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 James Dunne on Jun 11, 2014 9:58:20 GMT -5
Andres Torres is a good depth signing. Also, if he gets to the majors he'll be the most jacked dude on the team since the Gabe Kapler era. I would not mess with that guy.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jun 11, 2014 10:00:39 GMT -5
Rosenthal reporting that Red Sox have signed Andres Torres to a minor league contract... Why not? Can play all 3 OF positions, still has good defensive stats, not disastrous at the plate. At worst he's legit 4th OF depth, an upgrade on Corey Brown, who's not exactly tearing up AAA, and at best a passable starting CF in case of injury or if they felt the need to demote JBJ.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 11, 2014 10:07:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 11, 2014 10:53:11 GMT -5
Kinda disappointed that this probably pushes back the Mookie Betts' debut.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 11, 2014 10:57:07 GMT -5
Kinda disappointed that this probably pushes back the Mookie Betts' debut. Mookie Betts schedule is not going to be determined by Andres Torres.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 11, 2014 10:58:53 GMT -5
Kinda disappointed that this probably pushes back the Mookie Betts' debut. Mookie Betts schedule is not going to be determined by Andres Torres. LOL, good way of putting it. I kinda wanted the issue to be forced though.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 11, 2014 14:23:02 GMT -5
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 11, 2014 14:28:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 13, 2014 17:41:01 GMT -5
@benbadler: Castillo, yes. Igleisas less likely RT @f_T_Smasher Raisel Iglesias and Rusney Castillo, could you see either contributing in MLB this year?
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jun 16, 2014 7:44:51 GMT -5
Still time to unload Lester and Pedroia on Atlanta or San Fran.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jun 16, 2014 8:25:26 GMT -5
Still time to unload Lester and Pedroia on Atlanta or San Fran. Sorry but the Pedroia trade deadline already past. In 2007.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 16, 2014 12:49:12 GMT -5
Still time to unload Lester and Pedroia on Atlanta or San Fran. Why are you unloading these guys again? How does unloading these guys help you in 2015 when you're trying to win. The Sox NEED a pitcher of Lester's caliber to have a shot. It would be better for them to make every effort to re-sign him then to trade him. And why would the Sox deal Pedroia? They already screwed Bronson Arroyo after he signed a team friendly extension and Pedroia is a lot more prominent and signed a lot more favorable team deal. Nobody will re-up with the Red Sox on their terms if they Sox are going to trade them right afterwards. And despite Pedroia's down season, he's still a gold glover who can still get on base toward the top on the order. He's totally miscast as a #3 hitter. The Sox are very capable of bouncing back in 2015 and Lester could very well be a big part of it, as can Pedroia.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jun 16, 2014 13:19:35 GMT -5
And why would the Sox deal Pedroia? They already screwed Bronson Arroyo after he signed a team friendly extension and Pedroia is a lot more prominent and signed a lot more favorable team deal. Nobody will re-up with the Red Sox on their terms if they Sox are going to trade them right afterwards. Pedroia's extension was fair to both sides, according to the general consensus at the time. Sox took on risk that Pedroia could be injured/decline in '14/'15 before his prior contract expired, while the extension is for the expected decline phase of the player's career, ages 32-37. Wow, this is an OF discussion? Release Sizemore.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2014 13:41:32 GMT -5
Yeah, let's get this back on topic.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 16, 2014 13:55:38 GMT -5
Middlebrooks will be getting some reps in the outfield once he is healthy. While I don't think he is "the" answer I really like the move. Gives us flexibility and another RH bat.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 16, 2014 15:46:24 GMT -5
who can still get on base toward the top on the order. He's totally miscast as a #3 hitter. Wait, isn't that the very definition of a #3 hitter? Someone who is not one of your best 3 hitters (they go #1, #2 and #4) but is close, and who is more OBP oriented rather than SLG (else he would go #5) ... that's a #3 hitter. It's perfect.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 16, 2014 21:54:55 GMT -5
