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
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 16, 2015 22:56:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 16, 2015 23:13:14 GMT -5
Phillies becomes what they are because they traded away young talents for old and proven players, which is exactly the same way you suggest. Well, I'm not saying trade ALL of them away. Then again, that's what Billy Beane's been doing for the last three years and he's had much more success over that time than the Phils. No abosolutes here. Just opportunities. Billy Beane has been successful not because he traded away his key prospects but because he picked up right guys, who were unproven and cheap. His deal of Russel for Samardzija was really bad.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 16, 2015 23:56:44 GMT -5
Well, I'm not saying trade ALL of them away. Then again, that's what Billy Beane's been doing for the last three years and he's had much more success over that time than the Phils. No abosolutes here. Just opportunities. Billy Beane has been successful not because he traded away his key prospects but because he picked up right guys, who were unproven and cheap. His deal of Russel for Samardzija was really bad. It's only bad in isolation mode. Sometimes standings considerations outweigh trade balance considerations. . . . From Kiley's McDaniel's chat: Comment From Bomok Where would Rusney Castillo be on a top 100 prospect list? And what do you expect out of him next year? 12:05 Kiley McDaniel: I’d guess somewhere in the middle third of a top 100, but still too early for me that say that confidently. Comment From Pirates Hurdles Ben Badler posted today that he would have Moncada somewhere around the #12 prospect in MLB, too heavy, too light? 12:06 Kiley McDaniel: I don’t have my list lined up yet, but I always figured I’d put Moncada top 10 or very close to it, so that sounds about right. I’m sure I’ll disagree with other publications outside of the top 25-30 prospects, but there’s usually a good bit of agreement on those top guys Comment From Big Hurtin Will Moncada sign this off-season? Is it basically just a waiting game right now? 12:20 Kiley McDaniel: Yep. Literally could happen any day now. OFAC doesn’t give a lot of hints, so no one knows how close they are to clearing him. I’d guess he’s signed before Opening Day, maybe well before. Comment From Victor I have heard a lot of good things about Rafael Devers. What can you tell me about him? Do you think he will develop into an elite prospect? 12:39 Kiley McDaniel: Lucky for you I’ve written a lot about this and even edited a video together just for you www.fangraphs.com/st… www.fangraphs.com/bl…Comment From Harry Which low a prospect do you believe will make the most impact: Franchy Cordero, Amed Rosario,Rafael Devers, other of your choice? 12:43 Kiley McDaniel: Cordero is way behind the other two. I’ll lean Rosario but Devers is also really good. Comment From RotoLando You are very knowledgable about domestic prospects. Do you follow International prospects as closely, or do you wait until they sign here to start digging? 12:57 Kiley McDaniel: I follow it pretty darn closely!Early notes on 2015 July 2 guys w/reports and video: www.fangraphs.com/bl…Note on a super elite 2016 guy w/report and video: www.fangraphs.com/bl…Some of my 2014 July 2 coverage at my last employer: sbb.scout.com/story/… sbb.scout.com/story/…I should be heading to the DR to see this year’s crop around Feb 1. Comment From Doug Was Matt Barnes turnaround last season enough to consider him a potential 2 or 3 starter? 1:04 Kiley McDaniel: More 4/5 or setup, but most think he can start. no plus secondary is reason people don’t say 3 . . . For reference, here is his Red Sox page: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-prospects-boston-red-sox/
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Jan 17, 2015 0:23:34 GMT -5
Call me a homer but I don't see how Rosario can be ahead of Devers at this point in time.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jan 17, 2015 0:30:42 GMT -5
Phillies becomes what they are because they traded away young talents for old and proven players, which is exactly the same way you suggest. Well, I'm not saying trade ALL of them away. Then again, that's what Billy Beane's been doing for the last three years and he's had much more success over that time than the Phils. No abosolutes here. Just opportunities. And what return has Billy Beane got for those prospects? Very little. The A's success has nothing to with trading prospects for veterans. But more to the point is that since John Henry bought the team prospects traded by the Red Sox have accrued more than double the bWAR of veterans acquired. Unless they feel strongly that the 2015 Red Sox are more likely to be contenders than the 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020 Red Sox, they shouldn't trade for Hamels. To illustrate, look at the deal for Beckett/Lowell. I think most of us, looking back, are glad the Red Sox made that deal. However, the players acquired by the Marlins outperformed the players acquired by the Red Sox in five of the next seven years. In other words, the Red Sox reduced their probability of winning in five years (2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012) for improved probability of winning in 2007 and 2011. On average that is the deal the Red Sox will most likely be making if they trade for Hamels. Given the composition of the current team, I would rather roll the die on the prospects.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 17, 2015 1:26:42 GMT -5
