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 Jan 20, 2015 17:49:44 GMT -5
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. That only is meaningful for the first series of the season, if that. Then the #1 pitcher faces any possible # pitcher on any rotation because of injuries, rain outs or teams playing a different number of games.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 20, 2015 17:56:54 GMT -5
What ^ said.
Just look at any set of random games. I'll do one: Clayton Kershaw's (truest #1 in baseball, right?) May opposing starters: Blake Treinen, Tim Hudson, Chase Anderson, Roberto Hernandez, Homer Bailey. If things lined up by "number," it would've been something like Zimmermann, Bumgarner, Miley, Hamels, Cueto.
Picking another random month, Jon Lester's June winds up with something like a 50% rate: Erik Bedard, Max Scherzer, Josh Tomlin, Phil Hughes, Tommy Milone, Masahiro Tanaka. And this doesn't even factor in that a team's opening day rotation doesn't necessarily wind up being how good those pitchers wind up: see the Yankees' Sabathia-Kuroda-Nova 1-2-3 before Tanaka, with Pineda taking the fifth start. In fact, none of those six-even Scherzer, Hughes, and Tanaka-on Lester's June list were their teams' opening day starters.
All it does during the regular season, functionally, is upgrade from the pitcher who gets bumped out of the rotation to the new starter. Now, during the playoffs (and, to make the point that many here have made, after the trade deadline), that match-up game certainly comes into play, and there's argument there on both sides, but the "bumping everyone else down" doesn't really bear out that way in the regular season.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 20, 2015 18:40:55 GMT -5
All true. The rotations stay in "sync" for very little time at the start of the season before injuries, days off, and postponed games wash out anything that looks like rotation equity. That's not to say that managers won't arrange for those matchups if they can get them, but once the season gets rolling, they seldom have that opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 20, 2015 21:13:03 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. I am not, nor have I ever done so. I think I said trading people not on the current MLB roster. But since you brought it up I would trade Mookie for Kershaw, Trout, Harper, or McCutheon.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 21:15:08 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. I a not, nor have I ever done so. I think I said trading people not on the current MLB roster. But since you brought it up I would trade Mookie for Kershaw, Trout, Harper, or McCutheon. Well conceivably, the Nationals will insist on Mookie or Xander for Strasburg and you'll probably criticize them for not completing the trade like always.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 20, 2015 21:24:52 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. I am not, nor have I ever done so. I think I said trading people not on the current MLB roster. But since you brought it up I would trade Mookie for Kershaw, Trout, Harper, or McCutheon. Ben, is that you?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 20, 2015 22:00:17 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with Cherington valuing his assets very highly.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 20, 2015 23:30:39 GMT -5
Our pitchers will be fine. Plans are underway to under-inflate the baseballs at Fenway.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 20, 2015 23:36:25 GMT -5
I a not, nor have I ever done so. I think I said trading people not on the current MLB roster. But since you brought it up I would trade Mookie for Kershaw, Trout, Harper, or McCutheon. Well conceivably, the Nationals will insist on Mookie or Xander for Strasburg and you'll probably criticize them for not completing the trade like always. Not true. I've been pretty clear that I wouldn't trade either in a deal for 2 years of Strasburg or one year of anyone. The only guy from the minors I'm really reticent to deal is Swihart because he's likely got a few All Star years in front of him. Margot is also tough, but he's far enough away and prob not a perenial All Star as much as an above average CF. After that there isn't a player I can confidently say will be an all star - unless Barnes is converted to a closer, then I'm still not confident but he becomes a big maybe. Devers is too far away though toolsy; a few other look to possibly offer somewhat above average performance (Rodriguez, Cecchini, Owens), but most of the rest are average or less. It's nice depth but in the current minor league system there aren't any 2 players who, if you traded them for 2 years of Strasburg or 4/5 of Hamels you'd be guting the system or the team's future, at least IMHO. And in Strasburg's case you'd get a first round pick when he leaves.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 20, 2015 23:45:20 GMT -5
Well conceivably, the Nationals will insist on Mookie or Xander for Strasburg and you'll probably criticize them for not completing the trade like always. Not true. I've been pretty clear that I wouldn't trade either in a deal for 2 years of Strasburg or one year of anyone. The only guy from the minors I'm really reticent to deal is Swihart because he's likely got a few All Star years in front of him. Margot is also tough, but he's far enough away and prob not a perenial All Star as much as an above average CF. After that there isn't a player I can confidently say will be an all star - unless Barnes is converted to a closer, then I'm still not confident but he becomes a big maybe. Devers is too far away though toolsy; a few other look to possibly offer somewhat above average performance (Rodriguez, Cecchini, Owens), but most of the rest are average or less. It's nice depth but in the current minor league system there aren't any 2 players who, if you traded them for 2 years of Strasburg or 4/5 of Hamels you'd be guting the system or the team's future, at least IMHO. And in Strasburg's case you'd get a first round pick when he leaves. Can't believe I'm saying this but, I'd pretty much agree with all of that.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 21, 2015 0:23:48 GMT -5
