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.
2014-15 offseason discussion
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 3, 2014 13:55:18 GMT -5
Would Jay Bruce represent a good buy-low candidate if we get both him and Latos in a deal? So, let's assume we are in buy-low mode for Jay Bruce, who is owed $25.5mm over the next two years. Are you then going to trade one of Cespedes or Craig? Bruce is a RFer. He hasn't played CF since his rookie year. The way the roster is currently constructed, I'd rather have Bruce than Craig. It puts Cespedes back in LF and swaps a righty with a lefty. Both guys have had terrible years, but I like Bruce's upside better.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 3, 2014 14:53:59 GMT -5
2011-2014 wRC+ vs. LHP
Victorino 150 Craig 143 Cespedes 132 Holt 105 Bradley Jr. 68 Nava 57
2011-2014 wRC+ vs. RHP
Nava 130 Craig 119 Cespedes 111 Holt 99 Victorino 96 Bradley Jr. 64
I would assume Holt is our super-utility player and we no longer carry a backup 1B/DH, so there are 5 roster spots for outfielders. We could do OK with Craig/Cespedes - JBJ - Nava vs. RHP and Craig - Victorino - Cespedes vs. LHP, if Craig returns to form. But adding another good LHB, preferably one who can play RF better than Nava, provides a ready upgrade path.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,173
|
Post by nomar on Aug 3, 2014 14:58:48 GMT -5
Jay Bruce has pretty bad home vs away splits. Moving from a park very friendly to power hitting lefties to Fenway won't do him any favors. I'll pass on him, but Craig may not be a for either if Cespedes doesn't play well in RF (I think he will though).
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 3, 2014 16:46:35 GMT -5
Everybody wants to sign him, but at what price? This team, as currently constructed, is expected to have approx. $55mm to rebuild its pitching staff and stay under the cap. If you spend $10-12mm/yr on Castillo, that's $10-12mm less you can spend on pitching. Miller is likely going to cost $7-8mm/year, so now you're down to $47-48mm to spend for 1-2 starters and whatever else is on your shopping list. Half of that will go to Lester, if he resigns, or slightly less if they go in a James Shields direction. Castillo - $11mm Miller - $8mm Lester - $24mm That leaves approx. $12mm for whatever other holes (#2 starter?) are left. What player salaries are included in the cap? Those on the 40-man roster? I just went through the 40-man roster and I came up with salaries of signed players for next year and those who will receive the minimum, of about $110 million. If the 40-man roster is what is used, and if I calculated correctly, then there is more money available than what you said above. So what did I miss?
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 3, 2014 16:52:49 GMT -5
Yes. Plus the Red Sox owe $3.9mm to LAD and will want to keep approx. $5mm under the cap held back for midseason moves. Also, there is approx. $17-18mm for 40-man roster costs and benefits.
Including Uehara at 10.0 AAV (which may be low if he accepts the QO, but I'm assuming a 2/20 deal), my current projection is 111.57 AAV for 22 spots on the 25-man roster (missing a reliever (Miller?) and two starters), plus the aforementioned costs, that puts the Red Sox at approx. $132.5mm and I'm assuming the luxury tax threshold at $192.5mm. Taking into account the $5mm of room, that leaves $55mm.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 3, 2014 16:57:50 GMT -5
Thanks. That makes sense. I didn't think of built-in costs and benefits, and I wasn't aware of the $3.9 million. I also didn't include Uehara because I didn't include any free agents.
Unless they back end load it, Lester - or another top pitcher - is going to get a big chunk of that available money. There really won't be a lot available is Uehara and Miller are re-signed, also.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 3, 2014 16:58:40 GMT -5
Yes. Plus the Red Sox owe $3.9mm to LAD and will want to keep approx. $5mm under the cap held back for midseason moves. Is that the last Crawford extortion payment we're on the hook for? I seem to recall the total was $10 million but I can't recall how it was supposed to be paid out. Yes, 2015 is the last payment.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 3, 2014 17:11:37 GMT -5
I should also point out that, potentially, a decent amount of money comes off the books after 2015.
