|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 30, 2013 8:56:09 GMT -5
Isn't the issue that Brentz shot himself? With so many lefties to start the year, he'd be perfect to compliment Nava. Lineras doesn't appear to be someone the FO likes enough to push so there were no obvious right handed hitting ofers to call upon.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 30, 2013 8:35:49 GMT -5
Profer isn't an obvious current upgrade to the Rangers. Plus, Profer came up already.
It just isn't unreasonable to bring Bradley up. I'd have kept him down but it's perfectly reasonable to do what they are doing.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 29, 2013 21:56:48 GMT -5
unless you know for sure that he's being sent down for 20 games at some point. Even that isn't logical as it makes more sense for him to miss 9 games than to miss 20 games. Its 20 days, not games. So its 20 days vs. 12 days, and likely 17 or so games vs. 9 games. Or, if he is optioned during the allstar break, its probably closer to 14 or 15 games. And, no, it isn't "logical" merely because 20 is greater than 12. What matters is who would be playing instead. Against lefties, Gomes is the better player (likely). Therefore, in a stretch of 6 games, 2 of which are against lefties, JBJ may start no more than 4 games a week. At times that would be as few as 2 (like it would be if they were at full strength at the start of the year). There is certainly a risk in keeping JBJ up now -- we don't know if Ortiz will be back, we don't know if Gomes/Ellsbury/Victorino will be healthy when Ortiz is back, etc.) but those risks relate to needing the player because he is the best option.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 29, 2013 21:22:16 GMT -5
Its been mentioned previously in this thread and in every thread across the internet, so I don't understand why this continues to be misstated.
Starting in the majors doesn't mean the team loses a year of control. It just means that instead of roughly 12 days of the championship year time he'd have to spend in the minors, he'd now have to spend 20 as he'll already be on the 40 man roster. So, starting in the majors means that Bradley will likely have to miss roughly 17 games instead of only roughly 9. If Ortiz returns in some sort of timely way, then its perfectly defensible to have Bradley go to AAA as otherwise he'd not start more than 4 games a week in the majors (Gomes is likely the better option vs lefties in left field, even considering baserunning and defense).
He is in LF because at some point he'll be in AAA and there is little reason to move a good defender to LF when he'll have to go back to RF relatively soon (I hope).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 1, 2013 11:21:44 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that the Guggenheim group that owns the Dodgers is made up of a discrete set of limited partners who are individuals and not entities, like FSG. It is not an investment open to Guggenheim Partners LLC for investment. There is obvious overlap, and I assume that they have contracts with GP LLC, but they are not the same entities.
If I'm wrong, let me know. This is more of an educate guess than actually seeing the docs.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 1, 2013 11:01:39 GMT -5
What does that matter? There is no valid way to compare interpersonal utility. If Weaver is happy with $85 and the place he is, and Grienke is happy with a gazillion $ and the place he is - great. Neither is right or wrong. Both are legitimate ways to order each personal preference.
Why we get hung up the morality play is beyond me. The player isn't 'greedy' (in any bad sense) for signing for the most money, and the owner isn't 'greedy' (in any bad sense) for wanting to sign the player for the least amount of money. Players aren't stupid for signing for less than they could get elsewhere. Etc Etc. Its all personal preference - which is all a-ok, so long as it isn't being a furry (which is just creepy).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Feb 27, 2013 15:22:50 GMT -5
Maggie from Burlington = Scaffolds? Nah - Bradley isn't a DR signing.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Feb 22, 2013 9:32:41 GMT -5
Stewart was then waived again, cleared, and outrighted to AAA,
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Feb 11, 2013 9:04:06 GMT -5
Mike Augliera, the Binghamton kid? He didn't make BA's top 30. Weird "sleeper" pick, no? I get that he led the NCAA in SO:BB ratio, but, uh. Really?
Aside: While I agree that Keith does have a certain sarcastic online persona, in the little interaction I've had with him outside of ESPN he seemed like a super nice guy. For example, when he was still with the Blue Jays (or maybe it was soon after her left?) he emailed people on Primer from time to time to correct people's misunderstanding of the various personnel rules (which, at that point were much less publicized and cataloged than now, thanks in large part to SP.com).
Sure, he doesn't suffer fools lightly - but, you have to see his twitter timeline to understand how many fools come out of the woodworks. (Though, it isn't the persona I'd likely adopt.)
