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 Jun 14, 2013 22:38:33 GMT -5
Good news. Not too surpirised with the number to sign Denney as the other 29 teams passed on him at least twice in the draft. This could mean more money for other Post-10th round picks. Boldt was rumored to be looking for about $2.5 million, so I don't think he is back in play. How do you type this without seeing the contradiction. All you mean is that you prefer Boldt, who was passed over 600% more than Denny.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jun 14, 2013 22:36:54 GMT -5
Well I certainly hope Denney finds a new agent, because his draft adviser certainly doesn't understand the concept of market value. As someone pointed out earlier I really thought his floor was in the low $1Ms. Getting him for less is a "steal". I think most had him pegged as a first rounder, which would be at least in the $1Ms. That isn't how it works. The market is defined by one bidder. The only question is: present value of (risk x expected value in 3 years). That could be 1mm or 875 or 1.5 or whatever. But that is the only calculation. Not some hypothetical, non-existent market.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jun 3, 2013 11:42:14 GMT -5
Callis was asked directly about Stewart/Moran and he said that Stewart would be ahead but the other two I don't think they answer that directly or indirectly. He was "knocking" Moran as one of the first few picks at 7th I believe he'd be fine with it. Yes, it was clearly Stewart > Moran (which he said at the 13min mark), and the rest was reading into it, plus reading the various mocks. I think if you asked "Jim, tell me how the Red Sox rank these four players, and you must have an answer" he'd say: Stewart Meadows/Frazier Moran (This is not me transferring, as I don't honestly know enough about any of them to have a strong opinion.) I don't think he thinks that Moran is a bad player, or a bad pick at 7. I'm only guessing as to what Callis has heard regarding the Sox intentions. And again Speier, who is well connected, said some in the organization are high on Moran so the signals point to Moran being at the very least be in the conversation. Yes, I don't disagree. If I had to bet, I"d bet there are roughly 7 players the Red Sox realistically think they could pick. My only question is ranking the chances of each. I suspect there is a low chance of Bell being picked, and a good chance of Stewart/Frazier/Meadows, with Moran being in between those bookends.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jun 3, 2013 11:09:15 GMT -5
Just so people are not surprise. Alex Speier did say that some in the organization are really high on Moran so if he's there he'll be in conversation and could definitely be the pick. It probably comes down to who are the other players available. On the Speier/Callis podcast (which is fantastic), the Moran idea is left open, but considered a fairly remote chance (every few minutes Callis has to preference his statements with "I don't mean to pick on Moran again, but..."). Callis was clear (as he has been elsewhere), that it is pretty much Stewart as their first choice (assuming 1-3 are gone), with Meadows/Frazier in some order as the second choice. But, who knows until it happens.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jun 3, 2013 10:05:53 GMT -5
All of a sudden I'm seeing mock after mock with Colin Moran going to the Sox. Is this just coincidence, or is there some type of growing consensus that the Sox go with Moran? Who? SI and a few blogs that have no indication of reporting any news? (The BA "mock" was merely the BA editors picking who they would pick; it doesn't reference any actual 'news' and doesn't suggest that Boston would pick Moran.)
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 30, 2013 9:17:52 GMT -5
At #4 is Steward rep. by Boras? Stewart's agent is Derek Braunecker (same as Cliff Lee).(Deerrrrrr. Read second page, Josh.)
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 29, 2013 10:02:23 GMT -5
There are probably other players in the organization, or freely available who would be better options for the Red Sox bench but they can't play in the majors unless a player is DFA'd. Who in the org? If Bradley isn't in the majors, then Brentz is -- and he gives the team less flexibility than Bradley as he can't be DFA'ed either and can't cover CF and would be stretched in Fenway's RF. Hazelbaker? The DL'ed Mitch Maier? Perhaps there is someone who is freely available (but unless they have been DFA'ed or are a FA, you don't really know that), and chances are that Bradley starts in RF while Carp is on the bench.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 28, 2013 10:00:37 GMT -5
Typically, I'd think that going 12 for 10 is a typo, but with Cecchini I believe it.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 8, 2013 13:21:57 GMT -5
Now what will distract me from this paper? Honestly, day/morning minor league ball is one of my favorite things about the spring/summer. See, you need to do what I did. Take a "Leadership and Team Management" class in which you have to write your final paper about a situation in which you have to analyze failures in leadership. Hellooooooooooo 2012 Red Sox. This is a law school class? And I thought my curriculum was weird.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 6, 2013 18:26:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 6, 2013 11:50:28 GMT -5
. POOMA #s: Assuming $3.35 (see WSJ) per NESN subscriber per month, the Sox get about $165mm in NESN revenue without selling ads. I think the Dodger's $ is a bit oversold, personally. $165 million per year? And they do get ad money also right? thats my best guess. They get $3.35 per NESN subscriber, per month, and there are 4.1mm subscribers. The Sox are taking in risk as they can make more if the subscription base expands, or if the per sub price goes up. Obviously the same on the downside. The Dogers are essentially betting they can't do better than the Sox, with their downside covered.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 6, 2013 10:14:57 GMT -5
Right. $240-280mm (if that is the accurate figure) is a lot of money today, but we don't know the structure of the deal other than it is a purported 25 years (and $6-7bn). I'd guess that it is $125mm or so in year 1 with a 5% increase every year, or there abouts, but I've no idea. That gets to about $6bn over 25 years.
POOMA #s: Assuming $3.35 (see WSJ) per NESN subscriber per month, the Sox get about $165mm in NESN revenue without selling ads.