In addition to the LAD payment ($3.9mm), there is Napoli ($16mm), Victorino ($13mm), Cespedes ($10.5mm) and Mujica ($4.75mm).
There is also the possibility that Ortiz's option (the amount of which is dependent on his 2015 PAs) is not picked up if he has fewer than 425 PAs next year and that Buchholz's $13mm option for 2016 is not picked up. Ortiz counts as 16.00 AAV and Buchholz counts as 7.49 AAV in 2015.
In total, assuming all are gone except Ortiz (and Ortiz's 2016 option is at $16mm), that would free up $55.64 AAV.
The only players with an actual 2016 contract are Dustin Pedroia and Allen Craig.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 3, 2014 18:09:23 GMT -5
I still maintain that there's no way a Xander SS/Betts 3B configuration is better than a Betts SS/Xander 3B one. Here's why: It's been well established that Betts was moved off of SS because his arm was too erratic, not because it wasn't strong enough. There were a lot of scouting reports that said his arm strength was sufficient for the left side of the infield, and then he came up and made a couple of throws from RF and it became instantly obvious that that was the case. I disagree with the conclusion that accuracy rather than strength is the issue. I posted a bunch of scouting reports a while back which suggested that arm strength is indeed a question for Mookie, and your reply didn't sway me much. You're right that there are a handful of scouting reports which grade his arm strength as adequate at shortstop, but those are in the minority, and there are literally zero reports (that I can recall, at least) which have his arm as more that adequate (i.e., there are no reports of his having an above-average or plus arm at SS). An arm which is adequate at best at SS will definitely be fringy at 3B. I think I've seen the same RF throws as you, but airing it out from RF is a lot different than the kinds of throws a third baseman makes. The throws are different, the footwork is different, and the margin for error is a lot less. I'd be more inclined to trust the host of scouting reports which indicate his arm is fringy for an infielder over two or three plays where he got to air it out from RF. And even if you're right that accuracy as opposed to strength is the issue, the longer throws at 3B will test Betts' accuracy a lot more than throws at SS would. Playing him at 3B would not ameliorate this issue but rather exacerbate it. 1) 3B, it seems to me, is a position (like 2B) with less variety of throwing angles than SS. Both positions require throwing while charging slow rollers and/or bunts, but SS is the position which also requires throwing on the run, from all sorts of unusual angles and foot plantings, and often without a lot of time to set oneself. The ball gets to 3B quicker and there's more time to set and throw. An erratic arm is going to play a good deal better at 3B, I think, than at SS. How many of Bett's throwing errors at SS do you think came on balls he got to set himself and then throw, versus balls he was trying to get rid of too quickly after making a great stop? This is an argument in favor of Bogaerts at 3B, IMO. If we want to compare footwork, hands, and overall athleticism, I think Betts is clearly ahead of Bogaerts. Bogaerts' footwork is pretty ugly, and he's certainly shown his fair share of erratic throws. Mookie, on the other hand, has great footwork, smooth actions, and the sort of overall fluidity and agility that often seems to escape Xander. Check out plays like this one where Mookie ranges far to his left and makes a good throw on the move. More importantly, what you're forgetting is that so many more balls are hit to SS than 3B that it essentially always makes sense to have your better defender play there. You put your best athlete, the guy with the best hands and technique, at the more important defense position. Of the two, that guy is Betts. That's true even if we accept, arguendo, that their specific defensive attributes might be slightly mismatched.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 3, 2014 18:30:39 GMT -5
I never really thought of Buchs options not getting picked up bc he has so much upside when he's on. Does anyone think he could be a trade candidate? A smaller market might be interested given the money isn't crazy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 3, 2014 18:32:33 GMT -5
