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.
5/26-5/27 Red Sox @ Braves Series Thread
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on May 27, 2014 9:55:35 GMT -5
It would be very surprising if Holt was sent out. My question was actually whether Holt is a legitimate major league player and not just a borderline utility guy. I'm sure the Yankees would love to have him starting at 2B. I'm starting to believe in his bat. He just looks like he's got it. That I don't know I think more utility. I like his bat more than his D from what I have seen. But as you say it is a small sample size. Let the year play out. Right now I like him more than our top two prospects at 3rd. Wills power though is a game changer if he can make enough contact. Garin is not even hitting doubles at AAA which is concerning. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 27, 2014 9:59:43 GMT -5
"Better than Pedro Ciriaco" is pretty much the definition of damning with faint praise.
Here's the thing: Holt doesn't have enough defensive versatility to be a great utility player or enough talent to start for the Red Sox (at either 2B or 3B). He's a tweener who is good enough to have a major league career but is probably not good enough to lock down a roster spot for this team. He'll probably be up-and-down until he runs out of options (which should be in 2016), at which time he either improves his SS defense enough to stick as a utility guy or is moved one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 10:20:43 GMT -5
"Better than Pedro Ciriaco" is pretty much the definition of damning with faint praise. Here's the thing: Holt doesn't have enough defensive versatility to be a great utility player or enough talent to start for the Red Sox (at either 2B or 3B). He's a tweener who is good enough to have a major league career but is probably not good enough to lock down a roster spot for this team. He'll probably be up-and-down until he runs out of options (which should be in 2016), at which time he either improves his SS defense enough to stick as a utility guy or is moved one way or another. lol yeah. I was surprised you brought him up, but I guess it wasn't really a direct comparison when I re-read it. It's kind of a shame that we can't at least get something for him because I think he could be a starting 2B for a good number of teams. Just look at how awful 2B are at hitting around the league. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 10:40:28 GMT -5
Looks like Buchholz might not get his next start. I'm not sure how they're going to accomplish that. They have repeatedly said that his health is fine. They might be able to put him through OAW to get him a few starts in AAA. Putting him in the bullpen doesn't really work without someone else going on the DL. Absent of that, they'd have to play rotating AAA starters, which brings us back to my bet with jmei.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 27, 2014 11:35:04 GMT -5
"Better than Pedro Ciriaco" is pretty much the definition of damning with faint praise. Here's the thing: Holt doesn't have enough defensive versatility to be a great utility player or enough talent to start for the Red Sox (at either 2B or 3B). He's a tweener who is good enough to have a major league career but is probably not good enough to lock down a roster spot for this team. He'll probably be up-and-down until he runs out of options (which should be in 2016), at which time he either improves his SS defense enough to stick as a utility guy or is moved one way or another. My thoughts exactly. I really like Holt, the way he plays and his intensity. He just isn't a full time option on the left side because of his defensive limitations. On the right side the Sox have a ridiculous number of current and future options. That greatly limits what he might accomplish for the team. As a hitter, I've been impressed with him since his acquisition. Tenacious barely describes the guy, but he has little power, and adequate speed at best. He's got skills, I just don't think they're those of a fulltime major league player for a contender unless you can bury them in the middle of a fearsome lineup. The Sox with the injuries, the rookies, and the roster holes, don't qualify as that right now. If they expect to make progress the rest of this season, he should be seen as a valuable utility player, not a regular. If they decide to cash it in by moving players then he might find a home as a slightly above replacement regular - this season, not beyond it in my view. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,017
|
Post by ericmvan on May 27, 2014 11:47:22 GMT -5
Back when pitching staffs were 10 or 11, there would have been a place for a guy like Holt on a first-division club, because teams carried a separate backup SS (pure glove guy) and backup 2B / 3B (guy exactly like Holt).
What happened subsequently is that pitching depth increased, and if you can find 7 legitimate big league relievers, the extra two relievers are more valuable than two extra bench guys, so for most clubs the backup SS and backup 2B / 3B roles were combined, as were the backup 1B and backup corner OF roles.
