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 jmei on Aug 6, 2014 10:59:54 GMT -5
My point is, personally not being wowed by Cespedes + knowing GMs lust for prospects + Ben remarking on the high quality of prospects offered but that's not what they wanted = Evidence suggests there were pieces available that, at the very least, could've been of use in deals this winter. And I would've taken Piscotty + Kelly + low A lottery ticket (i.e. Seager, Pederson and Tavaras weren't the be-all end alls. Added - Look what Douquette gave up for 20 innings of a reliever. I've got to believe he was offering one of the top two guys for Lester, but I haven't talked to him since 2003 and doubt he'd tell me anyway. Considering the return for Price (TB would have taken Gausman or Bundy for Price in a heartbeat), I think it's very unlikely any of those offers were on the table for Lester. Duquette openly admitted that he knew he massively overpaid for Miller, but he was willing to do so because he wanted the best guy on the market. Maybe the Red Sox could have gotten Piscotty alone, but Piscotty's ceiling is pretty much what Cespedes gives you now, and I think trading certainty and present production for less team control is a reasonable decision. Uh huh. So it's all park effects right? Gotta be. Not weak contact on certain pitches or pop-ups from trying to knock the cover off each pitch. [...] Meanwhile, I may be coming at this all wrong so if someone could post some links that discuss at which point big power with so-so or less OBP trumps high OBP with decent power, I'd appreciate it. I've valued high OBP way back to the days when I first read Earl Weaver's book and he talked about "moving the line and getting men on and stressing run prevention in the field." I still think despite recent trends, GMs can aspire to build a line-up with 7 starters who average OBP >.350 and 20HRs, and balance it with good to great D and very good or better pitching. Last year's team had 6 position player starters who achieved this average, which means they were just 1 shy of my ideal. There's this great stat called wRC+ that accurately weighs a player's on-base and slugging contributions. It's the stat I've been citing to show that Cespedes is a very good hitter. Since he debuted, Cespedes has put up a 118 wRC+, 28th amongst qualified outfielders. He's tied with Jason Heyward, just a little behind Bryce Harper, Carlos Beltran, Adam Jones, Carlos Gonzalez, and Allen Craig, and ahead of Nelson Cruz and Andre Ethier and Alex Gordon. Cespedes has been a very productive hitter despite whatever perceived shortcomings you want to ascribe to him, and that includes hitting with RISP and in the 3rd/4th/5th spots in the lineup of an elite offense. I think it comes down to you just being prejudiced against low-OBP guys. A good hitter is a good hitter, no matter how they come by their production. Rather than actually analyzing his particular merits, you lump him into a stereotype that makes him easy to dismiss. OBP is valuable, but so is power. PS: last year's team has two guys who were .350+ OBP and 20+ HRs (three if you combine Nava and Gomes' production). Teams can aspire to whatever they want, but analysts need to be realistic about what is reasonable to expect in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 6, 2014 11:36:10 GMT -5
It's not a stretch to say if JBJ was in CF last night, the Cardinals don't score their first two runs and we win the game 2-1. I mean we're not going to win any games where we score 0 runs, but that's the only time saving runs isn't going to count for much. That's 1 game. I'm not the person arguing that saving runs isn't as important as creating them, so please stop taking a polar viewpoint with me. I'm simply arguing that you need to create AND prevent runs. Last night's game notwithstanding, this team doesn't score enough runs to win the majority of games. Over the past 5 seasons (2009-2013) 65% of the teams that made it into the LCS's were in the top 5 for runs scored. If you take a theoretical amazing defense with this season's pitching staff at 3.88 FIP and assume the defense allows no hits (hence the pitchers). Then you take this team's current R/G at 3.83, and use B-R's Pythagorean formula; you get an 80 win team. The point still stands that you need to SCORE and PREVENT runs in order to win games.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 6, 2014 11:47:24 GMT -5
