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.
Create your own adventure: You're the GM!
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Nov 10, 2013 22:04:49 GMT -5
Keep Dempster? Very interesting. Always gotta be mindful of the Ex-Cub Factor.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 10, 2013 22:19:54 GMT -5
No, I said something to the effect that IF we had enough data for Nike to project a $90 mil shoe deal for Lebron James when he hadn't even set foot on an NBA court yet, we had enough data to evaluate Abreu considering his 10 years of PT in Cuba's top league, plus a lot of international competitions. Come on man, I'm not even going to point out how wrong this analogy is, I'm just gonna let you figure it out for yourself. Quick, someone make everyone's favorite "if we can put a person on a moon, then certainly we should be able to..." false equivalency.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 11, 2013 0:34:50 GMT -5
Two notes: First, whenever I've played this game I've started with this rule of thumb: never weaken one position to strengthen another. Don't go sideways. Don't downgrade a position at the MLB level, and try not to trade a prospect who looks to be the heir apparent at his position, and/or an upgrade to the incumbent This is a good rule of thumb in the abstract, but it doesn't really hold water when a team is worried about the salary cap. That creates something closer to a zero-sum game, where you have to take from one to give to another. It'd be great to hold onto both Peavy and Dempster because (sing it with me, everyone!) you can never have enough pitching. Or, at the very least, it'd be good to keep Peavy. But they really need to dump one of them to make room under $189 million for everything else they should do, and it's unlikely you'll be able to do that with Dempster and still get substantial relief. So, I think the Sox will likely find the need to bite the bullet and trade Peavy so they can get better somewhere else. Since I've already advocated trading Peavy or Dempster, it's clear that I wasn't quite specific enough with my thumb. (No cracks as to where I may have had it located.) The rule permits you to reduce depth, especially depth you'll have trouble accommodating. And you are allowed to weaken a position in the short term until a prospect matures. Keeping all the pitchers currently on the roster would mean a pen of Uehara, Tazawa, Breslow, Miller, Demspter, and Morales, and if we all agree that we want to add a quality RHR, this sends Workman back to Pawtucket. Well, keeping Dempster has now actually made your bullpen worse, because Workman is better. And you can trade Peavy if you believe that, by June 1, he won't be as good as the best among Webster, Workman, Wright, Ranuado, and Barnes (and maybe Hinojosa and De La Rosa), and if he pitches like he did last year, I think that's a near-certainty. The rule of thumb does say that trading Lackey is a bad idea, even if you sign Hudson. I've said that it might be a great idea to trade him a year from now, but that would depend on a a second pitcher from the above group really stepping forward, or Owens coming along at Bogaerts speed. IOW, I dream of being able to trade Lackey a year from now without it being a significant rotation downgrade. (Hmm ... if they were to sign Hudson and trade both Peavy and Demspter, that would make it much easier to deal Lackey a year from now, because then you need only one young pitcher who matches him in quality. That's an interesting thought, especially so if Hudson actually wants to come here and will sign for below market value.) But the sort of trade I really think should be off-limits is, e.g., trading Lester or Buchholz to a contender to get a super-prospect to clinch a Stanton deal. That's just going sideways. And if you don't allow yourself to think like that, it may force you to be creative and improve the team without weakening it elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 11, 2013 6:49:59 GMT -5
No, I said something to the effect that IF we had enough data for Nike to project a $90 mil shoe deal for Lebron James when he hadn't even set foot on an NBA court yet, we had enough data to evaluate Abreu considering his 10 years of PT in Cuba's top league, plus a lot of international competitions. Come on man, I'm not even going to point out how wrong this analogy is, I'm just gonna let you figure it out for yourself. Here is exactly what I said: "We see reports from one source after another that "Abreu may not be that good", "He will feast on mediocre pitching" ...etc. I'm not buying it. They are lining up to sand bag their reports. He's for real and they know it. The guy has put up the best numbers in Cuban baseball for several years now and he is only just now apparently getting in shape for once. He's lost a lot of weight...etc. They all want to sign him or they wouldn't be sending their entire front offices down to see him. The guy is an animal. Count on it. The guy will be the biggest Cuban sign ever. If they knew enough about Lebron James to give him a $92 mil shoe deal before he set foot on an NBA court, they can evaluate Abeu and know with a degree of certainty if he will be a stud or not. The guy will blow right past a $60 mil deal."Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/1143/sign-dariel-abreu-update-signing?page=13#ixzz2kKvxytWFI just went back through the thread and the only guy who appeared to think $68 mil was a good sign ( other than me ) was Redsoxo407. Several people were saying it was difficult to project Abreu and we couldn't count on him making it...etc. Cuban baseball was considered A ball...etc. Basically few here wanted him at anywhere near the bid which was required. The question is do you feel the same way today? And will you feel that way next year? No one is guaranteeing that Abreu is going to make it, including me. I was stating that we had enough data to bid well past $60 mil for him, which is what Chicago ended up doing. Now at least one more of you thinks maybe that wasn't so bad a decision after all. After thinking through the luxury tax considerations, the limited cash available, the available alternatives...etc. I bet more than one of you think so now. It was a risk which was worth taking. The main problem being the optics of bailing on Napoli in the middle of the playoffs. Which was understandable. Lebron wasn't guaranteed to make it either but Nike was confident about him enough to bid $90 mil for his shoe deal. Very different situations which both related to being able to calculate the risks and pull the trigger on at least some sort of financial offer.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 11, 2013 7:01:19 GMT -5
I still think we blew it with Abreu. And will regret it going forward. He probably would have been solid Papi protection, who could have moved right in as DH after Papi left. And would have costs us less than what we are having to pay now for similar performance. We wouldn't be talking about moving Aramis Ramirez and his huge contract to 1st base now or having to sign the type of deal which will be required to retain Napoli multi year with probably less offensive performance. At least we kind of know what we are getting with Napoli but even that had some health risks attached. I don't think we end up with Napoli now but given the alternatives maybe he's the only realistic option. I know the FO won't go with Nava, obviously, but I'd pull the trigger with Nava / Youk or something like that at this point ( Carp/Youk? ).
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 11, 2013 8:10:37 GMT -5
We see reports from one source after another that "Abreu may not be that good", "He will feast on mediocre pitching" ...etc. I'm not buying it. They are lining up to sand bag their reports. He's for real and they know it. The guy has put up the best numbers in Cuban baseball for several years now and he is only just now apparently getting in shape for once. He's lost a lot of weight...etc. They all want to sign him or they wouldn't be sending their entire front offices down to see him. The guy is an animal. Count on it. The guy will be the biggest Cuban sign ever. If they knew enough about Lebron James to give him a $92 mil shoe deal before he set foot on an NBA court, they can evaluate Abeu and know with a degree of certainty if he will be a stud or not. The guy will blow right past a $60 mil deal."What? No, it doesn't work like that at all. There are a lot of occasions where a player dominates an inferior league and then his numbers don't translate to the MLB. LeBron James was the best high school sports prospect in ANY sports in recent memory, plus the NBA is obviously very very different to scout than the MLB. Hell, if you insist on comparing a situation that isn't at all comparable, if you just looked at LeBron back then you'd know he was NBA all star material, while looking at Abreu you just know he's a fat first baseman from Cuba who may or may not hit enough to overcome his defensive limitations.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 11, 2013 8:41:32 GMT -5
A problem with the logic -- beyond the differences b/w sports, leagues, the lack of knowledge we have about LeBron's Nike contract, etc. -- is the it simple is poorly done:
Player A was paid a lot before playing in the highest pro league and was very good, therefore player B who is also paid a lot before playing in the highest pro league will also be very good.
You shouldn't need 709 posts to defend that bad logic.
You don't have a bad ancillary point, but you overstate it by a lot. In fact, the idea that an expert (or repeat player --- like a baseball GM) wants to pay a lot of money for something is itself decent evidence of that something's worth; this is especially true when there is a large cloud obscuring the value of the thing we are looking at. It is, however, not particularly convincing evidence in light of the history of buyers who have wrong about valuation. So, using it as merely a datapoint is perfectly reasonable, but not having much more to the argument is silly.
It isn't that far from saying "a player who went to Yale is going to be good at calling a baseball game," in fact. Its using one datapoint that may be decent at pointing in a direction to overstate the argument to certainty.
