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 Chris Hatfield on Jan 22, 2015 14:56:20 GMT -5
Spitballing here, but could you still construct 25-man with Craig on bench to be the 3B against tough LHP with no trades? Would optioning Holt leave SS too precariously undermanned and reliant on Bogaerts bouncing back? or could HanRam be the backup there?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jan 22, 2015 15:04:17 GMT -5
Victorino is the obvious deletion from the current roster projection. If he is healthy, he has to play, but who is going to replace? I think he has to play somewhere else, and the Sox probably would not have any trouble doing a decent deal if he is healthy.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jan 22, 2015 15:12:08 GMT -5
Spitballing here, but could you still construct 25-man with Craig on bench to be the 3B against tough LHP with no trades? Would optioning Holt leave SS too precariously undermanned and reliant on Bogaerts bouncing back? or could HanRam be the backup there? While I don't think the Sox should be completely opposed to Hanley making an appearance at shortstop here and there, I get the feeling they'll want to start him off focused solely on left field. Between Holt's extreme versatility and left handedness (note: i'm aware of his 2014 splits), I don't like the idea of stashing him in the minors, even if it's only temporary. He may not be a plus defender on the left side of the infield, but he's certainly better than Hanley. I still firmly believe Victorino is the one who should go. I know some others are opposed to dumping him while his value is low, and although it's certainly possible to juggle him with Castillo, Betts, and Hanley in a way that allows the four of them to garner a fair amount of playing time, it's a) four RH hitters - and I'm pretty concerned about Victorino's ability to hit RHP's going forward - and b) going to leave Holt, Nava, and Craig with an extreme lack of playing time barring injuries. Victorino has made it clear he wants to start, too. I understand that trading a guy who could still be worth a few WAR (he has as volatile a WAR range as anyone -- he could be a 0.5 WAR player, or 4) for salary relief and an eh-piece is questionable, but it would allow the others to slide into more comfortable roles: Nava fills in for any of the three starting outfielders against RHP's with minimal, if any offensive drop off; Craig, I believe, will be at least decent against lefties, essentially rendering him and Nava a platoon fill-in for any one of Mookie, Rusney, Hanley, Ortiz, and Napoli. And Holt gives you capable defense all around the infield and plus defense in an outfield corner. ADD: I know for some of my arguments, some may ask why don't we just move Craig instead. A couple reasons: - Craig can play a solid first base, and while third base should be interesting, it was his original position, and I doubt he'll need to make more than 10 appearances there anyway. Victorino is strictly an outfielder. Also, considering the aforementioned platoon with Nava, Nava's presence doesn't really make Craig too redundant. - Craig's not going to complain about playing time like Victorino - I'll bet on Craig being a superior hitter to Victorino against right handers. Victorino's 2014 right on right numbers stunk, and in 2013, it was pretty fluky: huge HBP %, 2.6 BB%(!), .348 BABIP, etc. - Craig's contract is harder to move at this point, and I'd rather sell low on one season of Victorino than three years of Craig.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 22, 2015 15:46:24 GMT -5
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. Agreed on the bolded-- that's the point I wanted to make, that any addition at this point represents a relatively small marginal upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 22, 2015 15:50:54 GMT -5
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. Eh, you can't really do that, though ... I mean, imagine if the Sox had a little good luck in 2008, won two in a row, and then Beckett's health stayed robust. That would've been wicked awesome! As for the earlier comment, I'm not sure where Betts came into it, but, while "over the top" is too subjective, sure, Strasburg makes them better, and I consider a deal including Swihart for him. Is the difference between Strasburg and Joe Kelly bigger than the difference between Vazquez and Swihart? For the next two years, I'd say that's a clear yes in just about any scenario. Is it worth the other years of Swihart, plus whatever else you give up? That's where the other factors come in, mainly, what is "whatever else" (it's not Bogaerts or Betts) and does acquiring him have any impact on signing Strasburg long term ... for that, I don't know. It's too hypothetical, really. but the Boras factor's a valid point. I'd love if you could trade for Strasburg and immediately sign him to a contract that has a lower AAV than he'd get on the open market, basically amortizing out the savings of the next two years onto a longer contract. But, with Boras, that's unlikely ...