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 24, 2013 17:23:58 GMT -5
Perfectly fine as AAA depth. Obviously, not a good starting 1B option. A bit weak at positional flexibility (or offense to overcome that) to be a good bench option.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 18, 2013 10:22:17 GMT -5
Morse's versatility is the ability to stand in multiple places and not get to the baseball I don't think Salty is a good fit for Seattle b/c they want Montero to be a starting C (their roster construction doesn't make a lot of sense if Montero is a DH), and you don't give up a significant asset for a player who plays the same side of a platoon as your starter.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 17, 2013 14:06:58 GMT -5
Keep in mind that a league-average player is now paid roughly $11m a year. Something about this doesn't sit right. That's post-Free Agency right? Yes. That is the ~free-agent value of a 2 WAR player. Floyd is likely worth more 1-1.5 more WAR, but will be paid about $5mm more (or the value of one win) So, a 5-10 prospect is probably an overpay. However, a ML reliever, or a lower ranked prospect (or both) would likely even it out. Basically, a 1 WAR player at minimum but without much upside to do better (or team control considering the length of Floyd's contract). Morales is paid a little more, but roughly that.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 26, 2012 16:28:49 GMT -5
Hanrahan is no Jon Papelbon - they won't offer Hanrahan a qualifying offer. At least, that seems fairly implausible.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 26, 2012 15:07:29 GMT -5
Joel Hanrahan's worst season in MLB was 2009: 64.0 IP, 73 H, 34 ER, 34 BB, 72 K Mark Melancon's best season in MLB was 2011: 74.1 IP, 65 H, 23 ER, 26 BB, 66 K Those are their best and worst seasons, and those years are relatively outlier-ish in each direction. Hanrahan is unquestionably better than Melancon. The question is by how much. Here's their MLB career averages: Melancon: 8.1 H/9, 0.9 HR/9, 3.2 BB/9, 8.0 K/9 Hanrahan: 8.1 H/9, 0.8 HR/9, 4.3 BB/9, 9.9 K/9 So Hanrahan has historically walked more guys but has been much better striking guys out. I'm not quite ready to concede that Hanrahan isn't better than Melancon. I think the question is really whether he's better enough given the players' different team control situations and to justify the rest of the swap. I do think that this does say something about what the Sox think of Melancon's mental toughness - something we wrote about in his bio here on the site based on his performance before this season. But, if you wrote about it on this site before the season, the Red Sox appearently didn't care and now do care. Hanrahan is unquestionable a better bet for 2013, but he also is paid ~$6mm more and you give up 4 years of control for 1. That is a weird trade for a team that is really an 85 win team with the addition, no? Obviously, Holt is a better fit on this team than De Jesus (it isn't close - left handed/options > not being on 40 man but not being very good). Hanrahan is a better player than Melecon in 2013. But, if I'm Pittsburgh I do that trade every day, and if I'm Boston I have to think about it. No?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 26, 2012 10:35:53 GMT -5
If there was less than a zero chance, I'd go with that. If the Sox weren't going to spend $12.5 million/year to re-sign Papelbon, they sure wouldn't give Hanrahan a qualifying offer of $13 plus million for a season. Right - there is no chance they will offer Hanrahan a QO. But they did offer Papelbon arb, and that indicates (as does an understanding of how they think) that they would have been happy going year-to-year at $12-13mm. It was length of contract, not year-to-year $ that was the Papelbon issue for this front office.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 5, 2012 11:03:46 GMT -5
More like Webster, or maybe even Barnes, just looking at some of the early prospect lists (Sickels, ect...) Right, Sickels has Myers above Webster. I think that will probably be the exception (or one of them) and that Meyer will be between Webster and Owens, rather than above them both. But, in all events, something reater than Owens (but still a pitcher) is for all intents and purposes Webster.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 5, 2012 9:11:26 GMT -5
I think most in baseball would put Meyer above Henry Owens (though it could be close). So, at least Henry Owens.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 10, 2012 13:33:49 GMT -5
Correct; the total signing bonus pool for 2013-2013 is $2.9*32*(industry revenue rate of growth from 2011-2012). The amount is then distributed in descending order based on reversed standings. The total amount of the bonus pool may also be traded (but not a portion of that pool).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 9, 2012 11:53:22 GMT -5
Fenway, we probably have 150-200 players in our system. I noted 7 of the total. From memory, Baseball America rated our system at 19 last spring. That rating reflected then recent trades that diluted us. That is a fairly mediocre grade, no? 9th, not 19th. Not mediocre then; less so now.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 6, 2012 11:14:36 GMT -5
Maddon is a POS, and thats all I am going to say........ Perhaps, but if so its completely unrelated to the tweet I quoted.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 5, 2012 16:07:04 GMT -5
Joe MaddonVerified @raysjoemaddon Apologies to the writers for being late to today's pregame session. My pedicure appointment ran a little late.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 5, 2012 12:26:52 GMT -5
Younger than you, and Marilu, but older than the scotch or the goats.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 5, 2012 9:51:12 GMT -5
My dream scenario requires two goats, a bottle of 18 year old scotch, and never drafting Austin Wilson.
|
|