It's not a stretch to say if JBJ was in CF last night, the Cardinals don't score their first two runs and we win the game 2-1. I mean we're not going to win any games where we score 0 runs, but that's the only time saving runs isn't going to count for much. That's 1 game. I'm not the person arguing that saving runs isn't as important as creating them, so please stop taking a polar viewpoint with me. I'm simply arguing that you need to create AND prevent runs. Last night's game notwithstanding, this team doesn't score enough runs to win the majority of games. Over the past 5 seasons (2009-2013) 65% of the teams that made it into the LCS's were in the top 5 for runs scored. If you take a theoretical amazing defense with this season's pitching staff at 3.88 FIP and assume the defense allows no hits (hence the pitchers). Then you take this team's current R/G at 3.83, and use B-R's Pythagorean formula; you get an 80 win team. The point still stands that you need to SCORE and PREVENT runs in order to win games. Are you considering that you need to score even more runs with less defense? The math is the same. When you look at how we won the WS last year with almost no hitting throughout the playoffs, it's more clear. In simpest terms, JBJ's (RC+RS) has to be < his replacement's (RC+RS) for it to be worth replacing him (without factoring money, years of control, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2014 11:48:15 GMT -5
[quote author=" jmei" source="/post/102459/thread" [/quote] With regard to line-up construction, this is really where I'm at: what team would you win more games with (given pitching and D are static): A team with 7, age 28 Pedroias or a team with 7, age 28 Cespedes? This is really where I'm coming from, and a legitimate question. I've had this conversation in one form or another over the last 10 years and, when in doubt I lean toward the team of Pedroia types but I am not sure. I love the 3 run homer as much as anyone, but if my 7 guys top to bottom as a group average hit the Pedroia numbers. That means you could have a few guys who are a little below in one category and a few guys a little above. That's the goal I prefer (combined with good or better defense and very good or better pitching). I realize you'll never hit that goal, but that's what I would shoot for if I was a GM.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2014 12:05:22 GMT -5
btw, does the "park effects" logic hold for Panda? i.e. Would he be a .350/23HR (that was the calculation I did) guy if he played 81 of his home games in Fenway?
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 6, 2014 12:05:42 GMT -5
Are you considering that you need to score even more runs with less defense? The math is the same. When you look at how we won the WS last year with almost no hitting throughout the playoffs, it's more clear. In simpest terms, JBJ's (RC+RS) has to be < his replacement's (RC+RS) for it to be worth replacing him (without factoring money, years of control, etc.) Obviously both of those are true. I didn't say otherwise. To bolster point #1: if you take this team's R/G and the Nationals league leading FIP you get a 95 win team. What I've been saying is that the 2013 Red Sox don't win enough games; the obvious culprit is that the offense is much worse than last season while the defense is about the same. So, it's very easy to look at the "new" players and their terrible wRC+s and say that they aren't good.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Aug 6, 2014 12:09:34 GMT -5
[quote author=" jmei" source="/post/102459/thread" With regard to line-up construction, this is really where I'm at: what team would you win more games with (given pitching and D are static): A team with 7, age 28 Pedroias or a team with 7, age 28 Cespedes? This is really where I'm coming from, and a legitimate question. I've had this conversation in one form or another over the last 10 years and, when in doubt I lean toward the team of Pedroia types but I am not sure. I love the 3 run homer as much as anyone, but if my 7 guys top to bottom as a group average hit the Pedroia numbers. That means you could have a few guys who are a little below in one category and a few guys a little above. That's the goal I prefer (combined with good or better defense and very good or better pitching). I realize you'll never hit that goal, but that's what I would shoot for if I was a GM. [/quote] Age 28 Pedroia had a higher slugging percent than Cespedes last year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 6, 2014 12:10:38 GMT -5