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 22, 2015 15:52:34 GMT -5
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. Agreed on the bolded-- that's the point I wanted to make, that any addition at this point represents a relatively small marginal upgrade. I think James' point was those three wins aren't marginal because they may mean the division or a greater probability of advancing in the playoffs. Marginal wins in the end don't matter as much as marginal playoff expectancy probability or marginal playoff win probability.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 22, 2015 16:12:55 GMT -5
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. Eh, you can't really do that, though ... I mean, imagine if the Sox had a little good luck in 2008, won two in a row, and then Beckett's health stayed robust. That would've been wicked awesome! As for the earlier comment, I'm not sure where Betts came into it, but, while "over the top" is too subjective, sure, Strasburg makes them better, and I consider a deal including Swihart for him. Is the difference between Strasburg and Joe Kelly bigger than the difference between Vazquez and Swihart? For the next two years, I'd say that's a clear yes in just about any scenario. Is it worth the other years of Swihart, plus whatever else you give up? That's where the other factors come in, mainly, what is "whatever else" (it's not Bogaerts or Betts) and does acquiring him have any impact on signing Strasburg long term ... for that, I don't know. It's too hypothetical, really. but the Boras factor's a valid point. I'd love if you could trade for Strasburg and immediately sign him to a contract that has a lower AAV than he'd get on the open market, basically amortizing out the savings of the next two years onto a longer contract. But, with Boras, that's unlikely ... Why can't I? BTW, Beckett was a free agent after 2007. My scenario isn't that crazy. The risk that happened was real when they made the deal. And then the fact that Boras is Strasburg's agent makes it possibly a little more likely that happens. Trading for Strasburg is a very similar situation to trading for Beckett, but in a different era where years of control is the main thing that anyone seems to care about anymore.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 22, 2015 16:36:44 GMT -5
Agreed on the bolded-- that's the point I wanted to make, that any addition at this point represents a relatively small marginal upgrade. I think James' point was those three wins aren't marginal because they may mean the division or a greater probability of advancing in the playoffs. Marginal wins in the end don't matter as much as marginal playoff expectancy probability or marginal playoff win probability. Sorry if I was unclear-- by marginal, I mean it in the economic sense that when you add a player, you're really adding the difference between that player and the guy he is replacing. I did not mean to imply that it is necessarily a small or unimportant upgrade. That said, I don't have a great handle on how much improving your mean projection from, say, 90 wins to 92 wins improves your playoff odds. Also interesting is the idea that upgrading from Kelly to, say, Cueto upgrades the floor of the team (i.e., it reduces the downside risk of the roster) more than it improves the mean projection of the team. That means that such an addition might improve the playoff odds proportionally more than it improves the mean projection of the team in the same way that adding multiple layers of depth does.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 22, 2015 17:34:54 GMT -5
While I don't think the Sox should be completely opposed to Hanley making an appearance at shortstop here and there, I get the feeling they'll want to start him off focused solely on left field. Between Holt's extreme versatility and left handedness (note: i'm aware of his 2014 splits), I don't like the idea of stashing him in the minors, even if it's only temporary. He may not be a plus defender on the left side of the infield, but he's certainly better than Hanley. I still firmly believe Victorino is the one who should go. I know some others are opposed to dumping him while his value is low, and although it's certainly possible to juggle him with Castillo, Betts, and Hanley in a way that allows the four of them to garner a fair amount of playing time, it's a) four RH hitters - and I'm pretty concerned about Victorino's ability to hit RHP's going forward - and b) going to leave Holt, Nava, and Craig with an extreme lack of playing time barring injuries. Victorino has made it clear he wants to start, too. I understand that trading a guy who could still be worth a few WAR (he has as volatile a WAR range