If rosters were expanded to 26 or 27, big league benches would for the most part be restored to something like their previous depth. And games where everyone were healthy would be more strategically interesting, and games where players were hurt would often be better, with more run scoring. Obviously the player's association would love the idea of expanded rosters, and the costs per team would often be just two MLB minimum guys ... I've never understood why this hasn't happened already.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 11:51:40 GMT -5
Back when pitching staffs were 10 or 11, there would have been a place for a guy like Holt on a first-division club, because teams carried a separate backup SS (pure glove guy) and backup 2B / 3B (guy exactly like Holt). What happened subsequently is that pitching depth increased, and if you can find 7 legitimate big league relievers, the extra two relievers are more valuable than two extra bench guys, so for most clubs the backup SS and backup 2B / 3B roles were combined, as were the backup 1B and backup corner OF roles. If rosters were expanded to 26 or 27, big league benches would for the most part be restored to something like their previous depth. And games where everyone were healthy would be more strategically interesting, and games where players were hurt would often be better, with more run scoring. Obviously the player's association would love the idea of expanded rosters, and the costs per team would often be just two MLB minimum guys ... I've never understood why this hasn't happened already. I'm guessing that teams would wind up with 13 or 14 pitchers if they expanded to 26 or 27 and way more ROOGYs and LOOGYs. I hate that. I wish there were a way to limit the # of pitchers, but understand that would be difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 27, 2014 11:51:55 GMT -5
Back when pitching staffs were 10 or 11, there would have been a place for a guy like Holt on a first-division club, because teams carried a separate backup SS (pure glove guy) and backup 2B / 3B (guy exactly like Holt). What happened subsequently is that pitching depth increased, and if you can find 7 legitimate big league relievers, the extra two relievers are more valuable than two extra bench guys, so for most clubs the backup SS and backup 2B / 3B roles were combined, as were the backup 1B and backup corner OF roles. If rosters were expanded to 26 or 27, big league benches would for the most part be restored to something like their previous depth. And games where everyone were healthy would be more strategically interesting, and games where players were hurt would often be better, with more run scoring. Obviously the player's association would love the idea of expanded rosters, and the costs per team would often be just two MLB minimum guys ... I've never understood why this hasn't happened already. I agree with everything in your post except for the highlighted. Cynically, I'm pretty sure that if teams had extra roster spots, they'd just use them on more pitchers. There is a huge competitive advantage to be gained by some team carrying only 11 pitchers. If a team has several guys that excel in one-inning bursts, sure, go ahead with the shorter bench, because you can effectively turn games into 6-7 inning contests. But a team with guys like Capuano and Badenhop and Tazawa and Breslow and I suppose Miller, who are effective over multiple innings? In that case, Holt (or Nava) is a much better use of a roster spot than Mujica. |
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 27, 2014 14:39:37 GMT -5
I really like Holt, the way he plays and his intensity. He just isn't a full time option on the left side because of his defensive limitations. Hm, I don't really see the defensive limitations at 3B. Perhaps not quite gold glove level but I would rate his 3B fielding as above average. I was going to say the problem was just that his bat might be good enough for 2B but not for 3B, but then I looked it up and discovered that league average production at 3B has actually only been around 95 wRC+ in recent years (90 wRC+ for 2B). I do feel like he should be able to sustain about 90 wRC+ going forward, which would make him a league-average 2B or slightly below average 3B. Which, yes, is not really what the Red Sox are looking for, but there are plenty of teams who would be happy to have that in a cost-controlled player. So I hope he gets enough playing time this year to show what he is, perhaps then he can be traded for a second tier prospect in the offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 27, 2014 14:41:37 GMT -5
There is a huge competitive advantage to be gained by some team carrying only 11 pitchers. If a team has several guys that excel in one-inning bursts, sure, go ahead with the shorter bench, because you can effectively turn games into 6-7 inning contests. But a team with guys like Capuano and Badenhop and Tazawa and Breslow and I suppose Miller, who are effective over multiple innings? In that case, Holt (or Nava) is a much better use of a roster spot than Mujica. I very much agree with this, and I always carry only 11 pitchers when I play OOTP Baseball. Unfortunately I'm absolutely certain we won't see it on John Farrell's watch, he seems to be a huge believer in the setup/closer/LOOGY orthodoxy. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 27, 2014 14:48:12 GMT -5
3 rules to potentially solve the kvetching about short benches above (just brainstorming/fun):
1) 26-man rosters
2) by rule, 14 or 26 roster spots must have career ab > ip (special exceptions made for converted pitchers as long as they aren't expected to be used as pitchers)
3) similar to old 3rd QB NFL rule: every game, designate a pitcher who cannot be used unless the game goes to extras. This keeps managers from using all the ROOGY's and LOOGY's in innings 5 and 6. Added benefit: one reliever a day gets to show up a little late, meaning he's not dog tired by the time the game gets to the 14th.
