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.
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 10, 2013 7:05:55 GMT -5
I think what he's getting at is if you look at last years team, there is a decent chance that by 2016 most of the roster is turned over. It's conceivable that Pedey, Bogaerts, Bucholtz, Doubront and Workman are only ones from WS roster here. C1- Salty - Gone C2- Ross - high prob gone 1b - Napoli - questionable - not under contract (FA) 2b- Pedey - here SS - Drew - high prob gone 3b - WMB - questionable (performance related) SS- Bogaerts - here LF - Gomes - likely Gone (FA) Cf- Ellsbury - Gone RF - Victorino - likely gone (FA) DH - Ortiz - likely gone (age) SP1 - Lester - Questionable (FA) SP2- Bucholtz - here SP3 - lackey - likely gone (FA) Sp4 - Peavy - gone (FA) Sp5 - Doubront - here SP6 - Dempster - gone Closer - Koji - gone (age) Pitcher - Workman - here Pitcher - taz - questionable Pitchers- Breslow-Morales - questionable (RP turnover) I think your estimate could be a little more conservative, as a few of those guys will likely re-sign, but turnover is what happens, particularly with how this team is built. Consider that this same exercise 3 years ago probably assumes that Ortiz is gone. Also, you forgot Nava and Carp, and probably one of them stays maybe? For example, only 7 guys that were on both the 2004 and 2007 WS champion teams: Varitek, Manny, Ortiz, Mirabelli (who left and came back), Wakefield, Schilling, Timlin. Plus Youkilis, who wasn't on the playoff roster in '04. And here's the list of 7 guys from 2010 that were on the roster this year: Ortiz, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Nava, Lackey, Lester, Buchholz. It probably only gets to seven because injuries in the outfield to Ellsbury and Cameron opened the door for Nava to make his debut (no WS 25-man to use in 2010). And technically Daniel Bard got two appearances this year, if you're going beyond the WS 25-man. From this year, I'd say Lester, Buchholz, Bogaerts, Pedroia, maybe one of Nava/Carp, and a couple bullpen arms gets you to seven. Might be a bit low, but it'd still be normal-ish turnover, believe it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 10, 2013 8:46:55 GMT -5
I'd like to see Ruby as the closer when Koji retires, I think he has the stuff well suited to strike guys out, and he can throw a little harder from the pen. If Ruby can consistently throw strikes, then I agree, he would make an outstanding closer. If Barnes can not complete the development of secondary pitches, then he could also become a bullpen closer guy. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 10, 2013 9:03:48 GMT -5
Here's a 2016 guess:
C- Swihart, Vazquez
1B - acquisition
2B - Pedroia
3B - Cecchini
SS - Bogaerts
LF - acquisition
CF - Bradley
RF - acquisition
DH - Carp
bench - random SS, Nava (10th man), Hassan or acquistion
SP - Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Owens, [Webster / Ranaudo / Workman / Barnes / Hinojosa / De La Rosa]
6th starter - Wright or most underrated of bracketed gang of 6.
Since that's three LHP, you have the option of dealing Doubront or even Lester and keeping two of the gang.
RP - three or four acquisitions, two or three from Tazawa, Britton, conversions from gang; Martin, Price, Ramirez, Younginer [most of the latter four washing out like Wilson]
Major trade chips: Middlebrooks [we hope], Betts, Marrero, three to five from gang of 6 [possibly substituting Doubront / Lester]
Betts would lose about 13 runs of offensive value if converted to LF; given our need to fill 1B, RF, and LF, I think he's of most use as a trade chip. Betts having another great season and moving up the prospect rankings far enough to become a centerpiece in a trade for an OF -- that would have surprising value to this franchise.
The three acquisitions could be:
1 major trade involving Betts and one or two of the gang, and maybe Middlebrooks
1 veteran FA signing a la Victorino
1 undervalued young player a la Carp, perhaps for one more of the gang
The remaining one to three from the gang could be dealt for prospects, once it's clear they're surplus. They may be in the process of washing out, and hence not bring much, or still be highly regarded, and bring a nice return.