And making post-after-post doesn't help the cause.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Nov 11, 2013 9:37:01 GMT -5
You could make an argument that Despaigne (sp) scouts better than Abreu anyway, so saying he is the best player in the history of Cuba (or will be the best player to come out of Cuba is not accurate on it's face. Not to mention you said you are not guaranteeing he will succeed, but in the same post you say "the guy will be an animal, count on it". Sounds like a guarantee.
How about this... We send a covert black ops mission to Cuba (it could even be headed by Lebron James seeing as he's mastered call of duty) , we smuggle Despaigne back to the US and sign him up. If Abreu is going to be an "animal" and put up obscene numbers at the MLB level than Despaigne must be better than Babe Ruth.
Back to the thread topic:
As a couple poster's have noted , this team just won a world Series. They aren't going to go nuts making a bunch of radical trades and signings. look for more of the same, short term deals that maximize the effects of role players and intangibles.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 11, 2013 9:41:06 GMT -5
Are you saying abreau is going to fill in for Ortiz production? Borderline HOF type production?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 11, 2013 9:48:54 GMT -5
I'd like to piggy back off of hammer... The team has been clear about its intensions of stockpiling young talent to augment the major league team. It's not going to trade a ton of that talent for one piece except in the rarest of occasions. Since it values depth so much I find it unlikely that any of their top 10 prospects are going anywhere this offseason, especially coming off a WS for a short term high risk acquisition. (See: Ramirez trade and Ranaudo or Barnes, etc). Those trades weaken franchises not the opposite.
Eric, and everyone else regarding Workman. The only way he's both starting depth and a possible bullpen piece is by starting the season as a starter. Once you put him on the major league roster in the bullpen, he needs to be erased from the starting pitcher depth.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 11, 2013 10:08:22 GMT -5
Eric, and everyone else regarding Workman. The only way he's both starting depth and a possible bullpen piece is by starting the season as a starter. Once you put him on the major league roster in the bullpen, he needs to be erased from the starting pitcher depth. I disagree with this. There are plenty of players who are stretched out in Spring Training as a starter, start the season in the bullpen, but nonetheless make a significant number of starts later in the season. See, for instance, Justin Masterson in 2009, when he started the year with three short bullpen stints, then made a longer piggyback relief outing, then made six fill-in starts, and then went back to the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 11, 2013 10:12:58 GMT -5
As a couple poster's have noted , this team just won a world Series. They aren't going to go nuts making a bunch of radical trades and signings. look for more of the same, short term deals that maximize the effects of role players and intangibles. I don't agree that it's necessarily all short-term free agent signings - and I don't see many proposals to totally remake the roster, so I'm not sure what you're arguing against? At the very least the Sox are likely to lose an elite talent in CF. Unless you're counting on Xander immediately playing at an elite level next year (possible) the team would ideally add an elite talent for at least one position to avoid regressing. Couple that with the potential for worse luck next year on the injury front (this year we lost a couple relief arms) from the over-30 cast plus the Buchholz question, and the team should be seeking some upgrades along with replacing some very good role players. And that isn't necessarily easy to do, or often wise to do, by just plugging in a few role players from the free agent pool. I think there is a core unlikely to be touched - Victorino, Bogaerts, Pedroia, Ortiz, Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Uehara - along with some other pieces that it doesn't make sense to move, such as Nava, Tazawa, Ross, probably Doubront - but that still leaves a wide open field of opportunity, including the potential for some significant moves. It's the idea that one trade happens for every one hundred discussed (or whatever) - some of those ideas discussed are probably significant moves, and if the Sox find the right partner they could swing a major deal.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 11, 2013 11:39:22 GMT -5
Trade my least favorite prospects/Peavy/Dempster for a big star. That's my offseason plan. Cherrington should be fired if he doesn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 11, 2013 11:45:41 GMT -5