Is there any precedent for a good team having 7 of their 9 spots in the lineup filled with right handed hitters? Especially when one of the two lefties is a defense-first hitter that should be hitting in the 9-hole. None of them would be candidates to be the short side of a platoon. All of them perform better against left handed pitching. This team needs AT LEAST one more lefty (or switch hitter) at 3rd or a corner outfield spot. If they are sticking with Craig and Cespedes as the corners next year than I think they sign either Headley or Sandoval for 3rd (or someone I'm not thinking of). I think there is a decent chance that either Craig or Cespedes is moved in a bigger deal this offseason. And as much as I love Mookie, it makes a ton of sense to move him this offseason if a premium bat becomes available. I think you're blowing this out of proportion. Most of the righties you're worried about here have pretty small platoon splits and are still very productive hitters versus righties. Here are their 2011-2014 splits vs. righties: Pedroia: 105 wRC+ Napoli: 139 wRC+ Craig: 119 wRC+ Cespedes: 111 wRC+ Bogaerts: 70 wRC+ (SSS; 499 PAs) Middlebrooks: 85 wRC+ (SSS; 315 PAs) Plus, Nava will get a good bit of playing time in the corner outfield, while Holt should get regular playing time at 3B/SS (as the roster is currently constructed, I expect he'd be the long half of a platoon at 3B). Would it be nice to get another lefty, especially one who is a better overall player than Craig? Of course. It is a necessity? No. For instance, while a guy like Jay Bruce is attractive for other reasons (defense/baserunning), he's actually hit worse versus righties from 2011-present than Craig has (just a 117 wRC+ over that span). Sure, if Heyward or CarGo are available, the fact that they're left-handed might make them a little extra appealing. But I wouldn't want to replace Craig with someone like Andre Ethier or Matt Joyce or Colby Rasmus (who, taking into account acquisition costs, are likely inferior options) just because they hit lefty.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Aug 3, 2014 18:45:31 GMT -5
Egad, it's official. I am senile. I agreed with Jmie's assessment of Xander and Betts, especially Xander
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Aug 3, 2014 20:41:45 GMT -5
Have we talked about acquiring Chris Sale?
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Aug 3, 2014 20:44:21 GMT -5
Have we talked about acquiring Chris Sale? 2015: $6 million 2016: $9.15 million 2017: $12 million 2018: $12.5 million club option 2019: $13.5 million club option We'd need to give up the world. It's not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Aug 3, 2014 22:38:27 GMT -5
Question. If you were to package JBJr, Workman and Middlebrooks together what do you think a return could be? This would presume Betts in CF and lead off, Holt at 3rd with maybe Cecchini as a fallback, a FA like Headley or Sandoval or a return in this trade and Ranaudo or Webster taking the swing role between the pen and fill in starter. Total speculation but I'd consider moving all three if the return is a multi year controlled All Star type Major Leaguer. Tough to trade that CF defense but it does seem like it's going to be Jackie or Betts and I'm a bit torn on which I want to part with if either. I'd love to have a greater sample for Betts CF defensive metrics to know how much drop off there is defensively but I'm betting there is more offense in Betts bat.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 3, 2014 22:49:31 GMT -5
Question. If you were to package JBJr, Workman and Middlebrooks together what do you think a return could be? [...] Total speculation but I'd consider moving all three if the return is a multi year controlled All Star type Major Leaguer. No, that's not how it works.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Aug 3, 2014 22:56:31 GMT -5
Trading three guys at arguably their lowest value might barely return you a legitimate starting player, let alone someone who is actually worth something
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 4, 2014 1:39:38 GMT -5