|
|
|
|
Post by texasleaguer on May 27, 2014 14:56:26 GMT -5
Back when pitching staffs were 10 or 11, there would have been a place for a guy like Holt on a first-division club, because teams carried a separate backup SS (pure glove guy) and backup 2B / 3B (guy exactly like Holt). What happened subsequently is that pitching depth increased, and if you can find 7 legitimate big league relievers, the extra two relievers are more valuable than two extra bench guys, so for most clubs the backup SS and backup 2B / 3B roles were combined, as were the backup 1B and backup corner OF roles. If rosters were expanded to 26 or 27, big league benches would for the most part be restored to something like their previous depth. And games where everyone were healthy would be more strategically interesting, and games where players were hurt would often be better, with more run scoring. Obviously the player's association would love the idea of expanded rosters, and the costs per team would often be just two MLB minimum guys ... I've never understood why this hasn't happened already. I agree with everything in your post except for the highlighted. Cynically, I'm pretty sure that if teams had extra roster spots, they'd just use them on more pitchers. There is a huge competitive advantage to be gained by some team carrying only 11 pitchers. If a team has several guys that excel in one-inning bursts, sure, go ahead with the shorter bench, because you can effectively turn games into 6-7 inning contests. But a team with guys like Capuano and Badenhop and Tazawa and Breslow and I suppose Miller, who are effective over multiple innings? In that case, Holt (or Nava) is a much better use of a roster spot than Mujica. Remember (fondly) the days of Earl Weaver and his O's before the DH. He'd carry 10 pitchers, a few times 9, 3 catchers--Etchebarren, Oates and Elrod Hendricks and about 7 bench players. He's have 2 pinch hitters batting left and 2 batting right, like Terry Crowley and Merv Rettenmund. He had back-up defensive specialsts, usually a designated pinch runner....... in short he had somebody ready for every situation. And he damn well knew how to use them. Think Joe Madden seems to be cut from the same cloth..... the things that Madden did to keep the Rays in the last ALDS game against the Red Sox, last year, was impressive, especially handling the pitching staff that game. Weaver, though, was really good at composing a roster that fit his needs and how he wanted to run a game. Everybody knew what their assignment was on the team |
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 27, 2014 15:20:41 GMT -5
3) similar to old 3rd QB NFL rule: every game, designate a pitcher who cannot be used unless the game goes to extras. No problem, I'll just designate the guy who started yesterday. He's not allowed to show up late, though, and no fried chicken and beer in the clubhouse! |
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 27, 2014 15:23:45 GMT -5
Brock Holt, 3B
Xander Bogaerts, SS
Dustin Pedroia, 2B
David Ortiz, 1B
Jonny Gomes, RF
Grady Sizemore, LF
David Ross, C
Jackie Bradley Jr., CF
Jon Lester, SP
Back-to-back games in the field for Big Papi? No doubt he will pull a hammy or something and end up on the DL.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 15:25:17 GMT -5
Brock Holt, 3B Xander Bogaerts, SS Dustin Pedroia, 2B David Ortiz, 1B Jonny Gomes, RF Grady Sizemore, LF David Ross, C Jackie Bradley Jr., CF Jon Lester, SP Back-to-back games in the field for Big Papi? No doubt he will pull a hammy or something and end up on the DL. And back to back games that Gomes is in the lineup vs. RHP. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 27, 2014 15:30:28 GMT -5
Why did they call up Nava if he's not going to play?