Are you saying abreau is going to fill in for Ortiz production? Borderline HOF type production? I don't see why this is so hard to understand. I said he "would be the biggest Cuban sign ever" which means "get the biggest Cuban baseball contract ever" essentially. And he did get the biggest Cuban baseball contract ever. I didn't say he will definitely be Babe Ruth personified or a HOF level player but I did intimate that he could POSSIBLY be extremely good. We don't know how he will turn out. I essentially said he would "Blow right past $60 mil" in his contract ( which was what I was discussing, not that he would be Babe Ruth ) and he signed for $68 mil ...right. And unlike most of you, I thought he was WORTH THAT RISK. I don't know what he will do in the majors but he was a better bet, at that level of cash to the other options we had available, in my opinion. Of course Napoli is less risky. A safer bet. Better defensively...etc. We were in the middle of the playoffs and they didn't want to mess up morale...etc. I get all that. I just thought he was worth the $68 mil he signed for and we probably will regret not doing that deal. We had every opportunity though and passed right. He was in our development camp. We had a chance to research him a lot, more than any other team probably. They might well have seen something which caused them concern. If you look at the history we have had with Cuban players, and Cuban players in recent history in general throughout the league, and we seem to MAYBE SEE some culture shock issues. I accentuate the MAYBE SEE because I get mis quoted and mis understood over and over here. Look at the issues with Puig. For us, Padron seemed to wash out quickly. They had issues with Iglesias. Linares put up fairly decent numbers but they didn't seem to think he ever would produce. I think the Cuban catcher we signed had injury issues but they had high hopes for him also. Cuban players haven't worked out overall for us. I could only SPECULATE and God knows you don't want me to do that. Read Roberto Clemente's autobiography sometimes and you will see some interesting insights into the latin mind from that region. Issues of pride and resentment. Think about growing up in Cuba within the communist system and imagine how that MIGHT affect development. And attitudes towards Americans in general. Respect for American authority figures in general. Adjustment issues to a whole new world where money falls from the trees for these guys after they lived on less than $40 a month their entire lives. Women falling all over themselves for these guys...etc. Who knows what happened or if there were any factors beyond strict baseball talent involved in that decision. We probably will never know. Perhaps most importantly, some of these guys like Cespedes and Abreu were considered superstars in Cuba and they come here and are sometimes thought of as to a degree "A" level prospects. Whether the level of baseball is approximately A level or not ( yes I see ample indications that many here think of it that way ), they don't see it that way. They want to be treated with the respect they think they deserve and who wouldn't think that way in their situation? And they did win the world championships over and over right? And the older they are when they come here, maybe the less receptive to training and enculturation they might be in general. Less able to learn the language. Less adaptable to American training guidelines and work habits. And who knows what happens when these guys essentially win their lottery ticket. All that money into a situation where there was no money before. There are PROBABLY more inherent risks in such situations as compared to other prospects of comparable abilities. These things should be factored into the decision. Maybe the Redsox are acutely aware of issues like these that are not given appropriate consideration elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Nov 11, 2013 12:04:35 GMT -5
I know you are just spitballing, but culture issues seem to be the last reason for not singing Abreu seeing as we did just spend almost 5 mil on another defector.
I think maybe you are right in the fact that maybe they did see something.... But I think it's much more likely they saw something in his game that threw up some warning signs. Or maybe they just thought the pitcher was a better risk.
Who knows maybe they are sending a boat for Despaigne.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 11, 2013 12:04:56 GMT -5
Eric, and everyone else regarding Workman. The only way he's both starting depth and a possible bullpen piece is by starting the season as a starter. Once you put him on the major league roster in the bullpen, he needs to be erased from the starting pitcher depth. I disagree with this. There are plenty of players who are stretched out in Spring Training as a starter, start the season in the bullpen, but nonetheless make a significant number of starts later in the season. See, for instance, Justin Masterson in 2009, when he started the year with three short bullpen stints, then made a longer piggyback relief outing, then made six fill-in starts, and then went back to the bullpen. I share rjp313jr's concerns though. It's a major long-term health and performance risk. Sure, there's Masterson, and of course Chris Sale, but what about the Wade Davis, Alexei Ogando, Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, Neftali Feliz's, whose careers have suffered dramatically from being move back into the rotation? Those moves may have been more pronounced than what you propose with Workman, but I'm wary of letting him pitch too much before he settles one way or the other. You always prefer to see pitchers with high potential settle into one role, and while Workman physically reminds me of the Masterson-type who can alternate, it's a scary thought to significantly increase the injury risk (or simply diminish the effectiveness) of a promising 25-year-old. I still think we blew