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 moonstone2 on Aug 30, 2014 11:46:50 GMT -5
What do you think Clay Buchholz be in Red Sox? Is he in No.3 or No.4 starter in the Sox rotation? The easiest way for a team to improve is the improvement of the players they already have. Clay Buccholz was the most dissapointing player for the Red Sox this year. There is little doubt that he's capable of being a #2 pitcher, but for me the mental aspect of his game has always been troubling. He never seemed to have the drive to be great like John Lester did, and at times didn't seem to care at alk how he did Next year is his final guaranteed year. Perhaps it will motivate him.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 30, 2014 11:59:48 GMT -5
What do you think Clay Buchholz be in Red Sox? Is he in No.3 or No.4 starter in the Sox rotation? The easiest way for a team to improve is the improvement of the players they already have. Clay Buccholz was the most dissapointing player for the Red Sox this year. There is little doubt that he's capable of being a #2 pitcher, but for me the mental aspect of his game has always been troubling. He never seemed to have the drive to be great like John Lester did, and at times didn't seem to care at alk how he did Next year is his final guaranteed year. Perhaps it will motivate him. Well he can act like a #2 for 2-3 months at a time anyway, between stretches of injury and ineffectiveness. Not sure if that's the same as "being a #2" though.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 30, 2014 15:13:39 GMT -5
How do we feel about the sox pushing hard to sign Lester in the offseason and if that fails, sign shields as a back up plan?
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Aug 30, 2014 15:28:58 GMT -5
How do we feel about the sox pushing hard to sign Lester in the offseason and if that fails, sign shields as a back up plan? That is the least we need to do. In a perfect world, we sign Lester (no draft pick attached) AND Shields (just a 2nd round pick) and we have Kelly and Buchholz our 3 and 4. I understand the resistance to signing a pitcher over 30 to 5 or 6 years, but I'd do it this time. You know what you have with Jon Lester and you have no penalty (draft choice) involved. 6 years for $150 mill should do it, and with James "Big Game" Shields we are a favorite to win the ALEast. Our offense will probably be a lot stronger next season. Love to see the Sox take this opportunity to pick up 2 "studs" and make the rotation strong once again.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 30, 2014 18:10:37 GMT -5
How do we feel about the sox pushing hard to sign Lester in the offseason and if that fails, sign shields as a back up plan? That is the least we need to do. In a perfect world, we sign Lester (no draft pick attached) AND Shields (just a 2nd round pick) and we have Kelly and Buchholz our 3 and 4. I understand the resistance to signing a pitcher over 30 to 5 or 6 years, but I'd do it this time. You know what you have with Jon Lester and you have no penalty (draft choice) involved. 6 years for $150 mill should do it, and with James "Big Game" Shields we are a favorite to win the ALEast. Our offense will probably be a lot stronger next season. Love to see the Sox take this opportunity to pick up 2 "studs" and make the rotation strong once again. The Yankees are expected go hard after Lester. You have to assume we will not be willing go where they will as far as stupid money for a huge contract. In my mind, we swoop in and sign their closer out from underneath them, then secure shields. Once those are done, we can use our glut of prospects to get a heyward or another left handed bat.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 30, 2014 18:16:46 GMT -5
That is the least we need to do. In a perfect world, we sign Lester (no draft pick attached) AND Shields (just a 2nd round pick) and we have Kelly and Buchholz our 3 and 4. I understand the resistance to signing a pitcher over 30 to 5 or 6 years, but I'd do it this time. You know what you have with Jon Lester and you have no penalty (draft choice) involved. 6 years for $150 mill should do it, and with James "Big Game" Shields we are a favorite to win the ALEast. Our offense will probably be a lot stronger next season. Love to see the Sox take this opportunity to pick up 2 "studs" and make the rotation strong once again. The Yankees are expected go hard after Lester. You have to assume we will not be willing go where they will as far as stupid money for a huge contract. In my mind, we swoop in and sign their closer out from underneath them, then secure shields. Once those are done, we can use our glut of prospects to get a heyward or another left handed bat. I was thinking the same thing; it makes sense to get some insurance for Koji (assuming he's signed). Not only should we want someone who can step in for Koji if he goes down or becomes fatigued, but it makes sense to have someone who can fill that role in 2016 as well. Miller might be a good candidate as well.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 30, 2014 19:08:19 GMT -5
Anybody have any stats on successful left handed closers through the years?