You can see that far and away the biggest and most important job here is determining the value ranking of Owens and the gang of 6.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 10, 2013 9:49:51 GMT -5
Here's a 2016 guess: C- Swihart, Vazquez 1B - acquisition2B - Pedroia 3B - Cecchini SS - Bogaerts LF - acquisitionCF - Bradley RF - acquisitionDH - Carp bench - random SS, Nava (10th man), Hassan or acquistion SP - Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Owens, [Webster / Ranaudo / Workman / Barnes / Hinojosa / De La Rosa] 6th starter - Wright or most underrated of bracketed gang of 6. Since that's three LHP, you have the option of dealing Doubront or even Lester and keeping two of the gang. RP - three or four acquisitions, two or three from Tazawa, Britton, conversions from gang; Martin, Price, Ramirez, Younginer [most of the latter four washing out like Wilson] Major trade chips: Betts, Marrero, three to five from gang of 6 [plus Doubront / Lester] Betts would lose about 13 runs of offensive value if converted to LF; given our need to fill 1B, RF, and LF, I think he's of most use as a trade chip. Betts having another great season and moving up the prospect rankings far enough to become a centerpiece in a trade for an OF -- that would have surprising value to this franchise. The three acquisitions could be: 1 major trade involving Betts and two of the gang 1 veteran FA signing a la Victorino 1 undervalued young player a la Carp, perhaps for one more of the gang The remaining one or two from the gang could be dealt for prospects, once it's clear they're surplus. They may be in the process of washing out, and hence not bring much, or still be highly regarded, and bring a nice return. You can see that far and away the biggest and most important job here is determining the value ranking of Owens and the gang of 6. How about Betts in CF, moving JBJ to RF? Cecchini to LF. Boegarts to 3b. Marrero to SS. Part of me still thinks WMB recovers enough to bring his OBP to .320 and be a viable starting 3B. Even if not, he should have a lot of trade value given the absence of decent 3b in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 10, 2013 10:07:07 GMT -5
I don't know if that was conservative or not.. It's pretty likely a couple questionable will stay and a couple will go and it's possible one or two likely gone players are back. The situation is still volatile, which was what the author was trying to show.
However, does it even matter. Perhaps the right volatile is good. I never said it was a bad thing. Does too much of a "core roster" get stale if kept year after year? Maybe volatile is only good for certain teams (big market?) while stable core is better for others (small market?).
He has a theory and has done nothing to prove. All he did was make up a method for identifying which teams have Core players under control. I think his mistake may be only calling someone a Core player if they are under team control going forward rather than labeling his chart "Core players w/ 3+ years of team control". He'd take a lot of the argument about what a Core player is away. Even though it's defined, confusing labels can distract from the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 10, 2013 10:19:08 GMT -5
Going back to the original post, I've always argued that the Yankees were able to win so much by buying championships precisely because their core was so stable. Now that their core is gone or ancient, it's not working anymore and they can't really develop one through free agency. This of course goes around the typical statistical analysis, but how great could a bunch of 30+ players pulled together by their desire to sign the biggest contract really become? Those kinds of guys need a strong core around to teach the culture of the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 10, 2013 10:25:48 GMT -5
If someone actually did the research, the results would probably be all over the map. Nothing ground breaking would come out of proving "it's good to have a lot of talent locked up longterm"
There's more then one way to skin a cat.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 10, 2013 11:07:21 GMT -5
How about Betts in CF, moving JBJ to RF? Cecchini to LF. Boegarts to 3b. Marrero to SS. What you've done there is fill the RF spot in the batting order with Betts, and the LF spot with Marrero. While Betts might well hit enough to give you a RF's offense, you ought to be able to trade him for someone just as good overall, but who doesn't have the ability to be a good defensive 2B -- which means they would be a much better hitter. E.g., imagine that a team had an extra Wil Myers level prospect, and Betts had become that good, and they needed a 2B. So you can trade Betts for someone just as good and pick up more than a win per year. Replacing the LF spot in the order, the home of Yaz, Jim Rice, and Manny, with Deven Marrero's bat -- I shouldn't need to explain why that's a bad idea. You'd gain a little defense at SS, probably none at 3B, and overall it's a huge downgrade. Again, you could just trade Marrero to a team that needs a solid SS, for a comparable OF, and come out way ahead -- basically two wins per year. The principle here is not to move guys to an easier position unless you feel their glove will play up dramatically. That occasionally happens with 3B and 1B -- Albert Pujols and George Scott were competent 3B, but not only gained more than the average 6 runs of defense when they moved to 1B, they gained more than 12, which more than offset the lost 12 runs of offensive value from the move. SS who move to 3B typically lose 10 runs of offensive value but gain just 2 runs of defense. It's the worst of the common position switches. That's why the Orioles were brilliant in never moving Cal Ripken there, and why the Sox were incredibly foolish when they moved Rico Petrocell to 3B as they were moving Scott to 1B. CF to RF loses 8 runs of offense and gains (on average) 6 of defense. It's the move that's most defensible. SS to 2B loses 6 of offense and gains 2 of defense. The one position switch that's viable now is CF to LF. Ten years ago this lost you 11 runs of offense but gained you 12 on defense. Obviously, back in the 90's it was a losing proposition, but LF has gradually become a position of scarcity as baseball has stressed athleticism. LF now has fewer innings played by guys who could be identified as regulars than catcher does! And LF offense has fallen below that of RF offense, even though the position is about 6 runs easier to play. So a lot of CF types are manning the position, so you no longer gain 12 runs of defense, but you lose just 4 runs of offense. The whole methodology sort of collapses here; you still want to find a traditional LF, and the only reason it's OK to play a CF there is because so many other teams are doing it. Good catch -- I'll add him to the list of trade candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 10, 2013 12:59:27 GMT -5
Eric, unless you know what your alternatives are and you know what kind of bat/glove work those players bring saying those are bad moves is a fools errand. There are so many variables to consider that simply using baseline statistics don't tell us if that's a bad lineup or not.