In 2013, Prince Fielder put up 25 home runs and a .279/.362/.457 triple-slash, which adds up to a 125 wRC+. Justin Upton was 27/.263/.354/.464 and a 128 wRC+. Ryan Zimmerman was 26/.275/.344/.465 and a 125 wRC+. Cespedes' career wRC+, as mentioned, is 118, so he's a small step down from those guys, but a small step nonetheless. (Of course, wRC+ includes league and park adjustments, which you apparently don't believe in. If you want to use straight unadjusted wOBA, we can compare Fielder's .358, Upton's .357, and Zimmerman's .353 to Cespedes' career .340.) Last week's discussion was either a .350 OBP OR 20+ home runs. Only Napoli and Ortiz got you both.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 6, 2014 12:13:38 GMT -5
If you take a theoretical amazing defense with this season's pitching staff at 3.88 FIP and assume the defense allows no hits (hence the pitchers). Then you take this team's current R/G at 3.83, and use B-R's Pythagorean formula; you get an 80 win team. The point still stands that you need to SCORE and PREVENT runs in order to win games. That's not true. FIP has a weight on it to get BB, K, and HR into an number that would scale to ERA. Your saying if a team allowed .000 BABIP(basically having the Flash as your shortstop and superman as your CF) they would still allow 3.83 runs a game, but those 3.83 would only come as a result of home runs and walks. That's not how it works.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 6, 2014 12:20:13 GMT -5
With regard to line-up construction, this is really where I'm at: what team would you win more games with (given pitching and D are static): A team with 7, age 28 Pedroias or a team with 7, age 28 Cespedes? This is really where I'm coming from, and a legitimate question. I've had this conversation in one form or another over the last 10 years and, when in doubt I lean toward the team of Pedroia types but I am not sure. I love the 3 run homer as much as anyone, but if my 7 guys top to bottom as a group average hit the Pedroia numbers. That means you could have a few guys who are a little below in one category and a few guys a little above. That's the goal I prefer (combined with good or better defense and very good or better pitching). I realize you'll never hit that goal, but that's what I would shoot for if I was a GM. In his age-28 season, Dustin Pedroia hit .290/.347/.449 (114 wRC+). Cespedes is at a 115 wRC+ this year and 118 for his career. So yes, you'd score more runs with Cespedes. (ADD: of course, that's assuming you believe in park adjustments. If you don't and want to use unadjusted wOBA, Pedroia's .344 wOBA is higher than Cespedes'.334 this year and his .340 career. But that would have you believe that putting up the same numbers with O.co as your home ballpark versus doing so in Fenway are equally valuable, which I hope you'll concede isn't true. Regardless, linear weights-type offensive stats like wOBA and wRC+ do conclusively answer questions like this, as discussed here.) Here's also what I don't get-- you can aspire to whatever you like, but does that imply that you would refuse to acquire any player who hit worse than 2012 Pedroia, even if your existing options (think a Nava/Brentz platoon or whatever) are inferior? You make it sound like it's so easy to get a better player than Cespedes. I'd like to hear the names of a few guys who are available for a reasonable cost who you would have preferred over Yoenis.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 6, 2014 12:23:21 GMT -5
Olney was on WEEI at noon. Doesn't think we sign Lester this winter. Said he spoke to a friend of Jon's . Also said Sox approached his camp after great Sat. game against Yanks with a Homer Bailey type offer. Lester's camp wanted a Hamels type offer.
At least we have The Wally Wave to make us laugh..or cry.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 6, 2014 12:29:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MLBDreams on Aug 6, 2014 12:32:11 GMT -5
If the FO decides to keep JBJ, Nava, Holt & Betts as 3rd thru 6th OF for season 2015. It's over. The team going to stay basement in the standings for long time with lousy OF production. Cespedes & Craig are the first two OF. Season 2014 OF production is the worst ones I ever witnessed. I grew up from Rice, Lynn & Evans ERA and beyond after them. They gave us .275 avg/20+ HR/75+ RBI yearly. Our current OF (pre-Cespendes & Craig) cannot give that after 5th month of baseball. And this whole team is off year from everyone's production except Ortiz that will get 30 HR/100 RBI season.