who can still get on base toward the top on the order. He's totally miscast as a #3 hitter. Wait, isn't that the very definition of a #3 hitter? Someone who is not one of your best 3 hitters (they go #1, #2 and #4) but is close, and who is more OBP oriented rather than SLG (else he would go #5) ... that's a #3 hitter. It's perfect. Actually, I'd bat the best hitter 3rd and that's Bogaerts. I'd have Pedey second behind Holt. I remember reading an interesting article by Bill James that talked about the #5 spot in the order and how it should be occupied by somebody with a good OBP because most lineups are made out to maximize scoring in the 1st inning with little thought to the second inning so managers would bat low OBP guys 5th. However, the most likely guy to lead off the 2nd inning would be the #5 guy. Anyways this is about fixing the 2014 outfield so I guess they wait for Victorino to get healthy, let Nava and Holt man the corners and eventually release Sizemore when Victorino is healthy and then if Bradley is still stinking up the joint by August they could promote Betts. If the Sox can trade Drew, they could always move Bogaerts back to SS, move Holt back to 3b and platoon Nava in left with Gomes, with Betts in CF and Victorino in RF and with Bradley getting his ABs at Pawtucket. In hindsight I believe the Sizemore signing really messed up the decision making as far as Nava goes. I mean, Nava was terrible to start the season, but you can't help but feel he would have snapped out of it sooner if given the real chance, but instead he fell victim to Sizemore's reputation, rather than his performance, which was too bad.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 17, 2014 4:39:07 GMT -5
Actually, I'd bat the best hitter 3rd Why? Seems like a pretty bad idea to me.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 17, 2014 6:42:26 GMT -5
Actually, I'd bat the best hitter 3rd Why? Seems like a pretty bad idea to me. A pretty bad idea? Or a slightly less effective idea that may lead to a couple less runs over the course of a year as argued by sabermetrics ? I still am not sure I fully understand the argument that the 3 hole isn't that important. I believe it has something to do with opportunities with men in scoring position for that batting spot right? Does that take into consideration that teams usually put their best batters like Pujols, Cabrera, Ortiz in the 3 hole?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 17, 2014 7:06:49 GMT -5
Why? Seems like a pretty bad idea to me. A pretty bad idea? Or a slightly less effective idea that may lead to a couple less runs over the course of a year as argued by sabermetrics ? All of the above. A slightly less effective idea can be pretty bad. I mean those runs do count. Add it up with stuff like platooning and bullpen usage and you're in the realm of full wins, not just runs ... "The Book" (by Tango, et al) has a whole chapter devoted to this. I'll reproduce (most of) table 46 which is based on actual data (and therefore does take into consideration how teams are currently batting): Batting Order | PA empty | PA men on |
---|
1 | 3.11 | 1.72 | 2 | 2.63 | 2.09 | 3 | 2.38 | 2.23 | 4 | 2.19 | 2.31 | 5 | 2.28 | 2.11 | 6 | 2.29 | 1.97 | 7 | 2.20 | 1.94 | 8 | 2.17 | 1.85 | 9 | 2.13 | 1.77 |
So the 3 hole is still rather important, but it'll get less total PA than the #1 and #2 hitter, and less PA with men on base than the #4 hitter. (The Book goes on to break this down into base/out states, calculate the run values of various PA results for those states and multiply those by the number of opportunities, which is needed to understand why the #5 hitter is as important as the #3 hitter.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 17, 2014 7:09:09 GMT -5
Here is a possibility (that may well be a probability) that I'm not sure anyone is considering.
We're all thinking of JBJ as either the guy we thought he'd be a year ago in ST (future star) or a washout. But it seems likeliest that he's just going to be an OK regular. A +11 or +12 defender who will get annual GG consideration (but who probably lacks the raw speed to be the best), a somewhat subpar bat even for a CFer. A guy who will rank 13th, 15th, whatever in WAR among CFers.
Now, moving Mookie Betts from 2B to CF loses a lot less value than moving him to LF -- it's the same, in fact, as moving him to 3B.