it with Abreu. And will regret it going forward. He probably would have been solid Papi protection, who could have moved right in as DH after Papi left. And would have costs us less than what we are having to pay now for similar performance. We wouldn't be talking about moving Aramis Ramirez and his huge contract to 1st base now or having to sign the type of deal which will be required to retain Napoli multi year with probably less offensive performance. At least we kind of know what we are getting with Napoli but even that had some health risks attached. I don't think we end up with Napoli now but given the alternatives maybe he's the only realistic option. I know the FO won't go with Nava, obviously, but I'd pull the trigger with Nava / Youk or something like that at this point ( Carp/Youk? ). I wouldn't consider his contract "huge" in the sense that it'd be a tough burden for us to take on. It'd simply be one year of a high AAV, but we don't need to make many high-cost additions (unless we're going to hand McCann a giant contract), and there's a good chance we unload a chunk of change by trading Dempster or Peavy. I'm alright with passing on Abreu. Of course we're going to consider what-could-have-been, because we're talking about a potential monster power bat who could have joined a lineup that's lacking in thump. Really, we underestimated Napoli's market, with most of us believing he'd be the one FA of ours that we could retain. As jmei has pointed out though, you'd have to be extremely hesitant to offer Nap 3 years: The z-contact % he put up is beyond alarming, so we're not just talking about some simple BABIP regression. I consider A-Ram a low-risk acquisition despite one year of a high salary. Sure, you can look at it as paying a decent stopgap option a higher salary than Papi, but it's also a far safer deal than splurging on Abreu or Napoli. We need to make a power addition, no doubt, but it's not like Napoli lit the world on fire throughout the season and thus we're faced with no alternatives with Abreu off the market.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 11, 2013 12:11:37 GMT -5
If the Red Sox end up passing on Mike Napoli for 3 years and Abreu for 6 years, all the better. I'm confident they'll have better options in years 2-6 even if year 1 looks questionable. And by better options I mean not saddled with negative value contracts.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Nov 11, 2013 12:19:17 GMT -5
The question I have is how much "Fandom Goodwill" did the team earn with this World Series win?
Can they go into the season starting as many as 3 position player rookies (depending on how you classify WMB) or do you need to bring in veteran reinforcements?
Are they playing with house money, meaning let the kids play. No one expected to win it all? Or do you keep the pressure on and spend on a pretty piss poor FA class.
The biggest strength this team had other than career/rebound years by the core was having high quality young depth. They had the ability to bring in quality replacements from within. Do you trade away some of that depth to increase the MLB talent level or do you further develop that talent and hopefully they turn into that "quality" .
It really depends how this FO views the off season when determining what moves will be made. They didn't win it all by signing the biggest names last off season, but an argument can be made (not by me) that they need to to maintain the high level of play.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 11, 2013 12:20:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't consider his contract "huge" in the sense that it'd be a tough burden for us to take on. It'd simply be one year of a high AAV, but we don't need to make many high-cost additions (unless we're going to hand McCann a giant contract), and there's a good chance we unload a chunk of change by trading Dempster or Peavy. It's not even a high AAV-- Ramirez would only count $12m against the luxury tax next year, which is not much more than what Abreu would would have cost ($11.3m). Re: starting/relieving I think you're reading too much causation into it. Pitcher performance peaks early, and so it's hard to say that being shuttled around starting/relieving is what cause those guys to get injured or pitch poorly. We can throw around anecdotal evidence all day (*cough* Michael Wacha *cough*), but at the end of the day, if the major league team would be best served by starting Workman in the bullpen and then going to him for spot starts as needed, it's a risk I'm willing to take. I'd like his role to be solidified after 2014, but I don't mind shuttling him back and forth for one year, especially since he pitched 140+ innings in 2013 and so innings caps are less of a concern.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 11, 2013 12:34:57 GMT -5