In comparing to OF productions from our division: Baltimore, Toronto, NYY & TB. We're not even close to them by wide margin. To have less than below .250/5 HR/35 RBI season from popular 4 guys is unacceptable for me. Holt & Betts should stay around as IF position, not OF. JBJ is nice gold glove player but cannot hitting and would be 4th OF for most power hitting MLB OF teams. Same thing for Nava. We don't know what Victorino will give us in 2015 after the surgery. I hope that Craig-Victorino-Cespedes (from LF to RF) might give us better production than the current OF could give us for 2014 season.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 6, 2014 13:27:17 GMT -5
Earl Weaver had Boog Powell, Frank and Brooks Robinson to get those 3-run HRs that he loved. Yes, he had high OBP guys, but he always had the big power guys as well, and would not have won without them. The same is true for the great Sox teams. They combined high OBP with two or three high power guys. What kills a team is to have two or three, or more, slots in the lineup that are neither, which is what we saw in 2012 and again this year. What made last year's team is that basically there were no black holes in the lineup, and there was some power, a lot of HRs. While the WS Weaver won included those big name bats you mention, his teams went to the ALCS in 1973 and 1974, and lost the WS in 1979 before winning it again the year after he retired in 1983. That latter team did have Eddie Murray and Ripken, but they were by no means all about power. The earlier ALCS and WS appearances were built around a collection of largely unappreciated talent, and they didn't rely on power that much at all. Those teams included great players who are either HOF calibre ( Bobby Grich), near HOF ( Ken Singleton), or very good ( John Lowenstein). They did it with pitching, defense and OBP for the most part, with some power. But by no means was it a bunch of HR hitters. Weaver was years ahead of his contemporaries in valuing talent and building a team.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 6, 2014 13:34:18 GMT -5
If the FO decides to keep JBJ, Nava, Holt & Betts as 3rd thru 6th OF for season 2015. It's over. The team going to stay basement in the standings for long time with lousy OF production. Cespedes & Craig are the first two OF. Season 2014 OF production is the worst ones I ever witnessed. I grew up from Rice, Lynn & Evans ERA and beyond after them. They gave us .275 avg/20+ HR/75+ RBI yearly. Our current OF (pre-Cespendes & Craig) cannot give that after 5th month of baseball. And this whole team is off year from everyone's production except Ortiz that will get 30 HR/100 RBI season. In comparing to OF productions from our division: Baltimore, Toronto, NYY & TB. We're not even close to them by wide margin. To have less than below .250/5 HR/35 RBI season from popular 4 guys is unacceptable for me. Holt & Betts should stay around as IF position, not OF. JBJ is nice gold glove player but cannot hitting and would be 4th OF for most power hitting MLB OF teams. Same thing for Nava. We don't know what Victorino will give us in 2015 after the surgery. I hope that Craig-Victorino-Cespedes (from LF to RF) might give us better production than the current OF could give us for 2014 season. Basically what you are saying is that Ben has collected too many middle infielders and that moving them to the outfield is not the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2014 14:13:19 GMT -5
a high OBP guy with pop like we both think they should get. I don't understand this attitude. Yes, of course it'd be great if they could get an elite offensive player who both gets on base and hits for power. But guys like that are just generally not available, and when they are, they either come with warts (age, defense, etc.) or are extremely expensive to acquire. Plus, it's not like it's a zero-sum game. Adding Cespedes does not prevent them from having either the payroll space or the prospect depth to get a guy like Stanton or CarGo, should they become available. I agree with this and haven't said it's zero sum. In fact, that's why I keep saying we'll see what they do this winter. If they get one of those guys and flip Cespedes and most of all of his salary in the deal then all the better.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2014 14:37:43 GMT -5