as anyone -- he could be a 0.5 WAR player, or 4) for salary relief and an eh-piece is questionable, but it would allow the others to slide into more comfortable roles: Nava fills in for any of the three starting outfielders against RHP's with minimal, if any offensive drop off; Craig, I believe, will be at least decent against lefties, essentially rendering him and Nava a platoon fill-in for any one of Mookie, Rusney, Hanley, Ortiz, and Napoli. And Holt gives you capable defense all around the infield and plus defense in an outfield corner. ADD: I know for some of my arguments, some may ask why don't we just move Craig instead. A couple reasons: - Craig can play a solid first base, and while third base should be interesting, it was his original position, and I doubt he'll need to make more than 10 appearances there anyway. Victorino is strictly an outfielder. Also, considering the aforementioned platoon with Nava, Nava's presence doesn't really make Craig too redundant. - Craig's not going to complain about playing time like Victorino - I'll bet on Craig being a superior hitter to Victorino against right handers. Victorino's 2014 right on right numbers stunk, and in 2013, it was pretty fluky: huge HBP %, 2.6 BB%(!), .348 BABIP, etc. - Craig's contract is harder to move at this point, and I'd rather sell low on one season of Victorino than three years of Craig. You make some very good points, but you leave-out Craig's 2 options, which means that Victorino can be the 4th OFer while Craig figures things out in AAA. (have no idea if, when, or if he already has figured things out - but i don't think anyone knows right now) As Nava can play 1B, and Napoli is a RHH, I don't think Craig would be useful there in 2015 unless Napoli gets hurt (in which case they can call him up). My concern with Victorino is that his value is below his salary, in which case the Red Sox would have to pay to give up a player who may be much more valuable than his $13 mil salary. If a team will give a C or better prospect and take his salary, they should move him and end the debate. The 3B talk is interesting, but scares the hell outta me too. I don't remember the last sub-par OF/1B who was able to man 3B. What I'm picturing in my head is UGLY.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jan 22, 2015 17:50:02 GMT -5
My concern with Victorino is that his value is below his salary, in which case the Red Sox would have to pay to give up a player who may be much more valuable than his $13 mil salary. Whaaaaaa??? Yogi??? With the injury history of some of our projected outfielders, and limited OF experience of the starting three, I think it'd be extremely silly to give up any of these guys. You can't even know which one has the most value at this point.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 22, 2015 18:27:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 22, 2015 22:44:32 GMT -5
How accurate are Steamer's team projections historically? Because it also went into 2014 with the Red Sox projected to be baseball's best team.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 22, 2015 23:14:33 GMT -5
Steamer man not be steam at all as much as medical pot vapor.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 22, 2015 23:18:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 22, 2015 23:58:56 GMT -5
Yeah, I think it's fair to use them as a starting point, but I see them getting quoted as gospel and a tad noncritically. It's been particularly frustrating to me in the Hamels discussion. It seems just insane to me to use his Steamer value 2.8 WAR per 200 innings rather than his last five years of 5.2 bWAR/200 innings. Stuff like that makes me feel like people are using the projections as much more of a crutch than a tool.
My other issue with Steamer is that it's team values for pitchers seem very surpressed. The Nationals have the highest-projected staff WAR at 16.8, which would've put them 8th in fWAR in 2014. The Tigers are tenth at 12.2, an fWAR that would've put them 22nd. The batting projection, on the other hand, are fairly aligned with the 2014 distribution of team offensive fWAR.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Jan 23, 2015 7:38:20 GMT -5
The 3B talk is interesting, but scares the hell outta me too. I don't remember the last sub-par OF/1B who was able to man 3B. What I'm picturing in my head is UGLY. I presume this is like when Cespedes was going to be playing some center field supposedly.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 23, 2015 7:38:46 GMT -5
The error bars are large on any projection system. 2013, Victorino had 5.6 WAR. In 2014, he had 0. One year older doesn't explain that drop. How do you project either of those #'s and be accurate?