Eric, and everyone else regarding Workman. The only way he's both starting depth and a possible bullpen piece is by starting the season as a starter. Once you put him on the major league roster in the bullpen, he needs to be erased from the starting pitcher depth. I disagree with this. There are plenty of players who are stretched out in Spring Training as a starter, start the season in the bullpen, but nonetheless make a significant number of starts later in the season. See, for instance, Justin Masterson in 2009, when he started the year with three short bullpen stints, then made a longer piggyback relief outing, then made six fill-in starts, and then went back to the bullpen. Sure if it happens in the first couple weeks. That's hardly coverage for the year. So if your plan is to have him provide starting depth for the first month then fine and that's realistic, but if you have him in the bullpen to start the year you have to admit you're leaving yourself a very short window for him t help you as a starter during the season.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 11, 2013 12:43:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't consider his contract "huge" in the sense that it'd be a tough burden for us to take on. It'd simply be one year of a high AAV, but we don't need to make many high-cost additions (unless we're going to hand McCann a giant contract), and there's a good chance we unload a chunk of change by trading Dempster or Peavy. It's not even a high AAV-- Ramirez would only count $12m against the luxury tax next year, which is not much more than what Abreu would would have cost ($11.3m). Re: starting/relieving I think you're reading too much causation into it. Pitcher performance peaks early, and so it's hard to say that being shuttled around starting/relieving is what cause those guys to get injured or pitch poorly. We can throw around anecdotal evidence all day (*cough* Michael Wacha *cough*), but at the end of the day, if the major league team would be best served by starting Workman in the bullpen and then going to him for spot starts as needed, it's a risk I'm willing to take. I'd like his role to be solidified after 2014, but I don't mind shuttling him back and forth for one year, especially since he pitched 140+ innings in 2013 and so innings caps are less of a concern. I hear you. I'm not concerned at all about it in 2014, and I think his ability to shuttle roles would be extremely useful for us (but it's not practical for him to, say, become a full-time starter in the second half after serving 3+ months as a one-inning reliever). But if he pitches 50+ games out of the pen for us over the year and only makes a handful of spot starts, and then is asked to make 30 starts a year later, he very well may face some consequences from that 1-year reliever experience. It's all well and good if he entrenches himself as a quality setup man (or closer some day), but I don't think you can pass over the fact that you'd likely be taking something away from his promise as a future MLB starter. Of course, you can also argue (and this speaks to your point of pitcher performance peaking early) that he's not that good of a pitcher to prevent us from using him in the manner most helpful to the team in 2014 just to baby his long-term health.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 11, 2013 13:21:58 GMT -5
Here's a harsh reality - it makes sense to convert non-elite relievers to starters if you think it's possible they can do it because the gap between an okay reliever and a mediocre starter is bigger than the gap between an okay reliever and a Triple-A replacement. Even if there is an increased injury risk (which I'm skeptical of), think of it in terms of Daniel Bard. The difference between 2011 Bard and 2013 John Lackey, was bigger than the difference between 2011 Bard and 2013 Brandon Workman. So from the Red Sox perspective seeing if Bard could turn into a #3 starting pitcher (or better) was worth the risk of what happened. It can suck for the player if it doesn't work, but the potential payoff is huge as well - Justin Masterson is going to make a lot more money as an above-average starter than Jonathan Papelbon did as a borderline-elite closer.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 11, 2013 13:48:44 GMT -5
Here's a harsh reality - it makes sense to convert non-elite relievers to starters if you think it's possible they can do it because the gap between an okay reliever and a mediocre starter is bigger than the gap between an okay reliever and a Triple-A replacement. Even if there is an increased injury risk (which I'm skeptical of), think of it in terms of Daniel Bard. The difference between 2011 Bard and 2013 John Lackey, was bigger than the difference between 2011 Bard and 2013 Brandon Workman. So from the Red Sox perspective seeing if Bard could turn into a #3 starting pitcher (or better) was worth the risk of what happened. It can suck for the player if it doesn't work, but the potential payoff is huge as well - Justin Masterson is going to make a lot more money as an above-average starter than Jonathan Papelbon did as a borderline-elite closer. You're speaking the truth, for sure. Again, my point is how long can you ride him in the bullpen before you attempt to turn him into that more valuable starter? Trying Bard in the rotation made sense, to a degree, but he was a full-time reliever for four seasons (46, 60, 73, 70 appearances from 2008-2011) prior to the transition. I guess it comes down to opinion, because studying pitcher health patterns and proper management practices doesn't lead to any clear cut conclusions. I'm of the opinion that Bard's time in the pen was way too long a period - especially as an all-out flamethrower - to have expected him to pitch at an above-average level as a starter. Now your logic makes sense for someone like Workman, but Bard fell into that truly elite reliever category you mention, did he not? His sudden pronounced flame-out at the end of 2011 