directly to 3/21. I expected more than that – 3/24 or so – but in that ballpark. (Clearly, I'm not that good at this, or I'd do it for a living, so don't take that to mean that I think I know better.) The Red Sox clearly did not expect 3/30, or they’d have been tempted to offer a QO. If a player signs for 3/21 without a QO, then clearly they would have (assuming rationality) accepted the QO at 1/14, as we should assume a QO knocks off something like $5mm from the expected contract. So, I think the Red Sox understood his market pretty well. If we assume that – and that seems right – then MLB general managers simply don’t like him. As for Hanigan, the Pittsburgh Pirates would prefer to deal cash to get Chris Stewart – with the career 59 OPS+ - then to give up what the Rays did to get Hanigan. Certainly, they could be wrong – but there are plenty of teams that simply are not that interested in him. For example, the Orioles have a career minor leaguer as their backup catcher; the Blue Jays don’t have a backup C, unless you count Josh Thole; etc. Many teams valued crappy players as better alternatives as a backup. Now, it could be that they are all wrong – teams are often wrong, of course. How many folks passed on Jose Bautista, freely available without the ability to choose? But, being part of the herd (when the herd is composed of ‘experts’) isn’t irrational, even if wrong.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 3, 2013 20:43:33 GMT -5
Why do we suppose no one else traded for Hanigan? Why do we suppose that Salty without a QO offer was only worth 3/21?
Do we just assume irrationality prod we assume that no other ML teams valued these players as highly as folks here did for some reason?
When presented with contrary evidence, we should examine our positions, not become entrenched.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 3, 2013 12:37:49 GMT -5
Oh, and needs more Microsoft paint cartoons!
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 3, 2013 12:34:25 GMT -5
jmei: You are arguing from a position. The zips defensive ratings are incomplete, but you are willing to look at AJP's WAR from 2004-2011? That isn't consistent.
Their offensive projections are similar and they have roughly the same framing stats over the larger sample - ten runs over ~40/60k pitches. They are both basically expected to be neutral for 2014. Its likely a 5ish run expected difference over the course of 2014.
Sure, Salty is likely the better player. But not by enough to lose sleep over, considering the unknown regarding defense and contracts.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 3, 2013 10:24:45 GMT -5
What is the expected difference b/w Salty and AJP- 6 runs on offense and a relative wash on defense (pitch framing has them roughly equal over their careers - 40k vs 60k pitches)? There is a little more uncertainty due to age, but not due to performance.
Sideways is right. It is intentionally sideways.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 29, 2013 23:24:24 GMT -5
[quote author=" jmei" source="/post/56311/thread" timestamp="1385783421 (Of course, this makes the decision not to offer a QO to Saltalamacchia totally senseless, which many of us have argued since that decision was made.)[/quote]Which is, of course, why we should reject that criticism. We shouldn't assume irrationality, esp among people who are obviously good at things. Anyway, the answer could just be that they agree: and they don't think he is average. (A proposition that is obviously debateable but one which isn't hard to believe if you play around with the numbers a little.) But in all events we'll see soon enough: either someone will give him 13+mm or they won't.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 25, 2013 11:47:32 GMT -5
Keep in mind that Rodriguez's money will likely be off the cap in 2013. The Hanks only care about being below the cap this coming year. His whole contract is considered off the cap even if his ban is reduced to 50 games? No; the prorated portion when the club does not need to pay his salary is off, which is what Adam meant. If it is 50 games, its 50 games; if its 211 its next year and part of the following; if its somewhere in between it is that.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 21, 2013 8:28:39 GMT -5
I just learned that Ben Broussard (a) played baseball in 2013 and (b) is still only 36. Thank you, SP projected rosters page! No, seriously, while I may not agree with the choices all the time, the roll over feature for potential acquisitions is awesome.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 20, 2013 22:32:54 GMT -5
The br bullpen is a wiki with very few contributors. It isn't br and without links you have no real reason to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 20, 2013 8:24:50 GMT -5
TradeJohn Lackey + to PIT for someone like Tallon who still has upside but has underperformed so far. Taillon, the number #19 prospect in baseball at the start of 2013, #11 at the mid-season point, who made it to AAA as a 21 year old and struck out a batter per inning? I don't know what teams will give for Lackey, but I don't think "underperformed" is the right description here. You'd be trading for one of the top, MLB ready, young pitchers in baseball, who doesn't need to be on the 40 man roster yet. That's gold. Maybe it is worth it for Lackey (I doubt it), but the only way he underperformed is if you think anything less than being a top 30 MLB pitcher is underperforming.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 20, 2013 8:17:08 GMT -5
In thinking about jmei's point in the Shaw thread re less of a need for a Mauro Gomez type 1B backup in AAA... who is the backup CFer after Victorino? The depth chart goes:
1. Bradley 2. Victorino 3. Hatfield??
I suppose it is Kalish, but, well, that doesn't inspire a ton of confidence. Last year the #3 CFer was Bradley, for example.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 19, 2013 17:10:54 GMT -5
Agreed in general (that is what the parenthetical was meant to convey), but it is more than merely a qualitative approach. You can take a more rigorous quantitative approach and just translate the numbers. I'm just being lazy.
Anyway, it sounds like the consensus from the SP folks is that he'll start in Portland, which will be a slight disappointment to me (I care more about reps than outcomes, typically). After ~700 AA PAs, I'd want to see a promotion. I think he is a better player than given credit for, but I've seen him only a time or three, and what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 19, 2013 14:43:11 GMT -5
You shouldn't ignore any sample, no matter the size. If you add in his AFL numbers (a really cheap, easy method, but totally imporper), his 2013 line increases by 50 points of OPS.
Anyway, I expect him to be in AAA at the start of 2014. He has 733 PAs of AA + AFL. His BABIP was excessively low, which, as we all know, could easily be due to his skill set. But, it could also be poor luck.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 19, 2013 11:31:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 14, 2013 13:07:28 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 4m Owner: "Serious reservations" among clubs about posting process. Possible no agreement is reached, which means no Tanaka this off-season. This falls under the category of "it just takes one." Even if 29 owners have "serious reservations" about the posting process, someone won't. I'd be very, very surprised if Tanaka isn't in North America in 2014. Isn't the issue that the posting agreement expired and it needs new MLB and NPB approval? In this situation, I think it takes collective action. Which raises its own host of issues: do the (insert team) seek to block approval in order to block (insert term) from obtaining a player?
|
|
|