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 dmaineah on Jan 21, 2015 12:48:32 GMT -5
Also agree. If I was the Nats I'd trade Gio for all I could get before he blows up again. If he is made available the Red Sox should be all in on that
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Jan 21, 2015 12:50:05 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. That's what they should do and trade him straight up for Gio
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 21, 2015 13:13:50 GMT -5
If people want to talk about Pedroia trades etc. there is a place for that. It's called the trade proposal sub forum.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,484
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 21, 2015 13:43:48 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." I agree with one of your points but not the other. I don't think given the state of the Sox pitching that they are a 90 win team right now either although it's not impossible to imagine them being one. Honestly, I don't think the Sox are going to be getting strong seasons from Buchholz, Kelly, or Masterson. I think Kelly will show some flashes but lacks the consistency of throwing strikes often enough, and I think Buchholz's best days are behind him. If I'm wrong about that, then he'll just get hurt anyways. I have no idea if Masterson will be able to bounce back. He's a real wild card. I think Porcello will be good and I think Miley should be decent. The rotation reminds me of the early 1980s rotation that featured pitchers like Eck, Tudor, and the youngsters like Hurst and Ojeda. No real ace there, decent pitchers and some promising guys as well, but I just think too many things have to go right in this rotation. And I'm concerned about the pen. I enjoy Koji, but I don't know if the second half of last year is the beginning of his swan song, and the middle relief after that has plenty of question marks. Their lefthanders are big question marks, too. Every team has questions, but I just see too many of them to anoint them a 90 win team. I think 85 wins with a shot at 90 is reasonable. The other issue is giving up Owens and Swihart. I do think that's too much. It seems a lot of people around here see Owens as a #3 starter at best, but I think the Sox see him as a potential #2. Perhaps E-Rod is the only upper level minor league pitcher that has that type of ceiling, but that's a big thing to give up. It seems that all these 30 year old pitchers are signing big contracts and their best days are behind them and maybe a year or two ahead of them, but the rest is decline and decay. So what you're left with is the younger pitchers working their way up at the beginning and maturing two or three years before free agency. Those two or three years of Henry Owens could be extremely valuable and reasonably cheap allowing for the signing of a free agent pitcher. I like Vazquez's defense, but the Sox offense will need another bat from a premium defensive position to give them a pennant contention worthy lineup, and I think the Sox need that young player in Swihart, who also happens to be pretty good on defense, too. I honestly think Vazquez will wind up being a trade chip, one that could be cashed in as early as 7/31 if Swihart is ready by then. There's a lot of debate back and forth with Washington's six man rotation, but honestly with injuries always happening to a rotation, I'm sure all six starters will get their work, and unless Washington gets absolutely bowled over by a deal, the kind that really cleans out a farm system or subtracts from a lineup the way the loss of Cespedes hit Oakland last year, I think the Nats will see where they are on 7/31 and if they're as comfortably ahead as we think they'll be, they'll probably stay put and go for it in 2015. I mean, why not? Before Scherzer I was thinking they have as good a shot as anybody of winning the Series. They are pretty strong all around, but after Scherzer, I would think they'd really have to be the favorites. They just need to play better in the post-season when it counts, something they have yet to do. I've always believed that knocking on the door year after year gives you a better chance than trying to catch lightning in a bottle, which can happen, but I don't think is the best way. The Nats have been knocking on the door for awhile. Perhaps in 2015, they'll finally be let in.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 638
|
Post by alnipper on Jan 21, 2015 13:44:58 GMT -5
I wish they would stand pat and see what they got in spring training. As far as making a trade with the Nationals currently, they probably are looking for current major league players, or major league ready players sometime this year. Like every team in baseball they could use bullpen help.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,838
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 21, 2015 14:39:35 GMT -5
I wish they would stand pat and see what they got in spring training. As far as making a trade with the Nationals currently, they probably are looking for current major league players, or major league ready players sometime this year. Like every team in baseball they could use bullpen help. Agree. By the end of Spring Training they may have, at least, one solid trade chip in Craig or Victorino. I firmly believe our patience will pay off....whether by April 1 or July 31.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jan 21, 2015 14:59:18 GMT -5
Agree on standing pat until the spring and maybe close to the break to see what type of season we can expect from the rotation. It's not out of the question wither that come spring or July 31st Craig has rebounded and guys like JBJ and Cechini have established more value.
