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 Guidas on Jan 19, 2015 22:19:04 GMT -5
Like I said before I'll hold judgement until we get closer to April 1 but this rotation is mediocre at best and I am not buying the sunny projections. Lotta potential suck with Masterson, Kelly, Miley and Buchholz (and I like Buchholz!), and Porcello could just as easily be a #3 starter as a #2. If this is the staff going into opening day then it's a big fail by the front office. www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=ALL&teamid=3I know it's fun to be pessimist Red Sox fan but we have a lot better lineup than we had last year. And our pitching still is 5th out of 30 teams here. Yes I know, projections are stupid. But I think you're overestimating other teams, especially the AL East. And those projrctions appear to be base on fan projections right now, which tend to ride optimistic. No fun at all to be a bit disgruntled with the FO right now but they do have some time yet. If the Sox ended up with one of Zimmerman, Cueto or maybe even Fister or Wheeler, and didn't lose any position players projected to start on April 1 (i.e Bogaerts or Mookie), and even lost one of Kelly or Miley, I'd feel like this is a 90+ win team with still some pieces to trade for assets (Nava, Victorino, Craig + whomever is left over from the one year rental deal or the Hamels deal) to get some deadline depth. And they'd STILL have a few good to very good prospects in the system. Scherzer would've been the move I made because you're already over the tax this year and you can't lose your #1 draft pick. Then you have a year to see which of Miley and Kelly you want to keep and if Owens looks like a future 4/3 or better and whether to lock up Porcello. And Scherzer means you still have all this accumulated talent to further upgrade at positons of need next year by trading for young MLB ready talent and getting below THE luxury tax threshold. My fallback plan now would have been to trade for Straussberg, but he'll cost you Owens, Swihart, Kelly and Margot (ish) and you'll only have him for 2 years because he's a Boras client. So no extension, so that plan is out, Thus the operative move is to decoy heavy Strassburg interes but ultimately deal for Hamels. Sure it'll cost you Owens but you'll keep Rodriguez, or you can keep Owens but lose Swihart (and Cecchini and either Margot or Coyle depending on Ruben's read on them). Shorter - Hamels, Zimmerman, Cueto or Strassberg makes this a 90+ win team. So far, it seems, only one of those guys is on the block right now.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 19, 2015 22:44:32 GMT -5
The Fangraphs projections are not based on fan projections, they're based on Steamer projections-- so no systemic overoptimism there. There's an argument to be made that "dumb" projection systems (i.e., ones that don't take into account injuries, etc.) overemphasize regression to the mean, which means they'd overrate this Red Sox team, which has a lot of buy-low candidates (Masterson, Buchholz, Bogaerts, even Pedroia) on it. But I'd take the other side of that coin-- I think you're emphasizing 2014 too much and ignoring these guys' successes in previous years (but we've been down that road before, so no need to go there again).
Also, you have them at 84 wins now, but think replacing Miley/Kelly with Zimmermann/Cueto/Fister/Wheeler gets them to 90+ wins? Seems like you're really fixated on this idea of needing an ace and overvaluing it a ton, because that upgrade is decided not of a six+ win magnitude.
(Strasburg.)
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 19, 2015 22:55:55 GMT -5
We should consider that 'going into the season without an ace' is not the same thing as 'ending the season without and ace' or 'going into the playoffs without an ace'. I'm far more content with the first one and much less so with the second and third.
Due to the SP depth, having a guy like Zimmerman for the first half of the season would only get you 1-2 more wins, and chances are that won't be the difference between going to playoffs or not going to the playoffs.
