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 jimed14 on Dec 31, 2014 14:43:14 GMT -5
And Guidas, bWAR has Scherzer as a 6 win pitcher last year, and Porcello as a 4. The Sox may want to pay to pay an extra $10-$15 million for those 2 wins or they may not. But realistic numbers please. Scherzer wouldn't replace Porcello in the rotation. He'd replace Masterson. That's still not much more than a three-win upgrade for a marginal cost of $25m-ish, but that's the real risk/reward calculation here. The point remains that Scherzer isn't a 5-7 win upgrade on this team. That's outrageous. Guidas also ignores downside risk as usual.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 31, 2014 15:30:02 GMT -5
Compared him to Porcello as a larger part of the 'Ace' debate. You're right, it's likely he'd be replacing Masterson - unless the latter regains his 2012 2013 form, in which case he replaces Kelly, unless Kelly starts to reflect his stuff, in which case he replaces Miley, unless Miley delivers those Away numbers from last year on a regular basis in which case...
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 31, 2014 16:35:56 GMT -5
Compared him to Porcello as a larger part of the 'Ace' debate. You're right, it's likely he'd be replacing Masterson - unless the latter regains his 2012 2013 form, in which case he replaces Kelly, unless Kelly starts to reflect his stuff, in which case he replaces Miley, unless Miley delivers those Away numbers from last year on a regular basis in which case... Look, I like the pitchers that the Red Sox have brought in, but the idea that the fifth starter that Scherzer would be push out is going to be anything but terrible is comically optimistic. There's plenty of downside in this rotation.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 31, 2014 17:17:31 GMT -5
Compared him to Porcello as a larger part of the 'Ace' debate. You're right, it's likely he'd be replacing Masterson - unless the latter regains his 2012 2013 form, in which case he replaces Kelly, unless Kelly starts to reflect his stuff, in which case he replaces Miley, unless Miley delivers those Away numbers from last year on a regular basis in which case... Look, I like the pitchers that the Red Sox have brought in, but the idea that the fifth starter that Scherzer would be push out is going to be anything but terrible is comically optimistic. There's plenty of downside in this rotation. ...and plenty of upside. I think they planned it that way. Coming to you from the great northwest
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 31, 2014 17:31:22 GMT -5
I don't think that word means what you think it means. It's January here so sometimes in the future Happy New Year to all of You. LOL, you guys just seem soooooo last year.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 31, 2014 17:42:15 GMT -5
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Thank you Steve. I thought that perhaps I'd missed a dose of meds. Phew!
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 31, 2014 17:46:36 GMT -5
Compared him to Porcello as a larger part of the 'Ace' debate. You're right, it's likely he'd be replacing Masterson - unless the latter regains his 2012 2013 form, in which case he replaces Kelly, unless Kelly starts to reflect his stuff, in which case he replaces Miley, unless Miley delivers those Away numbers from last year on a regular basis in which case... Look, I like the pitchers that the Red Sox have brought in, but the idea that the fifth starter that Scherzer would be push out is going to be anything but terrible is comically optimistic. There's plenty of downside in this rotation. I suspect that pitching performances this year will be all over the chart...some doing better than expected and some disappointing, but there does seem to be potential to the downside. But again, altho I want us to win, I want to keep and develop the prospects. I am willing to wait. This year will be exciting no matter what particularly from the offensive side.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 31, 2014 18:14:18 GMT -5
I know it's January, and the itch to see some baseball is strong, but perspective please. This team may not be done dealing. The point is, they have enough cards in their deck that they match up with anyone, now or in June. They're dealing from strength which is the way to do it, and if the right offer comes along I'd guess they pull the trigger. Saying that everything has to be done yesterday, and that all is lost as of right now ignores the dynamics. And Guidas, bWAR has Scherzer as a 6 win pitcher last year, and Porcello as a 4. The Sox may want to pay to pay an extra $10-$15 million for those 2 wins or they may not. But realistic numbers please. I wasn't thinking of Porcello alone but also Kelly, Masterson, and Miley - whole lotta projection/hope/optimism there. (This being an alternate year for Buchholz he'll no doubt have a 5.5 WAR so no worries there-COUGH). I see Scherzer or Hamels as risk mitigation (I actually prefer Hamels but Scherzer let's the Sox keep the prospects who would be traded for other needs). There is no one in our current system who legitimately projects as a 1 or 2 starter, either so acquiring Scherzer or Hamels would allow the Sox to have one starter of that ilk for for the next 4-5 years. Bottom line: I like what the front office has done about the offense, and I like the idea of having more starters who are ground ball pitchers. But the defense on the left side of the infield is so-so which could make for a whole lotta ground balls up the middle. But more than anything I'm just not buying into all the sunshine projections. This is a rotation of guys who - if we use last year's bWAR, Norm, could include 4 number 4/5 starters or a shade worse. I get that if the best case happens the Sox could have 4 or even 5 starters who are 2/3s or a shade better. But do I believe that? Not for Kelly, Masterson, or Miley. Just far too many maybes and best case projects involved. All that said, the offseason's not done yet, so I am holding my powder to see if there's any improvement over the next few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Jan 1, 2015 7:48:26 GMT -5