That is all true and basically I agree that trading non-elite (Betts, Swihart, Bogaerts) is ok. But other teams will ask for at least one of those guys and can keep their guy unless they get what they want. It's not unreasonable or wrong for Red Sox to say no either.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 21, 2015 0:43:11 GMT -5
Well conceivably, the Nationals will insist on Mookie or Xander for Strasburg and you'll probably criticize them for not completing the trade like always. Not true. I've been pretty clear that I wouldn't trade either in a deal for 2 years of Strasburg or one year of anyone. The only guy from the minors I'm really reticent to deal is Swihart because he's likely got a few All Star years in front of him. Margot is also tough, but he's far enough away and prob not a perenial All Star as much as an above average CF. After that there isn't a player I can confidently say will be an all star - unless Barnes is converted to a closer, then I'm still not confident but he becomes a big maybe. Devers is too far away though toolsy; a few other look to possibly offer somewhat above average performance (Rodriguez, Cecchini, Owens), but most of the rest are average or less. It's nice depth but in the current minor league system there aren't any 2 players who, if you traded them for 2 years of Strasburg or 4/5 of Hamels you'd be guting the system or the team's future, at least IMHO. And in Strasburg's case you'd get a first round pick when he leaves. Then I have no idea why you'd even think of being critical at this point.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 21, 2015 0:46:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 21, 2015 0:49:41 GMT -5
The 31-year-old enjoyed a solid half-season with the Mets in 2014, notching a 2.63 ERA with 8.9 K/9, 2.0 BB/9 and a 53.8 percent ground-ball rate in 27 1/3 innings. Wow, kinda crazy good peripherals.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 21, 2015 0:59:51 GMT -5
Not bad. He might turn out to pitch better than Breslow.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 21, 2015 6:49:19 GMT -5
The 31-year-old enjoyed a solid half-season with the Mets in 2014, notching a 2.63 ERA with 8.9 K/9, 2.0 BB/9 and a 53.8 percent ground-ball rate in 27 1/3 innings. Wow, kinda crazy good peripherals. While his walk rate was good last season keep in mind, this guy finds another way to put guys on base. He hits them. I think he averages around 0.7 HBP/9 innings, which is kind of high and strange. HBP are baserunners, too. Interesting pickup. Could be useful.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 21, 2015 9:51:02 GMT -5
Not true. I've been pretty clear that I wouldn't trade either in a deal for 2 years of Strasburg or one year of anyone. The only guy from the minors I'm really reticent to deal is Swihart because he's likely got a few All Star years in front of him. Margot is also tough, but he's far enough away and prob not a perenial All Star as much as an above average CF. After that there isn't a player I can confidently say will be an all star - unless Barnes is converted to a closer, then I'm still not confident but he becomes a big maybe. Devers is too far away though toolsy; a few other look to possibly offer somewhat above average performance (Rodriguez, Cecchini, Owens), but most of the rest are average or less. It's nice depth but in the current minor league system there aren't any 2 players who, if you traded them for 2 years of Strasburg or 4/5 of Hamels you'd be guting the system or the team's future, at least IMHO. And in Strasburg's case you'd get a first round pick when he leaves. Then I have no idea why you'd even think of being critical at this point. I'm not complaining yet because the off season's not done. I was actually responding to your statement that the Sox looked like a 90 win team and they didn't need to be "selling out the future...We don't have to give up the future for this year." I don't think they are a 90 win team right now, and I also don't believe - as much as I would hate to give up Swihart - that trading him and Owens plus 1 or 2 more non top 5 prospects would be "selling out the future."
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 21, 2015 10:32:25 GMT -5
Then I have no idea why you'd even think of being critical at this point. I'm not complaining yet because the off season's not done. I was actually responding to your statement that the Sox looked like a 90 win team and they didn't need to be "selling out the future...We don't have to give up the future for this year." I don't think they are a 90 win team right now, and I also don't believe - as much as I would hate to give up Swihart - that trading him and Owens plus 1 or 2 more non top 5 prospects would be "selling out the future." Phrased that way, I don't at all agree. I think you are seriously undervaluing our offense and trading Swihart & Owens plus one or two non top 5 prospects is selling out the future and seriously so.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 21, 2015 10:56:21 GMT -5
If you trade Swihart you still have Vazquez, and you could consider trading Owens now as selling high on a risky asset (though I hate TINSTAAPP). So it's hard to consider that selling out the future. Better get a heck of a return, though.