It could be that Hamels' price goes down or someone else become available. Maybe on May 1st Harper/Werth gets a fairly serious injury, Escobar is struggling defensively at 2B and Victorino is hitting .350. Then suddenly a package around Victorino & Marrero for Zimmermann makes a lot of sense. It's hard to predict how things will play out but unless the Red Sox miss the playoffs by 1-3 wins, or they enter the playoffs without a near-ace level pitcher, it really doesn't bother me so much.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 19, 2015 23:05:27 GMT -5
We should consider that 'going into the season without an ace' is not the same thing as 'ending the season without and ace' or 'going into the playoffs without an ace'. I'm far more content with the first one and much less so with the second and third. Due to the SP depth, having a guy like Zimmerman for the first half of the season would only get you 1-2 more wins, and chances are that won't be the difference between going to playoffs or not going to the playoffs. It could be that Hamels' price goes down or someone else become available. Maybe on May 1st Harper/Werth gets a fairly serious injury, Escobar is struggling defensively at 2B and Victorino is hitting .350. Then suddenly a package around Victorino & Marrero for Zimmermann makes a lot of sense. It's hard to predict how things will play out but unless the Red Sox miss the playoffs by 1-3 wins, or they enter the playoffs without a near-ace level pitcher, it really doesn't bother me so much. That's where I'm at, too. Going to July 31st gives the Sox a chance to see what they have and what they will need. My gut feeling tells me that Kelly's lack of control will hamper his efforts to take a big step forward. My gut tells me either Buchholz will rebound, pitch well, and then get hurt, or he'll continue to be mediocre as he was last year, and given that he's pitched that way since he got back from the DL at the end of 2013 I think the latter is the more realistic scenario, and my gut tells me that Masterson won't rebound all the way, but will be much better, because it's hard to be worse. I think Porcello will pitch well and make it harder for the Sox to spend big bucks on another pitcher because Porcello will be a free agent they Sox will need to try to find a way to keep. I think Miley will be a solid pitcher. In these scenarios, assuming a strong offense, the Sox should be in the thick of the race, and in need of an ace to give them a realistic chance to win 11 games in the post season. If that's the case, then they see who's out of the race - my guess is Cincy with Cueto is the most logical candidate. But perhaps Porcello becomes the ace and an unlikely scenario presents itself where none of the other guys are weak spots and the only way the Sox make a deal is if it's from a place of strength (like dealing an effective Kelly in a deal for a pitching upgrade like Cueto). My guess is that the Sox will need that big pitcher to do what Lester did for them in 2013 or what Beckett did for them in 2007, but we'll see, and I think that's the attitude that Cherington will have. The Sox don't need to have all the answers in April, because things happen between April and September. They do need to have all the answers in place by the time the season is over, though, if they want a serious chance to win.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 19, 2015 23:08:07 GMT -5
I know some people don't like hearing this, but it seems the sweet spot for contending for a championship every single season is to shoot for 90 wins. Not 100 while selling out the future. Look at recent history. We don't have to give up the future for this year. We should make the playoffs as is with an average amount of luck. As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. Depends on lucky we are with facing opposing 3-4-5's for the year. If we hit on say, 75% of them I could see 90 wins easily.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 7:13:03 GMT -5
As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. Depends on lucky we are with facing opposing 3-4-5's for the year. If we hit on say, 75% of them I could see 90 wins easily. This isn't even a thing, is it? I mean how good do people think the Yankees, Orioles and Blue Jays rotations are?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 20, 2015 8:44:07 GMT -5
As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. Depends on lucky we are with facing opposing 3-4-5's for the year. If we hit on say, 75% of them I could see 90 wins easily. If they win 75% of 60% of their games, that'd be 73 wins right there alone, so...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 9:17:12 GMT -5
Depends on lucky we are with facing opposing 3-4-5's for the year. If we hit on say, 75% of them I could see 90 wins easily. If they win 75% of 60% of their games, that'd be 73 wins right there alone, so... We could easily win 105-110 games. lol
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 20, 2015 9:31:53 GMT -5
I know some people don't like hearing this, but it seems the sweet spot for contending for a championship every single season is to shoot for 90 wins. Not 100 while selling out the future. Look at recent history. We don't have to give up the future for this year. We should make the playoffs as is with an average amount of luck. As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. If they had Schezer instead of Kelly how many wins would you project? How much do you think a no 1 is worth?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jan 20, 2015 11:08:11 GMT -5
As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. If they had Schezer instead of Kelly how many wins would you project? How much do you think a no 1 is worth? All wins are not the same. Wins that put a team into the post-season are worth enormously more than wins that only take a team to the low 80s. Those wins that take a team from 85-87 to 91-93 are worth millions, and maybe tens of millions. So, how many wins do you think Kelly will have? Then how many wins do you think Scherzer would have? What is the difference, and does that difference put the Sox into the post-season? Just making the post-season can increase a team's revenues dramatically, and the further it goes into the post-season the greater the revenue - into nine figures over what it would have been without the post season. If Scherzer gets the Nats to the World Series, it would move the Nats to the top of the Washington area sports teams, and that would pretty much pay for Scherzer's entire contract.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 20, 2015 11:39:58 GMT -5