Yes. Plus the Red Sox owe $3.9mm to LAD and will want to keep approx. $5mm under the cap held back for midseason moves. Also, there is approx. $17-18mm for 40-man roster costs and benefits. Including Uehara at 10.0 AAV (which may be low if he accepts the QO, but I'm assuming a 2/20 deal), my current projection is 111.57 AAV for 22 spots on the 25-man roster (missing a reliever (Miller?) and two starters), plus the aforementioned costs, that puts the Red Sox at approx. $132.5mm and I'm assuming the luxury tax threshold at $192.5mm. Taking into account the $5mm of room, that leaves $55mm. Another, nicety in our situation is that we are also somewhat protected against some of the stars not meeting their production because at the end of 2015, we have the following coming off the books: Cespedes $10.5m Napoli $16m Ortiz $16m (options) Victorino $13m Mujica 4.75m Buchholz 12.25 (options) Dodgers obligation $3.9m Even if we let all of them go, we have more than enough ($76.15m) coming off the books to replace all of them.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 4, 2014 7:34:18 GMT -5
Does anyone else think the talk of Betts on the left side of the infield is a fools errand? He's never played there (ok he played a couple games years ago) and there's not even a hint of it right now. Until he plays over there or the team talks about it, it's not worth speculating over let alone debating short vs third;
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 4, 2014 7:56:06 GMT -5
Does anyone else think the talk of Betts on the left side of the infield is a fools errand? He's never played there (ok he played a couple games years ago) and there's not even a hint of it right now. Until he plays over there or the team talks about it, it's not worth speculating over let alone debating short vs third; I think Mookie will be a better MLB player than; JBJ, WMB and Holt. I also think he'll become a good MLB player before Xander, but likely surpassed as Bogaert's starts to hit for power. We better figure out a way to get him ready. More ab's in AAA. And, figure out where he's going to play next year because we're going to need him to bat lead-off.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 4, 2014 8:37:43 GMT -5
If Victorino has back surgery, that will be something to watch. Very few athletes ever play they same after any type of surgical back procedures (unless they are just shaving down spurs on the spine; even then you're looking at 3-6 months of genuine recovery time). If it's more serious such as a ruptured disc (and of course we hope it isn't), and produces a 1-year recovery period, I wonder if the Sox would try to broker a "retirement" deal with Vic, paying him out a portion of the money owed but clearing out some lux tax space. He could always come back in 2016 if he feels up to it.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 4, 2014 9:33:32 GMT -5
Eric's analysis is very persuasive. I wonder why the Sox haven't tried Betts at 3B? It is the only position really open right now, and the existing contenders are not as promising. I am sure the Sox are hoping that Middlebrooks will make it because of his power. If he had better pitch recognition he probably would hit 30 HRs, but that probably is not going to happen. Cecchini not only doesn't have much power - Betts has more - he isn't even hitting very well. It makes perfect sense, so to repeat what Eric wrote: What are they waiting for? Well I think they're not as pessimistic on Middlebrooks as pretty much every fan seems to be. Probably because, while you think he'll never hit 30 homers, he hit 32 in his first 660 MLB PA's. Even without pitch recognition, they probably see him as Mark Trumbo with better defense, and are banking on someone else thinking the same thing, or Middlebrooks being able to convince someone of that. Betts is 21 with all that team control left and has already played 3 different positions this year, so my guess is they're thinking of Middlebrooks' trade value and not screwing up everything else Mookie has going for him by putting too much on his plate
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 4, 2014 10:13:36 GMT -5
I still believe in Middlebrooks FWIW. But if Farrell continues to platoon him you'll never know.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 4, 2014 10:29:14 GMT -5
Kruk's analysis of Bradley's hitting stance was quite convincing last night, especially with their use of video showing how far behind on the pitches he consistently was. He was hitting much better a few weeks ago. I wonder why he changed his stance. He'll never hit with the stance he has now. Somebody screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Aug 4, 2014 11:03:48 GMT -5
Some hitters take longer finding out or deciding who they are. Bradley may be one. He hit with some pop and drive in the minors, but even with his stance changes awhile back, he is more of a singles hitter. Just guessing. Wonder if he got frustrated and decided to try for more power.
|
|
|