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Aug 30, 2014 20:16:49 GMT -5
Billy Wagner comes to mind, he was electric. I loved it when Billy was here during the short time in Boston. Over 400 saves and a career 2.31 era and 1196 K's. Solid.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 30, 2014 20:27:13 GMT -5
The Yankees are expected go hard after Lester. You have to assume we will not be willing go where they will as far as stupid money for a huge contract. In my mind, we swoop in and sign their closer out from underneath them, then secure shields. Once those are done, we can use our glut of prospects to get a heyward or another left handed bat. I was thinking the same thing; it makes sense to get some insurance for Koji (assuming he's signed). Not only should we want someone who can step in for Koji if he goes down or becomes fatigued, but it makes sense to have someone who can fill that role in 2016 as well. Miller might be a good candidate as well. I don't see Miller as a closer...but I would love to resign him whatever the cost. Hell we got another pitcher for him so we can afford to dig a bit deeper. The Yankees will probably go after Lester but will likely be in a penalty stage where a 20MM/yr contract will cost them 30. Nova, Greene, McCarthy, Pineda will be a tough rotation even without Tanaka, Kuroda and Sabbathia. Lester would put them over the top. I hope that you are right Steve that the Sox line-up will be better....guess it can't be much worse than hit a combined .244 with 100 hrs.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 31, 2014 1:07:52 GMT -5
In a perfect world, we sign Lester (no draft pick attached) AND Shields (just a 2nd round pick) and we have Kelly and Buchholz our 3 and 4. I understand the resistance to signing a pitcher over 30 to 5 or 6 years, but I'd do it this time. You know what you have with Jon Lester and you have no penalty (draft choice) involved. 6 years for $150 mill should do it, and with James "Big Game" Shields we are a favorite to win the ALEast. Assuming Rubby is the 5th starter in that scenario ... I just can't see how the difference between Shields (or any other non-elite addition) and the best one guy out of Matt Barnes, Anthony Ranaudo, Steven Wright, Allen Webster, Brandon Workman, and, by mid-season, Henry Owens, Eduardo Rodriguez, and Brian Johnson is worth a second-round pick, a huge contract, and a multi-year commitment starting at age 33. First of all, how good is Shields? He's having a typical season and he's 55th in SIERA among 142 SP with 80 IP or more, with an ERA- a bit better and a FIP- a bit worse. That makes him a good 3rd starter. His chief asset, his phenomenal durability, is minimized in value when every pitcher at your AAA club is a top prospect. As a good mid-rotation guy who eats innings and never misses a start, his value is in direct proportion to a team's lack of pitching depth. Which is a lack we hugely lack. As for "Big Game," there's no one in the sabermetrics community who has championed the reality of clutch performance more than I have, and I think there's less evidence for "big game" clutch pitching than any other form of clutch, which is to say, zero. I once did a study seeing if there was any correlation between post-season pitching and past post-season pitching (both relative to regular-season), and there was absolutely none. In fact, because the sample sizes were so small, there was no significant correlation between raw post-season and past post-season pitching, period. The only thing that correlated to post-season ERA in a given year was that regular season's ERA. And the distribution of guys who had been worse every year in the post-season than in the regular, or better, was what you'd expect to see by chance. Almost to prove the point, the very next post-season, Clemens, who had been the poster