With regard to line-up construction, this is really where I'm at: what team would you win more games with (given pitching and D are static): A team with 7, age 28 Pedroias or a team with 7, age 28 Cespedes? This is really where I'm coming from, and a legitimate question. I've had this conversation in one form or another over the last 10 years and, when in doubt I lean toward the team of Pedroia types but I am not sure. I love the 3 run homer as much as anyone, but if my 7 guys top to bottom as a group average hit the Pedroia numbers. That means you could have a few guys who are a little below in one category and a few guys a little above. That's the goal I prefer (combined with good or better defense and very good or better pitching). I realize you'll never hit that goal, but that's what I would shoot for if I was a GM. In his age-28 season, Dustin Pedroia hit .290/.347/.449 (114 wRC+). Cespedes is at a 115 wRC+ this year and 118 for his career. So yes, you'd score more runs with Cespedes. (ADD: of course, that's assuming you believe in park adjustments. If you don't and want to use unadjusted wOBA, Pedroia's .344 wOBA is higher than Cespedes'.334 this year and his .340 career. But that would have you believe that putting up the same numbers with O.co as your home ballpark versus doing so in Fenway are equally valuable, which I hope you'll concede isn't true. Regardless, linear weights-type offensive stats like wOBA and wRC+ do conclusively answer questions like this, as discussed here.) Here's also what I don't get-- you can aspire to whatever you like, but does that imply that you would refuse to acquire any player who hit worse than 2012 Pedroia, even if your existing options (think a Nava/Brentz platoon or whatever) are inferior? You make it sound like it's so easy to get a better player than Cespedes. I'd like to hear the names of a few guys who are available for a reasonable cost who you would have preferred over Yoenis. This is a straw man since I wasn't in the Front Office and don't know who was considered, who was offered, and whether this move or some of the others are predicated on deals or targets that will be identified in the off-season. For example, I did identify Hayward and J Upton, neither of whom will likely be moved during a pennant race but perhaps both or one will be available. Maybe Ben even talked about acquiring one of them last off season but ATL wanted a piece he wouldn't give or needed a 3rd team etc, and one of these deals gets something that ATL wants. Or maybe, as some reported, they had a rough deal in place for the GiancaroloWhoShallNotBeNamed but Ben didn't want move all the players MIA asked for but now he has one that can ostensibly make that deal happen.I don't know so I won't presume. My point was more that I would be looking to the winter even if I am planning to be a full-fledged contender in 2015. To that end, if the Front Office believe that Fenway will make Cespedes more of a typical high OBP Sox player and they plan to have him here for several years, I remain to be convinced. If not, but they see him as a useful piece toward a 1 year, "all-in" perspective with no return after next year except what he puts on the field, is there a better 1 year, all in guy they could've gotten in the winter garnered from some of the prospects they were offered for Lackey or Lester? Again, straw man since we'll never know (and the ALL IN FOR 2015 or NOT is a different discussion, anyway). Also, between you and me, they could do a better L/R platoon than Nava/Brentz (which I never suggested) with what they had if Cherrington would insist his manager play Nava vs. RHP and Gomes vs. LHP exclusively, or let Gomes go and find another RH guy who hits lefties well. So, yeah, Cespedes could fit on my theoretical team if they get more high on base guys with some pop on an team I would build. But he's more of a #6 or #7 hitter in that kind of a line-up to me than a #3 or #4 as many here seem to be proclaiming/hoping park effects turn him into. I'm not convinced. I'm hoping I will be but if I can get a list of all the guys they could've gotten instead for Lester alone (or Lester and Miller to the Orioles) I bet I could find a few I like better. And really, if he turns out to be whatever the park-effect adjust projection was - .280/.340/.510 with 32HRs is what I think I read somewhere - do you really think the Sox will sign him for the years (at least 6) and dollars (at least $20M per) that he will command on the free agent market given he'll be 30 after next year?