Plus, by your information you made it seen like left field is one of the weaker spots in the lineup now. If that's true and Cecchini is what you think he'll be with the bat doesn't moving him there give the team the big advantage you're hoping to get with Xander at short? If so, does it matter if that advantage comes from left field or shortstop as long as it's there?
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 10, 2013 13:00:48 GMT -5
Also, third base is weak offensively right now too so X would be plus there.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 10, 2013 13:41:15 GMT -5
Eric, unless you know what your alternatives are and you know what kind of bat/glove work those players bring saying those are bad moves is a fools errand. There are so many variables to consider that simply using baseline statistics don't tell us if that's a bad lineup or not. Plus, by your information you made it seen like left field is one of the weaker spots in the lineup now. If that's true and Cecchini is what you think he'll be with the bat doesn't moving him there give the team the big advantage you're hoping to get with Xander at short? If so, does it matter if that advantage comes from left field or shortstop as long as it's there? There's definitely a scenario where Middlebrooks breaks out, and they think Cecchini will be a great defensive LF, and so they keep WMB and move Cecchini to LF, and, as you say, this make sense because there's a shortage of good LF, and their attempts to trade WMB for a LF don't pan out. But we already have seen enough of Xander at SS and 3B to know that he will lose value if we move him to 3B. And doing so means Cecchini has to move to LF, whether he'll be particularly good there or not. And that means you are committed to someone like Marrero at SS, which means that you have his bat in the lineup instead of whatever LF we could have come up with -- and let me remind you that folks have been dreaming on Stanton, Bautista, and a miraculously healthy Kemp for that spot. Yes, LF are in short supply, but when you are among the wealthiest teams in baseball and have one of the deepest farm systems, you're in a good position to snag the cream of the thin crop. So the answer is that, for all the unknown variables, we know enough to conclude that it's essentially impossible to win by moving Xander to 3B. Xander ss, "known" (= known roughly, hereafter) Cecchini 3B, known Unknown LF Marrero ss, known Bogaerts 3B, known Cecchini LF, unknown defense, known offense. You might gain 8 runs of defense in the latter infield. Maybe 10. Tops, 12. You know how easy it is to find a LF who's 8 to 12 runs better at the plate than Marrero projects to be, and plays defense as well as Cecchini projects to? The average corner OF is 19 runs better at the plate than the average SS. We'd be shopping for a guy with a bat 30 runs better than Marrero. The key is that we know enough about the defensive upgrade at SS and 3B to know that it can't possibly offset the big offensive downgrade from any kind of good LF to Marrero (or even Drew, in the short term). In most scenarios, it's not even close. And you know what? The team thought this was true even with Iglesias substituted for Marrero. That's why they gave him away for a Peavy rental. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewdon on Dec 11, 2013 0:16:59 GMT -5
Anyone else think Middlebrooks could be our DH of the future?
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 11, 2013 0:29:15 GMT -5
Anyone else think Middlebrooks could be our DH of the future? I think that could happen, in the sense that there's not a law prohibiting it or anything. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2013 9:11:58 GMT -5
Anyone else think Middlebrooks could be our DH of the future? No. There's enough pressure on his bat as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 11, 2013 10:13:44 GMT -5
Anyone else think Middlebrooks could be our DH of the future? I feel sad for our offense just thinking about it. |
|
|