One thing that is kinda driving me nuts is Steamer projecting Victorino to have more PAs than Betts. I think we know Betts is a full time starter and will get a lot more than 389 PAs.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 23, 2015 8:20:48 GMT -5
But are there any of us, the Red Sox fans of Red Sox fans, who swallow this sober without choking just a little? Our rotation is one question mark after another (including the unproven closer minor league guys) and the bullpen does not excite presently. The line-up may be prove best in baseball if things play out as we hope, yes.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 23, 2015 8:35:56 GMT -5
Yeah, I think it's fair to use them as a starting point, but I see them getting quoted as gospel and a tad noncritically. It's been particularly frustrating to me in the Hamels discussion. It seems just insane to me to use his Steamer value 2.8 WAR per 200 innings rather than his last five years of 5.2 bWAR/200 innings. Stuff like that makes me feel like people are using the projections as much more of a crutch than a tool. My other issue with Steamer is that it's team values for pitchers seem very surpressed. The Nationals have the highest-projected staff WAR at 16.8, which would've put them 8th in fWAR in 2014. The Tigers are tenth at 12.2, an fWAR that would've put them 22nd. The batting projection, on the other hand, are fairly aligned with the 2014 distribution of team offensive fWAR. I'm guessing the problem is that, functionally, all pitchers are prone to collapse at all times, and that just gets baked into every projection.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 23, 2015 8:58:46 GMT -5
But are there any of us, the Red Sox fans of Red Sox fans, who swallows this sober without choking just a little? Our rotation is one question mark after another (including the unproven closer minor league guys) and the bullpen does not excite presently. The line-up may be prove best in baseball if things play out as we hope, yes. You should also look at other teams' holes with as much scrutiny. The Red Sox are average or better at every position with a ton of depth. Most other teams have a lot more question marks than we do.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 23, 2015 9:50:59 GMT -5
I think James' point was those three wins aren't marginal because they may mean the division or a greater probability of advancing in the playoffs. Marginal wins in the end don't matter as much as marginal playoff expectancy probability or marginal playoff win probability. Sorry if I was unclear-- by marginal, I mean it in the economic sense that when you add a player, you're really adding the difference between that player and the guy he is replacing. I did not mean to imply that it is necessarily a small or unimportant upgrade. That said, I don't have a great handle on how much improving your mean projection from, say, 90 wins to 92 wins improves your playoff odds. Also interesting is the idea that upgrading from Kelly to, say, Cueto upgrades the floor of the team (i.e., it reduces the downside risk of the roster) more than it improves the mean projection of the team. That means that such an addition might improve the playoff odds proportionally more than it improves the mean projection of the team in the same way that adding multiple layers of depth does. This is my view ... I think the Sox are a really good team and among position players, it's hard to find a weakness; they could be terrific. But there's just too much downside risk in the rotation to make me comfortable. Adding some relative certainty in at least one spot in the rotation seems worth a little more than just a straight marginal upgrade analysis of projections would imply. I also think the projection system's mean projection for the Sox rotation is underrating the downside risk a little too much ... Now, as jimed points out, that certainly doesn't make the Sox unique, and I think the pitching kind of suffers by the comparison with the rock solid lineup. So we shouldn't make too much of it, but it's certainly the possible Achilles heel of this potentially terrific team.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 23, 2015 9:54:24 GMT -5
How accurate are Steamer's team projections historically? Because it also went into 2014 with the Red Sox projected to be baseball's best team. And you projected them to finish last ? Not meaning to pick on you, just making a point, spit happens, it's why they play the game.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 23, 2015 14:07:31 GMT -5
And you projected them to finish last ? Not meaning to pick on you, just making a point, spit happens, it's why they play the game.
Did you not just reinforce the previous poster's very point?
I take the view that they are relatively good but because you can't project everything, sometimes they are way off. To use the worst case as the example is not painting an accurate overall picture, it's only portraying the extreme. ADD: Having the Red Sox at or near the top last year was pretty universal, it wasn't limited to the Steamers.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 23, 2015 15:52:48 GMT -5
But are there any of us, the Red Sox fans of Red Sox fans, who swallows this sober without choking just a little? Our rotation is one question mark after another (including the unproven closer minor league guys) and the bullpen does not excite presently. The line-up may be prove best in baseball if things play out as we hope, yes. You should also look at other teams' holes with as much scrutiny. The Red Sox are average or better at every position with a ton of depth. Most other teams have a lot more question marks than we do. So you think that factoring the starter acquisitions, the additions of Ramirez and Sandoval but minus Miller and with Koji yet another year older, move us from a decidedly sub .500 team to the best team in baseball? Gosh, I sure hope that you're right.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 23, 2015 16:07:55 GMT -5
Why even use a projection system when you can sketch a rough estimate on the back of an envelope?
|
|
|