If they had Schezer instead of Kelly how many wins would you project? How much do you think a no 1 is worth? All wins are not the same. Wins that put a team into the post-season are worth enormously more than wins that only take a team to the low 80s. Those wins that take a team from 85-87 to 91-93 are worth millions, and maybe tens of millions. So, how many wins do you think Kelly will have? Then how many wins do you think Scherzer would have? What is the difference, and does that difference put the Sox into the post-season? Just making the post-season can increase a team's revenues dramatically, and the further it goes into the post-season the greater the revenue - into nine figures over what it would have been without the post season. If Scherzer gets the Nats to the World Series, it would move the Nats to the top of the Washington area sports teams, and that would pretty much pay for Scherzer's entire contract. The point you make is true, but doesn't answer what he's asking. Even if we accept that those last few wins that put a team across the playoff threshold are worth more, there is the matter of how many this upgrade gets you. To the extent that you seem to be talking about pitcher wins, I'd suggest that those are useless. This is precisely the kind of thing that WAR attempts to measure. Assuming that an upgrade of, say, Kelly to Scherzer (not sure why that's what we're using here, but whatever) would be worth 6-10 wins is a bit extreme. Last year, the bWAR difference was about six, and that's with Scherzer pitching like a Cy candidate and Kelly pitching at replacement level while missing months with an injury. A projected split of, say, 2-4 wins seems more appropriate, depending on your projection for each player. And I think that's the point that was being made.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 11:42:35 GMT -5
The cost of wins from 85 to 93 is really expensive. However the cost of wins that gives them a 9 game lead in the AL East instead of 1 is not worth sacrificing the future for.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 20, 2015 12:42:14 GMT -5
As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. If they had Schezer instead of Kelly how many wins would you project? How much do you think a no 1 is worth? I answered this above but I think 5-6 wins over Miley, Kelly and Masterson, all of whom I think will be closer to 4/5s this year than 3s or 2s.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 20, 2015 12:58:59 GMT -5
The cost of wins from 85 to 93 is really expensive. However the cost of wins that gives them a 9 game lead in the AL East instead of 1 is not worth sacrificing the future for. I get this in the mean, but could you define "sacrificing the future," please? I mean, if you give, say, Owens, Swihart plus two other guys from the Cecchini/Coyle/Marrero/Barnes/Ranaudo etc group for 2 years of Strasberg or 4 years of Hamels are you really sacrificing the future? Esp with much of the roster (LF, CF, RF, 3rd, SS, 2nd - and C with Vazquez if you trade Swihart) set for the next 4 years or so?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 13:32:03 GMT -5
The cost of wins from 85 to 93 is really expensive. However the cost of wins that gives them a 9 game lead in the AL East instead of 1 is not worth sacrificing the future for. I get this in the mean, but could you define "sacrificing the future," please? I mean, if you give, say, Owens, Swihart plus two other guys from the Cecchini/Coyle/Marrero/Barnes/Ranaudo etc group for 2 years of Strasberg or 4 years of Hamels are you really sacrificing the future? Esp with much of the roster (LF, CF, RF, 3rd, SS, 2nd - and C with Vazquez if you trade Swihart) set for the next 4 years or so? That remains to be seen. It's a combination of prospects and overspending on the back end. I mean Owens alone could end up better than Hamels by the end of the 5 years, in his first arb year.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 20, 2015 13:34:22 GMT -5
I get this in the mean, but could you define "sacrificing the future," please? I mean, if you give, say, Owens, Swihart plus two other guys from the Cecchini/Coyle/Marrero/Barnes/Ranaudo etc group for 2 years of Strasberg or 4 years of Hamels are you really sacrificing the future? Esp with much of the roster (LF, CF, RF, 3rd, SS, 2nd - and C with Vazquez if you trade Swihart) set for the next 4 years or so? That remains to be seen. It's a combination of prospects and overspending on the back end. I mean Owens alone could end up better than Hamels by the end of the 5 years, in his first arb year.I'll take that bet. Owens still looks like a 3 at best to me. $5 bucks and a beer. See you in 5 years, pal!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 13:34:28 GMT -5
If they had Schezer instead of Kelly how many wins would you project? How much do you think a no 1 is worth? I answered this above but I think 5-6 wins over Miley, Kelly and Masterson, all of whom I think will be closer to 4/5s this year than 3s or 2s. I'll bet any amount of money that Scherzer does not out-WAR our 5th starter (including replacement starts) by 5-6 wins.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 13:37:37 GMT -5
That remains to be seen. It's a combination of prospects and overspending on the back end. I mean Owens alone could end up better than Hamels by the end of the 5 years, in his first arb year.I'll take that bet. Owens still looks like a 3 at best to me. $5 bucks and a beer. See you in 5 years, pal! 35 year old Hamels looks like a 3 to me (which we would also be paying $22 million/yr for instead of ~$2 million). That's just Owens, let alone everything else you're willing to give up.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jan 20, 2015 13:49:36 GMT -5