child for post-season "choking," was brilliant, and El Duque, who had been the post-season clutch wizard, got hammered. Pitching appears to be so difficult neurologically that factors outside a player's control (such as quality of sleep) seem to overwhelm the personality traits that might make you better or worse under increased pressure. Oh, and Shields has a career 4.98 post-season ERA in 6 starts, versus 3.66 in the corresponding regular seasons. Returning to the guys that Shields or a similar addition would supplant: most of them have upside to be as good. Let me pull some numbers from my butt on the odds of each guy being a solid 3rd starter next year: Barnes 30%, Rodriguez, 25%, Owens and Webster 20%, Wright, Ranaudo and Johnson, 15%, Workman, 5%. That's an 80% chance that you already have someone as good. There's a lot of leeway to reduce those odds (and/or trade Ranaudo or Webster) before you reach the conclusion that Shields or the equivalent is likely to be a significant upgrade, let alone one worth the stiff price. And, yes, if someone gets hurt, everyone has to move up a slot, but now you're talking about the difference between Shields and the second best of the bunch, for as many games as guys miss with injury. I still don't see it being justifiable -- especially in the long run. They're not giving up on Buchholz, they're not dealing Kelly immediately after they went out of their way to get him, and they're not trading Rubby or moving him to the pen without giving him a full year to try to add consistency and reach his upside as a starter. Simply re-sign Lester and leave the 5th spot open for one of the aforementioned. And finally, I want the seven best of those kids (plus Workman if he's a bit out of touch with reality) spending all winter thinking they'll be competing for an open rotation spot, rather than thinking the club has so little confidence in them as a group that they burned a draft pick and spent a ton of money in order to freeze them all out of a job.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 31, 2014 1:44:10 GMT -5
The easiest way for a team to improve is the improvement of the players they already have. Clay Buccholz was the most dissapointing player for the Red Sox this year. There is little doubt that he's capable of being a #2 pitcher, but for me the mental aspect of his game has always been troubling. He never seemed to have the drive to be great like John Lester did, and at times didn't seem to care at alk how he did Next year is his final guaranteed year. Perhaps it will motivate him. Well he can act like a #2 for 2-3 months at a time anyway, between stretches of injury and ineffectiveness. Not sure if that's the same as "being a #2" though. Well, if by "Well he can act like a #2 for 2-3 months at a time" you mean "he was the 7th most valuable pitcher (per start) in all of MLB in 2010, over 28 starts, and the most valuable pitcher, per start, of anyone in baseball 2010-2014, just last year, in 16 starts," that's an accurate assessment. It's a simple stat and the best measure of actual value to team, per start: Win Probability Added (adjusted for opportunity by dividing by average leverage index), per 32 starts. Top 6 seasons 2010-2014 (with GS): 4.71 (21), Chris Sale 2014 4.74 (22), Hisashi Iwakuma 2014 5.01 (33), Roy Halladay 2010 5.15 (34), Justin Verlander 2011 ... wait for it ... 5.96 (22), Clayton Kershaw, 2014. Wow! ... again ... 6.45 (16), Clay Buchholz, 2013 Buchholz has often been hurt and sometimes has struggled, but those struggles have put some people insanely out of touch with reality in terms of how good he's been when he's been good, and for how long. Buchholz was so good last year that you could fill his missing 16 starts with a good 5th starter (111th best starter out of 150) ... and still get ace value (top 15 in MLB) out of the combo.