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 6, 2014 14:41:24 GMT -5
If you take a theoretical amazing defense with this season's pitching staff at 3.88 FIP and assume the defense allows no hits (hence the pitchers). Then you take this team's current R/G at 3.83, and use B-R's Pythagorean formula; you get an 80 win team. The point still stands that you need to SCORE and PREVENT runs in order to win games. That's not true. FIP has a weight on it to get BB, K, and HR into an number that would scale to ERA. Your saying if a team allowed .000 BABIP(basically having the Flash as your shortstop and superman as your CF) they would still allow 3.83 runs a game, but those 3.83 would only come as a result of home runs and walks. That's not how it works. True. My bad. I merely attempted to use those numbers as reference points.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2014 14:47:00 GMT -5
Earl Weaver had Boog Powell, Frank and Brooks Robinson to get those 3-run HRs that he loved. Yes, he had high OBP guys, but he always had the big power guys as well, and would not have won without them. The same is true for the great Sox teams. They combined high OBP with two or three high power guys. What kills a team is to have two or three, or more, slots in the lineup that are neither, which is what we saw in 2012 and again this year. What made last year's team is that basically there were no black holes in the lineup, and there was some power, a lot of HRs. While the WS Weaver won included those big name bats you mention, his teams went to the ALCS in 1973 and 1974, and lost the WS in 1979 before winning it again the year after he retired in 1983. That latter team did have Eddie Murray and Ripken, but they were by no means all about power. The earlier ALCS and WS appearances were built around a collection of largely unappreciated talent, and they didn't rely on power that much at all. Those teams included great players who are either HOF calibre ( Bobby Grich), near HOF ( Ken Singleton), or very good ( John Lowenstein). They did it with pitching, defense and OBP for the most part, with some power. But by no means was it a bunch of HR hitters. Weaver was years ahead of his contemporaries in valuing talent and building a team. Thanks Norm, that's really my point. If pitching has become king like it was in the mid to late 60s then this is the kind of team I want. Bashers are a bonus and I love them, but in the Ortiz/Napoli style where they come with the requisite OBP. But what I want more than anything is a steady stream of base runners who wear out pitchers, quality pitching and run prevention on defense. This becomes even more important as big power is harder to find.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2014 15:02:40 GMT -5
In 2013, Prince Fielder put up 25 home runs and a .279/.362/.457 triple-slash, which adds up to a 125 wRC+. Justin Upton was 27/.263/.354/.464 and a 128 wRC+. Ryan Zimmerman was 26/.275/.344/.465 and a 125 wRC+. Cespedes' career wRC+, as mentioned, is 118, so he's a small step down from those guys, but a small step nonetheless. (Of course, wRC+ includes league and park adjustments, which you apparently don't believe in. If you want to use straight unadjusted wOBA, we can compare Fielder's .358, Upton's .357, and Zimmerman's .353 to Cespedes' career .340.) Last week's discussion was either a .350 OBP OR 20+ home runs. Only Napoli and Ortiz got you both. Actually it was .330 OBP AND 20 or more HRs. Apologies, I kept typing .350 above. I had a cross country flight yesterday, my second in 5 days. I need some sleep. Or more caffeine. I can't decide which. So Cespedes will fit right in as long as he can get those numbers back to the rookie year line, which should be a cinch with park effects. And. Then. I. Will. Be. Wrong. (after which, if it happens he'll probably be gone to the Yankees or Tigers or whomever in free agency on a 7 year deal, anyway).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 6, 2014 15:55:17 GMT -5
For example, I did identify Hayward and J Upton, neither of whom will likely be moved during a pennant race but perhaps both or one will be available. Maybe Ben even talked about acquiring one of them last off season but ATL wanted a piece he wouldn't give or needed a 3rd team etc, and one of these deals gets something that ATL wants. Or maybe, as some reported, they had a rough deal in place for the GiancaroloWhoShallNotBeNamed but Ben didn't want move all the players MIA asked for but now he has one that can ostensibly make that deal happen.I don't know so I won't presume. My point was more that I would be looking to the winter even if I am planning to be a full-fledged contender in 2015. [...] If not, but they see him as a useful piece toward a 1 year, "all-in" perspective with no return after next year except what he puts on the field, is there a better 1 year, all in guy they could've gotten in the winter garnered from some of the