|
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 27, 2014 15:39:53 GMT -5
3) similar to old 3rd QB NFL rule: every game, designate a pitcher who cannot be used unless the game goes to extras. No problem, I'll just designate the guy who started yesterday. He's not allowed to show up late, though, and no fried chicken and beer in the clubhouse! I am thinking that an extra roster spot for a pitcher in extra innings would not work because he would not get regular playing time. I think something like the recent rule for double headers would work. The day after an extra inning game, the team can bring up someone from AAA for 1 game, perhaps someone who does not need to be on the 40-man (but is on the AAA roster) and perhaps if the game goes deep into extra innings, more than 1. |
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on May 27, 2014 15:59:08 GMT -5
Would be convenient - DL stint and rehab.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on May 27, 2014 16:17:04 GMT -5
Jason Mastrodonato ?@jmastrodonato 23 min.
Buchholz lost seven pounds during the game yesterday, said heat was bothering him, but wasn't excuse for bad pitching.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 27, 2014 16:18:25 GMT -5
HAHA! Hyperextended left knee ... yeah, right.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on May 27, 2014 16:28:55 GMT -5
Why did they call up Nava if he's not going to play? Jonny Gomes has become Farrell's version of darnell McDonald.. His "boy" per say and will play at most any cost. In gomes case, it dates back to the WS even when we got a glimpse, even the ALCS. Nava seems to be the odd man out again. Friendships are being forged between players and managers once again and over riding who should be playing between platoon type players, like those 2 are. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 16:31:47 GMT -5
Would be convenient - DL stint and rehab. Well there's my answer. |
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 27, 2014 16:41:23 GMT -5
I mean nevermind Nava, even Carp/Sizemore/Bradley might be a better outfield against RHP than Sizemore/Bradley/Gomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 27, 2014 16:44:33 GMT -5
I mean nevermind Nava, even Carp/Sizemore/Bradley might be a better outfield against RHP than Sizemore/Bradley/Gomes. No way. Turner Field has huge alleys, so Bradley's range is really needed in center there. With Carp in left and Sizemore in center, that gap would be enormous. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,017
|
Post by ericmvan on May 27, 2014 17:07:35 GMT -5
3 rules to potentially solve the kvetching about short benches above (just brainstorming/fun): 1) 26-man rosters 2) by rule, 14 or 26 roster spots must have career ab > ip (special exceptions made for converted pitchers as long as they aren't expected to be used as pitchers) 3) similar to old 3rd QB NFL rule: every game, designate a pitcher who cannot be used unless the game goes to extras. This keeps managers from using all the ROOGY's and LOOGY's in innings 5 and 6. Added benefit: one reliever a day gets to show up a little late, meaning he's not dog tired by the time the game gets to the 14th. The roster rule might work, with this modification: you can carry 13 pitchers, but only for X consecutive games (maybe 3). If the Xth game goes into extra innings, you get another day. But in terms of limiting R/LOOGY's, I like this nearly simple rule (it does have one loophole-closing clause): No more than one pitcher in any half-inning can retire (or intentionally walk) the only batter he faces in that inning.
And once folks get used to that, you can experiment with a rule stating that only two pitchers in a game are allowed to retire the only batter they face in the game*. I'm not as convinced that this one will be good for the game overall, but it's worth trying. *This rule would not include a starter left in to retire the first batter of the next inning because he has the platoon advantage, whereas that would count under the previous rule. |
|
|