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 31, 2014 2:08:46 GMT -5
1.Cole Hamels or Chris Sale 2.James Shields 3.Justin Masterson 4.Clay Buchholz 5.Rubby De La Rosa or Joe Kelly
Does this make sense for the Sox 's rotation next year?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 31, 2014 6:56:16 GMT -5
Returning to the guys that Shields or a similar addition would supplant: most of them have upside to be as good. Let me pull some numbers from my butt on the odds of each guy being a solid 3rd starter next year: Barnes 30%, Rodriguez, 25%, Owens and Webster 20%, Wright, Ranaudo and Johnson, 15%, Workman, 5%. That's an 80% chance that you already have someone as good. There's a lot of leeway to reduce those odds (and/or trade Ranaudo or Webster) before you reach the conclusion that Shields or the equivalent is likely to be a significant upgrade, let alone one worth the stiff price. And, yes, if someone gets hurt, everyone has to move up a slot, but now you're talking about the difference between Shields and the second best of the bunch, for as many games as guys miss with injury. I still don't see it being justifiable -- especially in the long run. I don't think it has to be Shields, but I definitely think the Red Sox should try and add two starting pitchers this offseason. I think the above probabilities are extremely optimistic. Matt Barnes wasn't as good this year in AAA as Shields was in the majors and still has fringy secondary stuff, Webster looks less and less like a major league starting pitcher with each start, Ranaudo looks like a back-end guy, Wright is a total mystery, while Johnson and Rodriguez need more finishing time at AAA. Owens is the only guy on that list who I think you've got semi-accurately pegged. Maybe some of those guys have third starter upside, but the odds of them being as good as James Shields next year are much, much lower than you've outlined above. Even if those odds are accurate, though, there's still the problem that you don't know who is the best out of the bunch coming out of Spring Training, and if you choose wrong coming, it means you're giving starts to a much inferior pitcher. That means you can't just sum the probabilities and think you've got 80% of Shields in the system-- it really means you've got 30% of Shields in Barnes for a few months (since decisions like this are "sticky" and it usually takes a while before you realize you've made the wrong choice), and then a few months of a 20% guy, and so on and so forth. Adding Shields (or another proven veteran starter) reduces a lot of risk, which is hugely important considering the Red Sox already have three relatively high-risk pitchers in their projected rotation already in Buchholz, Kelly, and De La Rosa. I also think you're underrating Shields by just looking at one year of a non-league and park-adjusted SIERA. Both Steamer and ZiPS RoS projections see him as one of the 20 best starting pitchers in baseball going forward. He's been the 28th best pitcher in the league this year by FIP-WAR and the 36th best pitcher in the league this year by RA9-WAR. Shields' durability adds value not just by making every start, but by going deep into games, which is something you're not taking into account by strictly looking at a rate stat. He's a solid, low-risk number two starter in my mind, comparable to John Lackey or Chris Archer or Sonny Gray, and you're underrating him if you think even this system's loaded SP depth chart can pull one of those guys out of its hat.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 31, 2014 7:06:53 GMT -5
Well, if by "Well he can act like a #2 for 2-3 months at a time" you mean "he was the 7th most valuable pitcher (per start) in all of MLB in 2010, over 28 starts, and the most valuable pitcher, per start, of anyone in baseball 2010-2014, just last year, in 16 starts," that's an accurate assessment. It's a simple stat and the best measure of actual value to team, per start: Win Probability Added (adjusted for opportunity by dividing by average leverage index), per 32 starts. Top 6 seasons 2010-2014 (with GS): 4.71 (21), Chris Sale 2014 4.74 (22), Hisashi Iwakuma 2014 5.01 (33), Roy Halladay 2010 5.15 (34), Justin Verlander 2011 ... wait for it ... 5.96 (22), Clayton Kershaw, 2014. Wow! ... again ... 6.45 (16), Clay Buchholz, 2013 Buchholz has often been hurt and sometimes has struggled, but those struggles have put some people insanely out of touch with reality in terms of how good he's been when he's been good, and for how long. Buchholz was so good last year that you could fill his missing 16 starts with a good 5th starter (111th best starter out of 150) ... and still get ace value (top 15 in MLB) out of the combo. This has been pointed out before, but using such a context-dependent stat like WPA to evaluate a pitcher, especially when we're trying to project forward, is just so weird. Just about noone thinks WPA is more predictive than the context-neutral stats, and Buchholz's good periods look much more ordinary if you look at the more predictive stats like SIERA (in 2013, his 3.59 SIERA ranked 36th out of 139 SP with 100+ IP, which looks pretty much like a number two starter. He actually put up a below-average 4.27 SIERA in 2010).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 31, 2014 11:34:31 GMT -5