I am surprised some team (and I would like it to be the Red Sox) have not signed Badenhop for a 1 or 2 year contract at between 2 to 2.5 million per.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Jan 1, 2015 8:04:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jan 1, 2015 12:52:22 GMT -5
I would do it, but I don't think that it's realistic to get a high-end (and mostly wart-free) player in free agency without paying for the bad years at the end of the deal. Scherzer might go for it if he has multiple opt-out opportunities (like one every year), where he can hit free agency when he feels the market is right. In the article, McAdam references the 2012 FA philosophy of overpaying for short years. The problem is that Napoli and Victorino were far from Scherzer-caliber the year that they were free agents, so the comparison is a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 1, 2015 17:30:55 GMT -5
I am surprised some team (and I would like it to be the Red Sox) have not signed Badenhop for a 1 or 2 year contract at between 2 to 2.5 million per. This is probably because there's still more than a month and a half until pitchers and catchers report.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 1, 2015 17:42:59 GMT -5
Yea but then Sports Illustrated would have to put Lester in the cover again.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 2, 2015 15:58:10 GMT -5
For the Porcello/"Rotation will be much better than it looks because of X indicators based on last year" conversation that's been going on in this thread, all those who are stating this and who have also been saying over the last 6 months that the Sox should get rid of Buchholz: Clay Bucchholz 2014 (i.e. dismal/"Get rid of him!" season): SIERA 4.02 xFIP 4.04 Rick Porcello 2014 (i.e. heartening/"He's an ace in waiting" season): SIERA 3.88 xFIP 3.69 www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=al&qual=y&type=1&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=21,a I don't pretend to have a clue how either will pitch this year, but the advanced data, at least for 2014 which many have pointed to as a breakthrough for Pocello and a breakdown for Buchholz, are not that dissimilar.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 2, 2015 16:28:23 GMT -5
For the Porcello/"Rotation will be much better than it looks because of X indicators based on last year" conversation that's been going on in this thread, all those who are stating this and who have also been saying over the last 6 months that the Sox should get rid of Buchholz: Clay Bucchholz 2014 (i.e. dismal/"Get rid of him!" season): SIERA 4.02 xFIP 4.04 Rick Porcello 2014 (i.e. heartening/"He's an ace in waiting" season): SIERA 3.88 xFIP 3.69 www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=al&qual=y&type=1&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=21,a I don't pretend to have a clue how either will pitch this year, but the advanced data, at least for 2014 which many have pointed to as a breakthrough for Pocello and a breakdown for Buchholz, are not that dissimilar. And for the 100th time, Buchholz' season last year is a perfect example of one way how FIP doesn't work. It does not take into account when pitchers are pitching like they don't belong in the major leagues. Buchholz pitched like that for a good part of the season. I'm sure batting practice pitchers' FIP would be lower than their ERA too. But let's not delve into the DIPS theory again, because the main part of that theory is that major league pitchers should have close to major league average BABIP. That's not the case when they're terrible and should have high BABIPs. It also doesn't account for average LOB% when pitchers are pitching like garbage from the stretch and seem to be praying to throw strikes by throwing right down the middle like Buchholz did a lot last year. Buchholz' stats last year really need to be put to the eye test. The outlier horrible pitching performances are not accounted for by FIP. Lackey's FIP was way under his ERA in 2011 also. So was Webster's when he was pitching like garbage.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 2, 2015 18:42:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 2, 2015 18:46:52 GMT -5
For the Porcello/"Rotation will be much better than it looks because of X indicators based on last year" conversation that's been going on in this thread, all those who are stating this and who have also been saying over the last 6 months that the Sox should get rid of Buchholz: Clay Bucchholz 2014 (i.e. dismal/"Get rid of him!" season): SIERA 4.02 xFIP 4.04 Rick Porcello 2014 (i.e. heartening/"He's an ace in waiting" season): SIERA 3.88 xFIP 3.69 www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=al&qual=y&type=1&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=21,a I don't pretend to have a clue how either will pitch this year, but the advanced data, at least for 2014 which many have pointed to as a breakthrough for Pocello and a breakdown for Buchholz, are not that dissimilar. It's a bad idea to try and evaluate a player based solely on his most recent season. For instance... Rick Porcello 2013: SIERA 3.31 xFIP 3.19. I also don't think there is much (any) overlap between the two groups you're describing. Those who believe in advanced stats and regression to the mean aren't the ones clamoring to trade Buchholz.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 2, 2015 19:50:52 GMT -5