Well, I'm not saying trade ALL of them away. Then again, that's what Billy Beane's been doing for the last three years and he's had much more success over that time than the Phils. No abosolutes here. Just opportunities. And what return has Billy Beane got for those prospects? Very little. The A's success has nothing to with trading prospects for veterans. But more to the point is that since John Henry bought the team prospects traded by the Red Sox have accrued more than double the bWAR of veterans acquired. Unless they feel strongly that the 2015 Red Sox are more likely to be contenders than the 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020 Red Sox, they shouldn't trade for Hamels. To illustrate, look at the deal for Beckett/Lowell. I think most of us, looking back, are glad the Red Sox made that deal. However, the players acquired by the Marlins outperformed the players acquired by the Red Sox in five of the next seven years. In other words, the Red Sox reduced their probability of winning in five years (2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012) for improved probability of winning in 2007 and 2011. On average that is the deal the Red Sox will most likely be making if they trade for Hamels. Given the composition of the current team, I would rather roll the die on the prospects. 100% agree with that general sentiment but with a slight twist. I agree when we're talking 'A' prospects but, I wouldn't hesitate to package an equivalent group of 'B' prospects. I'd go for a quantity over quality trade for Hamels mainly because we have so much quantity that is starting to look close to blocked. As examples, Cecchini, Ranaudo. . . . Another good article on our three lefties. My takeaway, the interaction between these three could be huge. www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20150116-lefty-pitching-prospects-thriving-thanks-to-improved-changeups.ece
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan1994 on Jan 17, 2015 3:05:32 GMT -5
One last thing, many of you have been on a certain Nick Cafardo. My eyes have been open wide. I believe you oh smart ones. This man has no right to be talking Red Sox baseball or any other teams. It amazes me how ill-prepared some folks are. The comment Cafardo made about Moncada and the Sox was so ridiculous. When I see him on the MLB network I get quite ill. I'm sorry I doubted you all.....he stinks! Cafardo has some of this best sources in the industry. But his opinions are hot garbage. I seem to remember him clamoring for the sox to sign Josh Hamilton a couple years ago right after they got out from the Crawford contract. Sometime last summer I got in a twitter beef with Cafardo because he mentioned in one of his articles (http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/09/04/where-these-seven-players-fit-for-red-sox/F3d9O1pRwRQuxpGSJRtgaK/story.html?event=event25) that Allen Webster had no business being a starting pitcher. While I don't think he is an ace, I don't think it was fair to write him of that quickly. I said something like "You're so shortsighted on Webster" he responded with "Well these numbers are awful yada yada yada." After Webster put together that string of quality starts in late August/September I responded with a remember when you said this? And he was like "well the 7.04 ERA threw me off." So yeah, I think Cafardo is a jackass and his opinions belong on phone calls to WEEI and not the Boston Globe or MLB Network.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jan 17, 2015 7:44:13 GMT -5
Phibosoxfan,
And I agree with your post with a twist. While I think I, too, would say yes to almost any package for Hamels that didn't include Betts or Bogaerts, and no more than one of Swihart, Margot or Devers, I would still like to see them try the lots of good young players approach just this once. I think that depth is an underrated value in baseball. Each year, most teams get 1000 to 2000 plate appearances from their bench. Injuries happen and, even when they don't, off-days are valuable. I suspect some of those blocked prospects, especially Cecchini, may not be as blocked as they appear.
I get the impression this what Ben Cherington thinks as well (based upon the moves he's made).
PS -- Also I think most posters here recognize that when you trade prospects you are sacrificing ceiling to reduce risk (as well as trading future wins for present wins). Normally the Red Sox take a relatively low risk approach. I'd like to see them take the higher risk/higher ceiling approach this once; aim for a team that can win back to back division titles for the first time in its history.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 17, 2015 8:05:14 GMT -5
No way would I include Swihart. unless the Phillies were willing to eat a ton of dollars. Those are not B prospects. I want to see them aiming for a dynasty here. We don't need Hamels that bad and there are other quality rentals that can be had much cheaper. I wouldn't swap Swihart straight up for Hammels, he's not a necessity, he's a luxury. He would need to be a 5 WAR pitcher for the next 5 years to offset the likely gain of a single cost controlled decent player.