That being said I really don't want to go with Sheilds but do you all see anyway his price goes down? I heard On MLB radio today that 5th year probably isn't happening but would he go to a WS contender for 3 years with an option?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 21, 2015 15:44:22 GMT -5
I'm all for standing pat and not panicking, but Strasburg's different. You don't get a chance to get guys like that very often, and you'd have to check it out. This is very analogous to the Beckett trade, only Strasburg's better. I'm a big Swihart guy, but I gotta believe you'd have to part with him if you want to get two cheap years of Strasburg-level pitching.
From the Nats perspective, the only way signing Scherzer and trading Strasburg makes sense is if they can get something really, really good for Strasburg. Otherwise, why don't you just extend Strasburg, who's younger and will likely be better over the next 7 years? So it'd take Swihart+ at least ... and if I'm the Sox, if the + isn't too bad, I do it. Then, with the money coming off the books at the end of this year, I sign him to a big extension and go from there. Hell, they may have enough money to keep Strasburg and Porcello. Suddenly, this team looks like a juggernaut. That's worth Swihart, with a good catcher on the team now.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jan 21, 2015 17:19:52 GMT -5
Interesting analysis of the Hamels situation by Mike Petriello on ESPN Insider (subscription required) insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12202253/the-mathematics-dollar-figures-less-publicized-variables-potential-cole-hamels-trade-mlbHe writes that using fWAR, Hamels would have a 4 maybe for the next three years and 1 fWAR win is worth about $7 million. So Hamels would be worth $28 million this coming season. His contract, averaged out over the five years, is $22 million per year. So he has a positive worth above his contract of about $20-25 million. He doesn't think the Phillies can get the prospect return they are demanding without eating some, or a lot, of the contract. A $20 to $25 million positive worth isn't enough to get a team to give up a top prospect because they are worth $40-$50 million. I wouldn't give up Swihart or Betts even if the Phillies ate most of the contract. Hamels is past his peak. It is quite likely he won't be a 4 fWAR pitcher in four years. Meanwhile, Swihart and Betts are likely to be All-Stars. However, I think the piece makes a good case that if the Phillies let it be known they would eat half the contract they would get interest from more teams and possibly get the kind of return they are looking for. But, in my opinion, probably not from the Red Sox, or any team that doesn't need the money savings.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 21, 2015 17:45:48 GMT -5
Strasburg doesn't put this team over the top of anything. He makes it a few wins better (which is very valuable), nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 22, 2015 7:44:25 GMT -5
Peter Gammons ?@pgammo 43m43 minutes ago Wade Miley and running game:2014 4 SB, 6 CS, 5 Pickoffs. Career:636.2 IP, 15 SB, 19 CS, 19 pickoffs. Meet Christian Vazquez.