prospects they were offered for Lackey or Lester? [...] Also, between you and me, they could do a better L/R platoon than Nava/Brentz (which I never suggested) with what they had if Cherrington would insist his manager play Nava vs. RHP and Gomes vs. LHP exclusively, or let Gomes go and find another RH guy who hits lefties well. Right, and my point is that getting just prospects in return for Lester would force the front office to hope that Heyward or Upton or Stanton are available during the offseason for a reasonable price. Because beyond those guys, and a couple others (Moss, CarGo, maybe Kemp or Cruz or Melky Cabrera), there just aren't any other names who will be both available and upgrades on par with what Cespedes projects to give them. If none of those guys are available (certainly a very plausible scenario), the Red Sox would have to make due with second-rate guys like Chris Denrfia or Josh Willingham or Michael Cuddyer. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush and all that. And yeah, I think Cespedes is an upgrade on a platoon with Nava and one of those guys (especially since Nava will still be on the team next year), though not necessarily a huge upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 6, 2014 16:20:00 GMT -5
Actually it was .3 30 OBP AND 20 or more HRs. Apologies, I kept typing .350 above. I don't want to be too pedantic about this, but you said either 20+ HRs and .330+ OBP or .355+ OBP. The 2013 Red Sox had two 20+ HR, .330+ OBP guys (three if you combine Nava and Gomes, though that would give them a combined 902 PAs; if you prorate their combined performance across 600 PAs, they'd only have 17 home runs). They had two more .355+ OBP guys (Ellsbury and Pedroia). Here's an important thing to note. Cespedes only has to be the third or fourth best hitter on the 2015 Red Sox. Napoli and Ortiz clearly will be your tentpole "middle of the order" guys, and there's a good case that one of Craig, Pedroia, or even Victorino or Bogaerts or Betts will end up joining Cespedes on that "well above-average" second tier of hitters. I still think they could use an upgrade at third base, and if an elite corner outfielder does become available, they should pursue it. But even with no other additions, I think the 2015 offense projects to be somewhere between the 7th and 12th best offense in the league right now. That's not great, especially with the pitching side in relatively rough shape, but it's a solid enough starting point. We'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2014 17:31:30 GMT -5
And if Cespedes does perform to his park effects projections do you think this ownership group signs him given the amounts and years he'd likely want? Because if not, you're left with zero to show for the Lester deal after 1 year. This is fine if they go to the playoffs and Cespedes plays a big part in getting there. Otherwise it seems like diluted return.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 6, 2014 17:42:10 GMT -5
Yeah, one year of a relatively low-risk, below-market 3+ win player is a pretty good get for a rental pitcher. I just don't think elite prospects were on the table, but that gets us back to square one. At the very least, having had him on the team in 2015 makes signing him for 2016 and beyond more likely, and he is the sort of young, athletic position player that this front office has been willing to commit big money to.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Aug 6, 2014 18:15:11 GMT -5
Yeah, one year of a relatively low-risk, below-market 3+ win player is a pretty good get for a rental pitcher. I just don't think elite prospects were on the table, but that gets us back to square one. At the very least, having had him on the team in 2015 makes signing him for 2016 and beyond more likely, and he is the sort of young, athletic position player that this front office has been willing to commit big money to. I think this is probably true to the prospects. If we look at what Ben strives to get in prospects it would seem to me the logical outcome is the Number One in league team at the time (Oakland) had to do just enough to keep Lester out of the contenders hands (Detroit, Angels, Baltimore, etc) without the prospects Billy had to make the call to Ben and figure out what was just enough to get Lester for the rest of the year. What appeals to Ben he figured out and made the swap with Ben and next year in mind. The pick was to Console Ben for losing Lester, the appeal of a big name player who ESPN hypes to the people at will was the bait and if the trade works out for both it pays bigger dividends to each. Ben keeps seats full which is his job plus an immediate start to a recovery plan he is trying to sell. That is actually better for Ben today than a top prospect (if he could even get one)because it keeps him in the owners best regards. Ben actually won big hear in regards to his keeping his job and the selling of seats next year.
|
|
|