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Jan 21, 2015 10:58:10 GMT -5
I'm not complaining yet because the off season's not done. I was actually responding to your statement that the Sox looked like a 90 win team and they didn't need to be "selling out the future...We don't have to give up the future for this year." I don't think they are a 90 win team right now, and I also don't believe - as much as I would hate to give up Swihart - that trading him and Owens plus 1 or 2 more non top 5 prospects would be "selling out the future." Phrased that way, I don't at all agree. I think you are seriously undervaluing our offense and trading Swihart & Owens plus one or two non top 5 prospects is selling out the future and seriously so. Agreed. This looks like a league best offense so even with mediocre pitching 90 wins is a more reasonable projection than 84. The rotation isn't sexy but I think you can expect a 4.0 ERA between the SP and BP and with the lineup we have that should be good enough to win 55% of the time. Also consider they have more depth than anyone by a pretty comfortable margin. Just look at the projected AAA roster. You have guys that could/should be reasonable DL filler at almost every single position. Yes, some things will go wrong but we have the depth to withstand that better than anyone as well as a lot of trade fodder to adjust the roster in season once the needs are clear. Sure, I'd love to have a clear #1 starter, who wouldn't? But I'll point out that WEEI article (Speier?) looking at the importance of an ace in a WS run. The key take away for me was that a POTENTIAL ace was at least as important as having someone who did it the prior season. Variance exists, pitchers have up and down years. The best play is probably to pay much less for multiple potential aces than overpay for the one mythical sure thing. Oh, and yes, trading away your top two prospects plus a couple of other #6-15 guys would turn a top 5 system into a middle of the road one very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 21, 2015 11:12:38 GMT -5
If you trade Swihart you still have Vazquez, and you could consider trading Owens now as selling high on a risky asset (though I hate TINSTAAPP). So it's hard to consider that selling out the future. Better get a heck of a return, though. Agree with this. And I named the players I would do this for. And again, none are a 1 year rental, and I'm not even sure I would include Swihart in a deal for just two years of Strasburg (although straight up, prob but DC wouldn't do that). Owens I do though. Ditto Cecchini (who I also like quite a bit). Remember when you talk about future, this team is fairly committed to several positions for at least the next 3-4 years (LF, CF, RF, 3rd, SS, 2nd, and C one way or another).
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 21, 2015 11:44:40 GMT -5
I think it's fairly obvious that to move players of Strasburg's stature, assuming they are even available at all, teams want Swihart, Betts or both. To be honest that's what they should be asking for at this point. With the addition of the 2nd wild card, more teams than ever think they have a chance, and last year showed us that a team can win it all, even from the 2nd slot.
If you have one of these starters, you'd have to think you have a decent chance of getting into the playoffs and then a good shot at winning at all once you do. You can't tell your fans that you are throwing away that chance unless you are getting a player who has a shot at being the best player on a playoff team for several years and is no more than a year away.
So let's forget about these trades that headline Margot, Owens, Checchini. You aren't getting a top pitcher in a trade headlined by those guys. Honestly, I can't understand why the Nats would want to trade Strassburg anyways.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 21, 2015 11:50:42 GMT -5
Honestly, I can't understand why the Nats would want to trade Strassburg anyways. Agreed. The Nationals are trying to win the World Series, and Strasburg had a 242 to 43 K:BB ratio last season. And he's still only 26! It wouldn't surprise me at all to see him among the five best pitchers in baseball this year. If they're even considering trading him it's for a package that blows them out of the water. _____ Getting away from trade fantasies for a moment, Eveland is a nice signing on a minor league deal. He's coming off a pretty nice season so I wonder if it includes an opt out.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 21, 2015 11:54:35 GMT -5
Honestly, I can't understand why the Nats would want to trade Strassburg anyways. Agreed. The Nationals are trying to win the World Series, and Strasburg had a 242 to 43 K:BB ratio last season. And he's still only 26! It wouldn't surprise me at all to see him among the five best pitchers in baseball this year. If they're even considering trading him it's for a package that blows them out of the water. Also agree. If I was the Nats I'd trade Gio for all I could get before he blows up again.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 21, 2015 12:12:15 GMT -5
I think it's quite possible that Lerner is just telling them to go for it after last year's disappointing season budget be damned. They do have six starters now and could use another bat and some bullpen help.....the Sox could certainly use Fister or really any of those guys, but I don't see a match unless the Red Sox are willing to be bold and trade Pedroia.
|
|
|