This should be fun.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 22, 2015 8:49:42 GMT -5
Peter Gammons ?@pgammo 43m43 minutes ago Wade Miley and running game:2014 4 SB, 6 CS, 5 Pickoffs. Career:636.2 IP, 15 SB, 19 CS, 19 pickoffs. Meet Christian Vazquez. This should be fun. Glad that Gammons has taken note of this. An earlier link, when Miley was first anounced, went into this in detail as part of a larger discussion about his strengths. It was from FanGraphs, if I remember correctly. It's going to be very quiet on the bases when that battery is on the field, or with Hanigan behind the plate for that matter. He's no slouch either.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Jan 22, 2015 9:17:25 GMT -5
Peter Gammons ?@pgammo 43m43 minutes ago Wade Miley and running game:2014 4 SB, 6 CS, 5 Pickoffs. Career:636.2 IP, 15 SB, 19 CS, 19 pickoffs. Meet Christian Vazquez. This should be fun. Glad that Gammons has taken note of this. An earlier link, when Miley was first anounced, went into this in detail as part of a larger discussion about his strengths. It was from FanGraphs, if I remember correctly. It's going to be very quiet on the bases when that battery is on the field, or with Hanigan behind the plate for that matter. He's no slouch either. In fact, if both receivers are good at shutting down the running game, but Vazquez turns out to be the better of the two, the fact that Miley is so effective at preventing it on his own (presuming it isn't some crazy interaction with him generally pitching to top-flight catching) means that his turns in the rotation would be a good time for Hanigan to give Vazquez rest - assuming that one would want to consider a designated catcher, that Miley and Hanigan are simpatico, etc. Damn, that was a long sentence.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 22, 2015 9:43:48 GMT -5
I wish they would stand pat and see what they got in spring training. As far as making a trade with the Nationals currently, they probably are looking for current major league players, or major league ready players sometime this year. Like every team in baseball they could use bullpen help. Agree. By the end of Spring Training they may have, at least, one solid trade chip in Craig or Victorino. I firmly believe our patience will pay off....whether by April 1 or July 31. Agree with both. Let's not get in a rush. Once the dust settles in the spring we will have much better vision.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 22, 2015 9:44:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jan 22, 2015 10:07:23 GMT -5
Interesting analysis of the Hamels situation How is it different from what everyone has been writing for months?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 22, 2015 10:22:16 GMT -5
In an article on which teams would benefit the most from adding James Shields, Jeff Sullivan of Fangraphs includes a chart suggesting that, based on the Steamer projections and the Fangraphs depth charts, the Red Sox would improve by the third-lowest margin of any major league team. This is largely because Joe Kelly, their worst projected starter, still projects to be about a 1.6 win per 200 inning pitcher, which is pretty solid for your fifth starter (they also project to have strong depth). That also suggests, by the way, that the upgrade from Kelly to someone like Zimmermann or Cueto is very unlikely to be more than two or three wins.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jan 22, 2015 10:25:52 GMT -5
In an article on which teams would benefit the most from adding James Shields, Jeff Sullivan of Fangraphs includes a chart suggesting that, based on the Steamer projections and the Fangraphs depth charts, the Red Sox would improve by the third-lowest margin of any major league team. This is largely because Joe Kelly, their worst projected starter, still projects to be about a 1.6 win per 200 inning pitcher, which is pretty solid for your fifth starter (they also project to have strong depth). And this doesn't even take into account how awful Fenway's park factors are for Shields.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 22, 2015 10:34:59 GMT -5
Yes. Just say no to Shields, please.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 22, 2015 10:49:41 GMT -5
I'm all for standing pat and not panicking, but Strasburg's different. You don't get a chance to get guys like that very often, and you'd have to check it out. This is very analogous to the Beckett trade, only Strasburg's better. I'm a big Swihart guy, but I gotta believe you'd have to part with him if you want to get two cheap years of Strasburg-level pitching. From the Nats perspective, the only way signing Scherzer and trading Strasburg makes sense is if they can get something really, really good for Strasburg. Otherwise, why don't you just extend Strasburg, who's younger and will likely be better over the next 7 years? So it'd take Swihart+ at least ... and if I'm the Sox, if the + isn't too bad, I do it. Then, with the money coming off the books at the end of this year, I sign him to a big extension and go from there. Hell, they may have enough money to keep Strasburg and Porcello. Suddenly, this team looks like a juggernaut. That's worth Swihart, with a good catcher on the team now.
This is definitely a case of being careful what you wish for. Josh Beckett wasn't represented by Scott Boras, a fact which made resigning Beckett something the team was able to do. Do you honestly think Stephen Strasburg, if traded to the Red Sox, signs an extension? If you give up Mookie Betts or Blake Swihart or both to land a pitcher you won't have for more than two seasons, then you've set back the organization. The obvious counter is that Strasburg would put the team over the top, as did Beckett. Is this what you believe?