I think the Dodger's $ is a bit oversold, personally.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 22, 2013 12:56:45 GMT -5
Farrell has been underwhelming with his tactical decisions, I disagree. He used a C as the DH yesterday. He has also pinch hit for his Cs. He has shuffled Nava into the lineup early and often. I'm a bit agnostic (but leaning towards disliking) the baserunning decisions, but it is early. (They are likely at negative runs in any base-out evaluation of baserunning, but small numbers easily sway things.) I think he has been fairly aggressive. And he even had Nava bat in the middle of the lineup after a very short evaluation of his skill, and is basically doing a lineup position platoon with Victorino -- something that is relatively rare. His bullpen management has been pretty good, too (it isn't his fault that Miller still can't find homeplate in the second game of a double header without a next-day off-day).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 11, 2013 10:38:58 GMT -5
That could all well be true - but I think you are telling a story where its not clear that one really exists. He had a bad year & he lost weight. Those two are not obviously correlated to me (e.g., he always had a long swing, that he made up for by only swinging in the places he wanted to).
It could well be that he just is a good mistake hitter. It could well be that he just had a bad year. It could be that he was pressing in order to make the majors. It could be that he was tired in his full season of catcher - etc. All of these can be told with just as possible of a story line.
That said, if his skill set actually degraded (an outcome that I find really hard to believe), then of course he is a DFA candidate. I certainly agree that it is his skill set that matters. I just find it hard to believe that he isn't, for example, better than Dan Butler, even considering his full defensive limitations. He may not be a starting C on a first tier team, or he may not be the starting C on the Sox - but, absent a more compelling story regarding his degradation of skills (and, I agree, that 2013 could provide that), I doubt he is cast aside that easily.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 11, 2013 8:13:40 GMT -5
I am still to be explained why Meadows is such an awesome prospect. It's like Bubba Starling never happened. You use Bubba Starling like its an insult to be a top 40 prospect who had an 850 OPS in his first season of baseball. I think this kind of makes the point regarding nitpicking - focussing only on the negative (high SO rate), without seeing the positives (good BB rate, great overall secondary skills, great athleticism) causes people to miss the forest for the trees.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 11, 2013 8:09:01 GMT -5
Oops, Lavarnway is actually 25, not 24. So he really needs some offensive success at AAA this year. No - I don't think this is ever the right way to look at things. Lavarnway made it to AAA - that means he has shown the ability to be a ML viable option. At this point, he needs to be good enough to make the team fulltime by the time he is out of options. That is all. There is no magical clock tied to his age, from the team perspective. Obviously, his age at call-up relates to his ability to have a longer career, his peak, his HoF candidacy ( ), etc. But, if a player makes it to AAA, then he has no time frame to make the majors - other than his options status. Obviously, this is different for players who are marginal ML players - 28 year old 14th pitchers, 29 year old backup IFers, 28 year old defensively challenged RH hitters with little plate approach, etc. But, even they can carve out a career until they run out of options. But, the only real significant difference for Lavarnway is that he'll have one fewer option - his age is relatively unimportant at this point. After all, the difference b/w 24 and 25 isn't significant when it comes to expected ML peak for the ML team.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 8, 2013 12:05:31 GMT -5
Surprised people aren't paying more attention to sample size here. If Almanzar goes 0-for-3 with 2 BBs, he has the same OBP, and a higher SLG, as Coyle. When comparing small samples, I like to think of counterfactuals to make up the missing playing time difference. It doesn't take much for Almanzar to better Coyle's numbers given more PT.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 2, 2013 15:48:59 GMT -5
I had hoped that the thread would evolve into a discussion regarding where making decisions for the purposes of placating the fan base gets you but it appears that's not going to happen. It's clearly devolved so maybe it is time to close the thread. I think that was the point at which it devolved. The second rule of message board posting: if it can't be said in two posts, stop saying it.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 2, 2013 14:43:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 1, 2013 14:55:43 GMT -5
Christ does Miller suck.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 1, 2013 14:01:28 GMT -5
Baseball, finally.
That first PA was beautiful. Great eye.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 1, 2013 10:33:22 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is "kneejerk bashing." People are looking at the deal and discussing it on a discussion board. But, let's move the discussion out of the realm of nit picking over words:
He was under contract for the next 2 years already, so this is an 8 year deal (ages 26-34) on top of his current two years left. So, the question is if he'll be a 4 win player for ages 26-29, a 3.5 win player from ages 30-32, and a 1.5 win player at ages 33-34?
That is about the stretch limit of my expectation of him. So, yes, its possible. I think it slightly (but not dramatically) unlikely, however. I do give Daniels the benefit of the doubt, but that only gets me to give him the tie. Andrus could grow into a more dynamic offensive player, however; he is well short of the average offensive peak. If that happens, then he can add value where otherwise he'll be loosing it. However, I think that unlikely - so my expectation is that he likely has peaked in value, or at least has come close to it, and he'll not continue an upwards path. Texas is basically taking the risk that he'll either improve in other areas or not lose value in the areas he currently has value in (and which generally do lose value).
OTOH, you are certainly right that Daniels has a much better idea about how $15mm will be worth in 5-10 years from now than I do.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 1, 2013 8:54:35 GMT -5
Agreed. The aging curve for defense is very likely a straight shot down -- and if not, its a cliff relatively early in a career. He brings other skills (solid walk rate, good bunting ability) and he is incredibly young (a decade long deal combination of contracts still only brings him to his age 34/35 season), but it seems like a ton of risk. I'd have cashed out - and they still can - but teams (and all businesses) have a tendency to become more and more risk averse as they win more. It is a hard trap to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 31, 2013 19:36:22 GMT -5
Usually I like the stay headz (and am one) because they are less prone to hyperbole.
Not in this debate.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 30, 2013 11:55:11 GMT -5
Good point re Hassan. As an injury fill in, he probably would have been option number 1. Hassan, Kalish, Brentz... Then Bradley. The stars really aligned for JBJ.
Or he was the one who loaded Brentz's gun.
|
|
|