Even if those odds are accurate, though, there's still the problem that you don't know who is the best out of the bunch coming out of Spring Training, and if you choose wrong coming, it means you're giving starts to a much inferior pitcher. That means you can't just sum the probabilities and think you've got 80% of Shields in the system-- it really means you've got 30% of Shields in Barnes for a few months (since decisions like this are "sticky" and it usually takes a while before you realize you've made the wrong choice), and then a few months of a 20% guy, and so on and so forth. I was very much aware of that flaw in the logic and plead guilty to omitting it in order to juice my argument artificially. I guess the bottom line is that signing a second pitcher might make sense for 2015 viewed overall, but really starts to fail to do so by the end of the year and thereafter. The algorithm that works, the one I've been using for years and testing against our perceptions, is that a guy is an ace if he's one of the 15 best pitchers in baseball, and a #2 if he's one of the top 45, and so on. (The trick is decreeing that only above-average clubs have an ace, and hence below-average clubs have a 2, 3, 4, 5, and junk.) You can't limit an assessment by rank to just guys who have qualified for the ERA title; you have to include enough guys to get 150 starting MLB pitchers. This year, at the moment, that's 70 IP as a starter, which gives you 149. Shields by: TAv allowed: 80th. Very good 4th starter. (It's .264, below MLB average, and the 3rd / 4th starter borderline is a tick above average.) League-adjusted SIERA, 49th*. Top 3d starter. xFIP-: 57th. Slightly above-average 3rd starter. FIP-: 62nd. Slightly below-average 3rd starter. ERA-: 44th. On the 2nd/3rd starter border. WPA/LI/GS: 81st. Very good 4th starter. In terms of his actual value, or in terms of what he's actually allowed to hitters given neutral sequencing, he's been a very good 4th starter this year. If you adjust out BABIP and/or HR/FB, you can get him into the middle of the pack for 3rd starters or a little better. (Note that ERA- is the only stat here that is affected by bullpen support on inherited runners, and we can presume he's benefited from it.) Now, if I did this for his three previous seasons (FIP- of 89, 88, 87), I think I'd conclude, low-end 2nd starter. So maybe he returns to that form for a couple of years before the inevitable decline. But when a guy goes from an 88 to a 98 FIP- at age 32, I'm not rushing to go out and sign him, when we have so many guys who have a chance to be that good. *It would be 60th without the adjustment, which is SIERA * .957 for AL. So I'm trying to be as fair as possible. Oh, and re, Buchholz: he's the poster child for not using metrics that assume average BABIP, etc.. His career ERA and FIP may be close, but that's because he's been inconsistent, and the years where he's been good (and been hugely better than his FIP) and the years in which he's been bad (in which he's been hugely worse than his FIP) are accidentally canceling. His ERA-FIP has a huge variance, and has been correlated to his ERA, and you can't explain that by chance. (And there are a bunch of other ways of showing that his BABIP truly varies between his good and bad selves.)
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 31, 2014 18:21:00 GMT -5
If Buchholz finishes the season strong, I would try to trade him. I would do that because there is no way of knowing whether that performance will carry over to next year. If the Red Sox were in a real rebuilding mode, without planning to compete next year, then it might be worth taking a chance and keeping him.
A championship team needs solid pitching and that means pitchers who can be counted on to be on their game most of the time.
I think the Sox have to sign at least one premium pitcher and Lester is the obvious one. They may have to trade to get another. Unless Stanton becomes available, or one of the Cubs' young sluggers, or someone else similar, I don't see much of a chance of improving the hitting during the winter. That may be OK if they can get the pitching. Unfortunately, the hope that the pitching openings could be filled from prospects seems to be waning.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 31, 2014 20:15:48 GMT -5
If someone could say for sure that Buchholz had something wrong with him earlier in the year , but it is now healed, then I would feel good about keeping him for next year.