If Margot or Devers were included, there wouldn't be much else.
As a point of reference, I would include Swihart in a swap for Sale or Gray.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 17, 2015 10:15:49 GMT -5
Well, I'm not saying trade ALL of them away. Then again, that's what Billy Beane's been doing for the last three years and he's had much more success over that time than the Phils. No abosolutes here. Just opportunities. And what return has Billy Beane got for those prospects? Very little. The A's success has nothing to with trading prospects for veterans. But more to the point is that since John Henry bought the team prospects traded by the Red Sox have accrued more than double the bWAR of veterans acquired. Unless they feel strongly that the 2015 Red Sox are more likely to be contenders than the 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020 Red Sox, they shouldn't trade for Hamels. To illustrate, look at the deal for Beckett/Lowell. I think most of us, looking back, are glad the Red Sox made that deal. However, the players acquired by the Marlins outperformed the players acquired by the Red Sox in five of the next seven years. In other words, the Red Sox reduced their probability of winning in five years (2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012) for improved probability of winning in 2007 and 2011. On average that is the deal the Red Sox will most likely be making if they trade for Hamels. Given the composition of the current team, I would rather roll the die on the prospects. And with Hamels, you also get the opportunity to spend $22 million per year, which eventually takes away from other areas of the team. I'm not giving up a boatload of prospects for one year of anyone and I'm also not giving them up for a 31 year old.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Jan 17, 2015 11:07:29 GMT -5
You would think that Michael Silverman of the Herald would know better than to make this mistake: "Rick Porcello, acquired in the Yoenis Cespedes trade with the Tigers, will be paid $12.5 million, an increase of $4 million from his $8.5 million contract in 2014. Reliever Junichi Tazawa’s salary will increase from $1.275 million to $2.25 million. Neither salary is guaranteed." Herald article
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 17, 2015 11:24:01 GMT -5
Err... arbitration salaries are not fully guaranteed. A team can release an arb-eligible player during Spring Training and just owe them 30 or 45 days' termination play (depending on when he is released). Arbitration salaries are only fully guaranteed if the player sticks on the roster through the start of the season.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 17, 2015 11:49:14 GMT -5
Id wait on Hamels until during the year at this point. There are too many guys who's value could substantially increase which could make it easier to acquire. At this point, it seems clear the Phillies aren't budging and there is no reason why Boston should either. Obviously stay in touch but might as well wait. I'd rather give Scherzer 7/180 and keep the prospects than get Hamels and I've been a proponent, I just don't see them as accepting anything less than Swithart or Betts in a deal and that's unfortunate.
I think guys like Margot, Marrero, Checchini and even JBjr could see drastic up ticks in value with strong starts to the year. If Marrero hits in AAa like he did in AA then I think he could become a massive trade piece, and I think there's a solid chance he does that. If Margot can perform again and do it at AA then his value takes a major leap from s piece teams want to headline material. On top of it, if Betts and Castillo do well then Margot becomes very movable.