Only because his return would be abysmal. Look, the dude's now 30 and, he is what he is. There's a possibility he'll be a top 5 starter but a far greater possibility he'll waste us. Pray for a strong start and get him gone for decent value.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Jan 2, 2015 21:29:06 GMT -5
according to MLBTR, Giants are out on James Shields and Max Scherzer(never were in on him). I really hope the it's like the Rangers or something, not the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 2, 2015 21:35:37 GMT -5
according to MLBTR, Giants are out on James Shields and Max Scherzer(never were in on him). I really hope the it's like the Rangers or something, not the Red Sox. I can't imagine a worse place for Shields to sign other than with the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 2, 2015 23:30:26 GMT -5
Only because his return would be abysmal. Look, the dude's now 30 and, he is what he is. There's a possibility he'll be a top 5 starter but a far greater possibility he'll waste us. Pray for a strong start and get him gone for decent value. Buchholz only needs to generate 6 WAR total over the next three season's to pay for himself. He's also likely highly tradeable because his contract is options for the next two years, therefore, low risk. I'm pretty sure finding a team to take a Clay flyer wouldn't be difficult. High reward, low risk. He's a keeper.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 3, 2015 9:37:57 GMT -5
Yeah, if you were designing a contract and situation for a guy like Buccholz, it'd be this one. After this year, it's all club options at reasonable money, and this organization has the SP depth to deal with his inevitable DL stints.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 3, 2015 11:35:29 GMT -5
Only because his return would be abysmal. Look, the dude's now 30 and, he is what he is. There's a possibility he'll be a top 5 starter but a far greater possibility he'll waste us. Pray for a strong start and get him gone for decent value. Buchholz only needs to generate 6 WAR total over the next three season's to pay for himself. He's also likely highly tradeable because his contract is options for the next two years, therefore, low risk. I'm pretty sure finding a team to take a Clay flyer wouldn't be difficult.High reward, low risk. He's a keeper. Sure, a flyer. A flyer like $9.5m for Masterson or $10m for Anderson. But if a team is going to give up a decent piece for Buchholz it would be assuming at least one of those option years as good. That's $25m over 2 or $38.5m over 3. McCarthy, a similar starter, didn't receive that rate basis, nor would any team have traded for his $48m/4 while giving up a decent player in return. I don't think Clay would provide a decent return so, like you say: High reward, low risk. He's a keeper (because there really is no alternative)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 3, 2015 12:10:07 GMT -5
Alternative or no alternative, he's a keeper because of the high reward, low risk situation. He fits the Sox situation well, no reason to consider trading him. The absolute worst case is that he goes to the pen for the year and he gets replaced in the rotation by a decent prospect, Wright or Workman if it happens in the spring. On the other hand, the upside is considerable.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 3, 2015 12:36:08 GMT -5
For the Porcello/"Rotation will be much better than it looks because of X indicators based on last year" conversation that's been going on in this thread, all those who are stating this and who have also been saying over the last 6 months that the Sox should get rid of Buchholz: Clay Bucchholz 2014 (i.e. dismal/"Get rid of him!" season): SIERA 4.02 xFIP 4.04 Rick Porcello 2014 (i.e. heartening/"He's an ace in waiting" season): SIERA 3.88 xFIP 3.69 www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=al&qual=y&type=1&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=21,a I don't pretend to have a clue how either will pitch this year, but the advanced data, at least for 2014 which many have pointed to as a breakthrough for Pocello and a breakdown for Buchholz, are not that dissimilar. It's a bad idea to try and evaluate a player based solely on his most recent season. For instance... Rick Porcello 2013: SIERA 3.31 xFIP 3.19. I also don't think there is much (any) overlap between the two groups you're describing. Those who believe in advanced stats and regression to the mean aren't the ones clamoring to trade Buchholz. I agree - the point I was making is some here who hope for best case with this rotation are pinning hopes on 3 or 4 of the starters putting together a simultaneous string of outlier years and/or pointing to last year's performance to justify/negate why player X has a high probability of doing this. This includes some of the more stats-minds among us. I also think pointing to the Orioles as to why the Sox current rotation could be successful is a mistake. Baltimore had the extreme good fortune to catch a division where the Red Sox, Tampa and Yankees were all having down years. Again, another outlier. While all three of those teams may not return to 85+ win form this year, it is unlikely that this will be repeated. It is more likely, with Baltimore's loss of talent and the increase in talent by Boston and Toronto and even New York will move three or four of the division's teams closer to a mean.
|
|
|