For all we know Hamels could get shelled in the AL East even in 2015. He's not the safest fit for Fenway albeit not a blatantly bad one either.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 20, 2015 16:04:11 GMT -5
For all we know Hamels could get shelled in the AL East even in 2015. He's not the safest fit for Fenway albeit not a blatantly bad one either. Well, we knew more about Scherzer. And Lester. And neither of those would've cost prospects if you really believe that trading two top ones not on the current MLB roster plus two more from the top 10 will doom the team's future. But you could say the same for Cueto, Zimmerman, or Strausberg if you believe in that logic - the same logic, btw, which would exclude Miley from being acquired. Anyway, my point is this team could've used money, and it could still use prospects (and money) to get an 1/1A starter. I didn't and hasn't, instead hoping for best projections, or that our mediocrity plus offense will be better than the rest of the mediocrity plus offense in the division (or both). I don't like that calculus. If you have more resources than your competition then use them. I'm not saying to trade away ALL the prospects or turn the Sox luxury tax situation into what the MFYs have done. But success almost always requires level of risk. With 1) more money to spend than most teams; 2) so many positions locked up 3) this year having a protected 1st rounder, 4) elite pitching being so tough to find and the Sox possessing none of it now nor have any in the pipeline that will surface in the next three-plus years - it seems like a nexus point to take such a risk.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 16:20:01 GMT -5
Until Cueto, Zimmermann, Strasburg or Hamels is traded, you can't say we should trade for them because they could be asking for a crazy return or not even actually available. And even if they were traded to other teams, you have no idea what the GMs were asking from us. I feel completely comfortable not signing Lester or Scherzer or Shields for what they were/will be signed for.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 20, 2015 16:37:05 GMT -5
Until Cueto, Zimmermann, Strasburg or Hamels is traded, you can't say we should trade for them because they could be asking for a crazy return or not even actually available. And even if they were traded to other teams, you have no idea what the GMs were asking from us. I feel completely comfortable not signing Lester or Scherzer or Shields for what they were/will be signed for. This is true, and why I'm still waiting. The trade stuff is nutty though. Sometimes I am really mystified by what guys other teams value.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 20, 2015 17:07:31 GMT -5
If you are talking about trading Betts for Statsburg, you also have to consider the value lost off the 2015 team by moving Betts. I think he is penciled in as a starter as of now, meaning his replacement would be Victorino or Craig. Projecting a 22 year old barely non eligible rookie and two oft injured veterans is pretty dynamic, but you could potentially be trading someone who could tear apart the league in 2015 and replacing him with someone who might not be able to stay on the field or hit a pitch thrown from a right hand.
I mean Mookie put up 2 fWar in 213 AB last year, and his MLB stats were a sharp drop off from his minor league stats (as expected). I'm not projecting him for 6 war, but thinking optimistically it wouldn't surprise me if he did.
I've said this before, but I don't think there is anyone available I would trade Betts or Bogaerts for. If Sale or someone of similar talent and contract status was available that's another thing.
|
|
|
Post by seanleary001 on Jan 20, 2015 17:18:04 GMT -5
The Astros designated Carlos Corporan for assignment after signing Colby Rasmus. Any chance he could fit on the Sox in a minor league deal and replace Butler?
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 638
|
Post by alnipper on Jan 20, 2015 17:20:00 GMT -5
All wins are not the same. Wins that put a team into the post-season are worth enormously more than wins that only take a team to the low 80s. Those wins that take a team from 85-87 to 91-93 are worth millions, and maybe tens of millions. So, how many wins do you think Kelly will have? Then how many wins do you think Scherzer would have? What is the difference, and does that difference put the Sox into the post-season? Just making the post-season can increase a team's revenues dramatically, and the further it goes into the post-season the greater the revenue - into nine figures over what it would have been without the post season. If Scherzer gets the Nats to the World Series, it would move the Nats to the top of the Washington area sports teams, and that would pretty much pay for Scherzer's entire contract. The point you make is true, but doesn't answer what he's asking. Even if we accept that those last few wins that put a team across the playoff threshold are worth more, there is the matter of how many this upgrade gets you. To the extent that you seem to be talking about pitcher wins, I'd suggest that those are useless. This is precisely the kind of thing that WAR attempts to measure. Assuming that an upgrade of, say, Kelly to Scherzer (not sure why that's what we're using here, but whatever) would be worth 6-10 wins is a bit extreme. Last year, the bWAR difference was about six, and that's with Scherzer pitching like a Cy candidate and Kelly pitching at replacement level while missing months with an injury. A projected split of, say, 2-4 wins seems more appropriate, depending on your projection for each player. And I think that's the point that was being made. Keep in Scherzer pitched against other teams number two's and a teams number 5 pitches against the other teams number five. If the Sox had added Scherzer, then their former number 1 starter becomes the number 2 starter and the rest slide down a spot. The signing of a number one starter has a huge impact towards wins. Also the former 5th starter goes to the bullpen, released/traded, or AAA.
|
|
|