As far as I'm concerned Devers should be untouchable. He's too far away and there is no way another team treats him as the headliner for a top guy so I wouldn't deal him.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 17, 2015 11:56:38 GMT -5
You would think that Michael Silverman of the Herald would know better than to make this mistake: "Rick Porcello, acquired in the Yoenis Cespedes trade with the Tigers, will be paid $12.5 million, an increase of $4 million from his $8.5 million contract in 2014. Reliever Junichi Tazawa’s salary will increase from $1.275 million to $2.25 million. Neither salary is guaranteed." Herald articleThe nice increase for Porcello over his 2014 salary might be seen as good faith money, a way of saying " we're very interested in extending you and this is a taste of what you can expect". It wouldn't surprise me if it gets folded in to just such an extension at some point. Add: Here's a chart that shows BP's wins above replacement numbers for Lester, and for the projected starting five for the Sox this year. This one is age based - each pitcher's performance is shown at the same relative age. This won't, of course, take into account the changes in the offensive environment over time. I'd be willing to do that also if there's any interest. That would mean plotting the bWAR by year. This is a visual metaphor for much of what's been discussed: Lester's spotty performance in 2012, Porcello's gradual rise, Buchholz' schizoid performance, and so on (click to expand):
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 17, 2015 12:33:08 GMT -5
You would think that Michael Silverman of the Herald would know better than to make this mistake: "Rick Porcello, acquired in the Yoenis Cespedes trade with the Tigers, will be paid $12.5 million, an increase of $4 million from his $8.5 million contract in 2014. Reliever Junichi Tazawa’s salary will increase from $1.275 million to $2.25 million. Neither salary is guaranteed." Herald articleThe nice increase for Porcello over his 2014 salary might be seen as good faith money, a way of saying " we're very interested in extending you and this is a taste of what you can expect". It wouldn't surprise me if it gets folded in to just such an extension at some point. MLBTR projected $12.2m for Porcello, and while they ultimately gave him a little more than that, I wouldn't read too much into it. I do think the front office would be interested an extension, but I'm skeptical that their agreement on his 2015 salary means an extension is any more likely than it was a week ago.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Jan 17, 2015 13:06:24 GMT -5
I think the chances Marrero does what he did at AA offensively at any level ever again are low.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 17, 2015 14:21:03 GMT -5
I think the chances Marrero does what he did at AA offensively at any level ever again are low. Because ? He did well at AFL. Prior to the AFL, there was an article where he talked about getting away from his plate discipline game and being over anxious when he got to AAA and wanting to work on that. He seems to have accomplished that and learned from his mistakes.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,838
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 17, 2015 16:12:33 GMT -5
I think the chances Marrero does what he did at AA offensively at any level ever again are low. Because ? He did well at AFL. Prior to the AFL, there was an article where he talked about getting away from his plate discipline game and being over anxious when he got to AAA and wanting to work on that. He seems to have accomplished that and learned from his mistakes. When you see Devin Marrero it is easier to vision a hitter with solid gap power. The kid is built really solidly. He, to me, never looks physically over-matched. He has good bat speed and a solid idea at bat. The 1st time I saw him I was surprised who he was. He will not be someone like Iglesias who we always wondered whether he could get the ball out of the infield. If it wasn't for Xander, I really believe he could eventually be an above-average shortstop for us for many years. Everyone talks about the defense, and rightfully so, but this kid will be fine at the plate in the future.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Jan 17, 2015 17:37:15 GMT -5
Id wait on Hamels until during the year at this point. There are too many guys who's value could substantially increase which could make it easier to acquire. At this point, it seems clear the Phillies aren't budging and there is no reason why Boston should either. Obviously stay in touch but might as well wait. I'd rather give Scherzer 7/180 and keep the prospects than get Hamels and I've been a proponent, I just don't see them as accepting anything less than Swithart or Betts in a deal and that's unfortunate. I think guys like Margot, Marrero, Checchini and even JBjr could see drastic up ticks in value with strong starts to the year. If Marrero hits in AAa like he did in AA then I think he could become a massive trade piece, and I think there's a solid chance he does that. If Margot can perform again and do it at AA then his value takes a major leap from s piece teams want to headline material. On top of it, if Betts and Castillo do well then Margot becomes very movable. As far as I'm concerned Devers should be untouchable. He's too far away and there is no way another team treats him as the headliner for a top guy so I wouldn't deal him. To my mind the Sox are in what may be a unique position prospect-wise right now in that their prospect list is strong, but it is extraordinarily top-heavy. It is loaded with guys who are basically established in Boston, have had a cup of coffee or more, or at worst, are rightfully in what is a Pawtucket roster loaded with youth far, far beyond what I can ever remember. Then you really have to drop before you get to the scattered top prospects (e.g., Devers/Margot/Ball, etc.) down a ways. Point is, we are going to know fairly soon, one way or another, about what the Sox envision to be the core of their roster for the next 10 years -- potentially an exceedingly talented core. But if the organization truly wants to find out for themselves what players are best to form that core they may want to hold on now rather than trade any of them away. Yes, the organization may end up selling low on some of the lesser players eventually. But isn't it worth that downside if the organization TRULY feels that by hoarding all the promising pieces right now, there are so many that if even a reasonable percentage pan out in the way that they look like they might, the organization could be in a dominant position for the next decade without trading for anyone? And with all the young talent that would seem to be likely to be filling the roster in the near future, going the FA route to fill a few remaining holes here and there will be no financial strain at all longer term. Now that may mean that the organization doesn't make as strong a showing in 2015 as they would if they traded some prime pieces for immediate upgrade. But I'm willing to give away the absolute best chance at contention/a title run in 2015 if it means the organization, by standing pat, can set itself up to take best advantage of a prospect situation that (because of new draft rules) they are unlikely to see again in my lifetime at least, and maybe much longer. This is THE time when I want to see this organization swing for the fences, and swing, and swing, and swing ...... Is this a reasonable view of how to handle the glut of top-level prospects? Or is there too much fools gold there, which says that the better alternative is to trade some of them off to upgrade now, because chances are that most of them will end up being not good enough to provide significant major league value to a contending team?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 17, 2015 18:50:37 GMT -5
Chris Cotillo ?@chriscotillo 6m6 minutes ago Source confirms: Quintin Berry signs with #RedSox on minor-league deal.