was all the more indication, I thought, that putting him back in a rotation - 5 years removed - was a poor idea. So to critique my statement of Bard starting making sense, I think it was much more fitting back around, say 2010. Our team just didn't have a spot for him then, but I believe most pitchers eventually run out of time to make the reliever-to-starter transition. Workman is no Daniel Bard, though, as he's relieved only a minuscule amount, all this season while still primarily being a starter. However, if he goes through 2014 as a reliever for 50+ innings, the concerns creep up as you move forward. (Side note: What a horribly sad and mystifying turnout for Bard. I didn't include him in my list of pitchers earlier because he's such a unique case. Everything just fell apart for him. Can't imagine what he's going through every time he tries to pitch and has literally no idea where his now-low-90s fastball is going)
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 11, 2013 13:55:14 GMT -5
Come on man, I'm not even going to point out how wrong this analogy is, I'm just gonna let you figure it out for yourself. Here is exactly what I said: "We see reports from one source after another that "Abreu may not be that good", "He will feast on mediocre pitching" ...etc. I'm not buying it. They are lining up to sand bag their reports. He's for real and they know it. The guy has put up the best numbers in Cuban baseball for several years now and he is only just now apparently getting in shape for once. He's lost a lot of weight...etc. They all want to sign him or they wouldn't be sending their entire front offices down to see him. The guy is an animal. Count on it. The guy will be the biggest Cuban sign ever. If they knew enough about Lebron James to give him a $92 mil shoe deal before he set foot on an NBA court, they can evaluate Abeu and know with a degree of certainty if he will be a stud or not. The guy will blow right past a $60 mil deal."Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/1143/sign-dariel-abreu-update-signing?page=13#ixzz2kKvxytWFI just went back through the thread and the only guy who appeared to think $68 mil was a good sign ( other than me ) was Redsoxo407. Several people were saying it was difficult to project Abreu and we couldn't count on him making it...etc. Cuban baseball was considered A ball...etc. Basically few here wanted him at anywhere near the bid which was required. The question is do you feel the same way today? And will you feel that way next year? No one is guaranteeing that Abreu is going to make it, including me. I was stating that we had enough data to bid well past $60 mil for him, which is what Chicago ended up doing. Now at least one more of you thinks maybe that wasn't so bad a decision after all. After thinking through the luxury tax considerations, the limited cash available, the available alternatives...etc. I bet more than one of you think so now. It was a risk which was worth taking. The main problem being the optics of bailing on Napoli in the middle of the playoffs. Which was understandable. Lebron wasn't guaranteed to make it either but Nike was confident about him enough to bid $90 mil for his shoe deal. Very different situations which both related to being able to calculate the risks and pull the trigger on at least some sort of financial offer. Thanks, but I've been pretty much wrong in just about everything I've ever posted, so I don't know if that helps your point. I still think Abreu will hit major league pitching well enough to at least justify his contract, but my concern is that Napoli's increasing K numbers might lead to his BA plummeting into the low .200s while hoping that his hip holds up, which thus far it is. Now the Sox are kind of backed into a corner where they have to give Napoli more years than they probably want to - he's a RH power bat they certainly need, and his defense has been excellent, but I worry about him declining. The other option is to give Carp a chance and get somebody to complement him. My biggest concern is the lack of options in the minors. Shaw really hasn't developed as I hoped he would and there are no real options down there, which is another reason why I was hoping the Sox would go after Abreu, somebody young enough to be in his prime and give the Sox time to develop the next Mo Vaughn in the minor league system. If the Sox don't resign Napoli then 1b might be a position that turns over from year to year, not that's there's necessarily something wrong with that, but I really liked the idea of a young 1b with massive power and a reasonable $/year contract who could slide over to DH when Ortiz retires.Given the timing of how Abreu's signing worked out, I can't blame the Sox for not wanting to upset the apple cart. It sounds like they liked Abreu, but it didn't sound like they were in love with his future. Guess we'll see how this plays out for the ChiSox and if we're regretting not getting him or relieved that we didn't.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 11, 2013 13:59:48 GMT -5
The question I have is how much "Fandom Goodwill" did the team earn with this World Series win? Who cares? Build a winning team and the fans will be happy in the end. If last offseason is any guide, the Sox will spend up to their budget, which means at minimum a handful of mid-tier signings. Then the press can run with whatever narrative they want - again, who cares?
|
|
|