Agree with this. Imagine trading Hanley and Sanchez for 2 years of Beckett, the Red Sox have a little bad luck in 2007 and don't win the WS and then Beckett bolts for the Yankees as a free agent. That makes the trade look a little different.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jan 22, 2015 11:31:45 GMT -5
By next year, the Sox will have a much better idea of what they have among the prospect pitchers, as well as position players. If a couple of the pitchers emerge as solid starters for the Sox, there won't be any need to go after one of the free agent pitchers. Then they could be in a very strong position to make some key trades, or to sign position player free agents. If Napoli doesn't re-sign, a 1B will be needed, and someday Ortiz will stop hitting. I think being positioned to replace those two may become the highest priority.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 22, 2015 11:54:48 GMT -5
Yeah, we've definitely stood pat this offseason..
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 22, 2015 12:23:54 GMT -5
Every position outside of SS, 2B, 1B and DH is different this year, and three of those guys were ailing for a good part of the season. All the new position players are an improvement, in some cases a vast improvement, over last year. Do the math: Ramirez vs. Gomes; Castillo vs. Sizemore; Betts vs. an injured Victorino; Sandoval vs. Middlebrooks; Vazquez/Hanigan vs. Pierzynski; Holt, Nava, Craig, a rebuilt Victorino. There's depth everywhere you look: a RF who can play all-star 2B, a LF who's played SS his entire career. Not one, not two, or three, but 4 potential CF/RF players, two of them with gloves already dipped in gold. I know it hasn't all shaken out yet, but this is as different from last year's threadbare outfield roster as you can get. The pitching is an obvious concern to posters, and I understand. But having Masterson and Kelly at the back of your rotation isn't exactly going begging. If Buchholz does revisit the injured ward, it's not as if they're devoid of options. The Sox have some decisions to make, but when it comes to starters I don't think they need to be rushed with those choices at all. They have at least four, and perhaps six pitchers they need to make room for at some point this season - or trade them off. Owens hasn't stopped striking guys out yet, including in AAA. What are they going to do with him? How about Johnson? If he were in Oakland, I'd lay money down he'd be in their starting rotation to begin the season. Barnes, Ranaudo, Rodriguez, what do they do with these guys? I know one thing, a lot of teams would give anything to have this problem.
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Jan 22, 2015 13:09:49 GMT -5
If Napoli doesn't re-sign, a 1B will be needed, and someday Ortiz will stop hitting. I think being positioned to replace those two may become the highest priority. This is why I like the Ramirez signing so much ( and to a lesser extent Panda). They have a lot of flexibility on how they fill these potential holes in 2016/17. They can plug players in at 1B, 3B, LF, DH, or SS in several conceivable scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 22, 2015 14:49:52 GMT -5
In an article on which teams would benefit the most from adding James Shields, Jeff Sullivan of Fangraphs includes a chart suggesting that, based on the Steamer projections and the Fangraphs depth charts, the Red Sox would improve by the third-lowest margin of any major league team. This is largely because Joe Kelly, their worst projected starter, still projects to be about a 1.6 win per 200 inning pitcher, which is pretty solid for your fifth starter (they also project to have strong depth). That also suggests, by the way, that the upgrade from Kelly to someone like Zimmermann or Cueto is very unlikely to be more than two or three wins. I mean, the problem is that NO player is going to add a ton more wins to the Red Sox projection, because they are already pretty good. A 90-projected-win team doesn't tend to have any -1.5 WAR projected starters. So, as I've been saying all offseason, the cost of each marginal win is higher. And the cost to go from 0 wins to 1.6 and 1.6 to 3.2 aren't the same, because scarcity is real. There are generally a lot of opportunities to make that first upgrade, and obviously far fewer to make the second. So, while the Red Sox stand to gain fewer wins than the Twins by adding Shields, he's a better add by the Red Sox because those 3.5 or whatever wins don't do the Twins any good. The number of wins a player adds, on its own, isn't important. The amount that player improves a teams playoff expectancy is. Additionlly, outside of the more general discussion, Steamer is too bullish on Kelly and MUCH too bearish on Cueto for my liking.
|
|
|