So the question may be: are you better off with Betts in CF, and someone else in LF, with Bradley either as an elite 4th OFer* or traded to a team for whom he would be an important upgrade ... or with Betts in LF and Bradley in CF? Well, simple logic tells you that if JBJ is just going to be an average CF, all you have to do to justify Betts in CF is find a LF who is clearly better than average. (And that's ignoring the gain in value from moving Betts.) And that should be doable for a team with these resources.
*Including a platoon role, playing RF in Fenway (and other big parks) against RHP with decent to big platoon splits.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 17, 2014 7:21:43 GMT -5
A +11 or +12 defender who will get annual GG consideration I've been wondering about that, actually. Does JBJ get GG consideration or does he not hit well enough for that?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 17, 2014 7:24:53 GMT -5
The left fielder X in question would need to be good enough offensively to counter the drop-off defensively from Bradley to Betts in center and also the (likely) dropoff from Betts to X in left. There are a few players around the league who fit that description, so not at all an impossible proposition. But there's then the question of allocation of resources. If third base (given a Bogaerts move back to short) and catcher continue to be issues, would the upgrade there be a better use of the money the Sox have to spend? Longer term (beyond 2015), first base and right field and I guess DH could all be concerns.
By then, though, I suppose we'll have a better idea of the player Bradley is. And Betts too, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 17, 2014 7:28:48 GMT -5
Here is a possibility (that may well be a probability) that I'm not sure anyone is considering. We're all thinking of JBJ as either the guy we thought he'd be a year ago in ST (future star) or a washout. But it seems likeliest that he's just going to be an OK regular. A +11 or +12 defender who will get annual GG consideration (but who probably lacks the raw speed to be the best), a somewhat subpar bat even for a CFer. A guy who will rank 13th, 15th, whatever in WAR among CFers. Now, moving Mookie Betts from 2B to CF loses a lot less value than moving him to LF -- it's the same, in fact, as moving him to 3B. So the question may be: are you better off with Betts in CF, and someone else in LF, with Bradley either as an elite 4th OFer* or traded to a team for whom he would be an important upgrade ... or with Betts in LF and Bradley in CF? Well, simple logic tells you that if JBJ is just going to be an average CF, all you have to do to justify Betts in CF is find a LF who is clearly better than average. (And that's ignoring the gain in value from moving Betts.) And that should be doable for a team with these resources. *Including a platoon role, playing RF in Fenway (and other big parks) against RHP with decent to big platoon splits. forum.soxprospects.com/post/84985/threadConsidering the weak crop of CFs this offseason (just Rasmus, basically) compared to the solid crop of corner outfielders (M. Cabrera, Willingham, S. Smith, Denorfia, Cruz, Cuddyer, etc.), as well as the fact that Bradley doesn't look like he's improving enough with the bat to pencil in as the CF starter next year, Betts is almost certainly the leading 2015 CF candidate as of now.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 17, 2014 7:35:31 GMT -5
The left fielder X in question would need to be good enough offensively to counter the drop-off defensively from Bradley to Betts in center and also the (likely) dropoff from Betts to X in left. There are a few players around the league who fit that description, so not at all an impossible proposition. But there's then the question of allocation of resources. If third base (given a Bogaerts move back to short) and catcher continue to be issues, would the upgrade there be a better use of the money the Sox have to spend? Longer term (beyond 2015), first base and right field and I guess DH could all be concerns. By then, though, I suppose we'll have a better idea of the player Bradley is. And Betts too, for that matter. I don't think money is that big of an issue, especially if they grab a mid-tier left fielder (say, a Willingham or Cuddyer). They'll have something like $80m+ to spend, which, even after generously deducting enough for a left fielder and a starting pitcher, should be more than enough to pick up a third baseman (Headley?) if that looks to be a long-term need (remember, they could go with a Middlebrooks/Holt platoon if they have to) and a short-term option at catcher.
|
|
|