ADD: He also apparently gets a spring training invite according to a MiLB tweet.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 17, 2015 19:27:37 GMT -5
Your usage of 'hoarding' scares me because I'm starting to sense the same, and no I don't think that strategy is appropriate for a rich, 1st division team. Caveat: I'd also agree that it may be too early for the following opinion.
Let's use a more appropriate 5 years instead, god knows what '17 will bring:
C - set, set, double set 1B - open and, aggravatingly enough, a likely FA remedy to be. Unless one of Devers, Hanley, Panda, et el fails. 2B - set SS - set 3B - set LF - set CF - set RF - set DH - open or Papi is definitely on the roids.
SP - 4 open spots, not including Buccholz.
My point being, what's the point of holding all this redundant mL talent if you're not using it to improve the club today? I know most here are waxing poetic about our recent pitching hires, but even you all have to admit that those hires were the cheap way out. Why is that necessary? Personally I don't a rat's behind if we trade off 2-3 guys we'll never use anyway, for a reliable starter or 3. OMG! we gave up too much! Who cares, they will be pawned for relievers (or backup catchers) ultimately anyway.
BC has to prove me wrong here because he's been too inconsistent with this build, imo. On one hand he needed veteran bats and starters who unfortunately blocked our most promotable players. I'm ok with that, last year was an admitted disaster. On the other he now won't relinquish those blocked promotables because... value. He needs to make up his mind.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 17, 2015 20:23:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 17, 2015 23:17:39 GMT -5
All of
Workman Ranaudo Barnes Wright Escobar Hembree Spruill Hinojosa Couch Hernandez Coyle Cecchini Brentz and JBJ
could potentially help the club in 2015 and have some degree of value.
On the other hand, all are also blocked or close and redundant to each other, not currently looking like future starters for the Sox and we have the depth to carry the loss of any or several of them. . . . Jim Callis ?@jimcallismlb 2m2 minutes ago Hedges, but Vazquez is pretty good. @kevennickerson: Who is better defensively, Christian Vazquez or Austin Hedges? @padres @giants
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 18, 2015 2:25:56 GMT -5
FanGraphs podcast with Kiley McDaniel. Somewhat interesting stuff but little to do with the Red Sox. At about 20 minutes, they were discussing converts to catcher and the interviewer asked Kiley what traits he'd look for. He used Chavis as his best example based on attitude, body type, athletisism, skills & tools. Without his saying it directly, you would get the impression that Chavis isn't likely to have much range in the infield. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/fangraphs-audio-kiley-mcdaniel-as-per-usual/ADD: Don't take that wrong, overall he was being complimentary about Chavis, the topic was the trend towards athletic catchers in the lower minors, mentioning a slew of recent converts but, I got the impression that if he were to pick a best position for Chavis, it would be catcher. . . . NOTES: Former Red Sox (and Sea Dogs) catcher Ryan Lavarnway appeared to have settled on an organization for 2015, signing a minor league deal with the Orioles. Lavarnway had been designated for assignment by four teams this offseason – Boston, the Dodgers, the Cubs and Baltimore. . . . Former Sea Dogs pitcher Caleb Clay signed a minor league contract with Arizona. Clay, 26, nearly made his major league debut last August. The Angels called him up on Aug. 10 but he didn’t get into a game.www.pressherald.com/2015/01/18/on-baseball-beyeler-will-help-ramirez-with-position-change/It seems amazing to me that Caleb is only 26.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jan 18, 2015 11:36:18 GMT -5
I think the chances Marrero does what he did at AA offensively at any level ever again are low. Unless you don't consider the AFL another level.
|
|
|