In my mind Buchholz has been able to come over the top with his pitches this last month or so and earlier in the year, he just could not do that for whatever reason.
We add a shields to this rotation for 2015 and a closer like Robertson plus take a flier on a gregerson for the pen and the rotation and the pen should be fine.
Then it becomes a task of finding a left handed power bat.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Sept 1, 2014 7:54:15 GMT -5
1.Cole Hamels or Chris Sale 2.James Shields 3.Justin Masterson 4.Clay Buchholz 5.Rubby De La Rosa or Joe Kelly Does this make sense for the Sox 's rotation next year? I would much prefer Sale over Hamels. Masterson is more like a #5 pitcher who I would stay away from. I would move Buchholz up to #3, RDLR #4 and Kelly #5.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 1, 2014 8:15:31 GMT -5
I guess the bottom line is that signing a second pitcher might make sense for 2015 viewed overall, but really starts to fail to do so by the end of the year and thereafter. This is a fair point, and why I think it may make more sense for that second SP addition to be a trade for a one-year-from-free-agency guy. Someone like Latos, Cueto, Leake, or Samardzija would make a fine target.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 1, 2014 9:22:14 GMT -5
I guess the bottom line is that signing a second pitcher might make sense for 2015 viewed overall, but really starts to fail to do so by the end of the year and thereafter. This is a fair point, and why I think it may make more sense for that second SP addition to be a trade for a one-year-from-free-agency guy. Someone like Latos, Cueto, Leake, or Samardzija would make a fine target. That's a really interesting idea. The only downside is that you are blocking all the kids, but it gives you a safety net, and there's usually a decent number of starts available because of injuries to your top 5. Most importantly, you are sorting out the identity of the best kid at the minor league level. Right now, you'd say: Ranaudo: quite possibly ready to be an MLB 4th starter. He has nothing left to prove in AAA and would be wasted out of the pen, so if we do trade for someone better, I think he's traded himself (not necessarily in the same trade). If kept, he may well be a placeholder for Barnes, a Webster breakthrough, or even Wright; and by mid-season, Owens, Rodriguez, or Johnson. Webster: needs more AAA time or a relief conversion. There's nothing in his performance as a starter that suggests he'd be better as a reliever; his first inning, pitches 1-25, and times around the order splits all show he's just as likely to struggle at the outset, and he's been much better in low leverage than otherwise. He's getting the expected plus results on his change and slider, but getting killed on his FB; the hope would be that pitching every other day or so would improve the FB command. In a tiny SS, he has dominated MLB 3 and 4 hitters while getting hit hard by 5 though 9 and destroyed by 1 and 2, so there's evidence that his stuff is indeed great. Barring a turnaround this September, I think he starts next year in AAA, using his last option, and gets converted to the pen at mid-season if he doesn't step it up. Wright: probably ready to be the long man out of the pen / spot starter. Given that they just recalled him to do just that, they may agree. Barnes: scouts have had him as the second best or even best of this group, and he's been electrifying in his last stretch of starts. He's been so good that he arguably makes Ranaudo tradeable (e.g., in a deal for Heyward) even if they don't acquire two pitchers, since he could be the 5th starter out of the gate next year. More likely, though, that he starts the year as the PawSox ace, and waits for an opening. Workman: they're talking about using him as a 6th starter to limit the innings of everyone but Buchholz and Kelley, but I think we all agree that he's very unlikely to beat out Ranaudo, Wright, or Barnes for a rotation spot. People are penciling him into next year's pen, but I actually think that he, Wilson, and Hembree will be competing for one spot there, and Wilson, with his new cutter, might have the edge. I think they're showcasing him for a trade, frankly, because he has more value as someone else's 4th or 5th starter, and hence as trade fodder, than he would in any role for us. Escobar: given his platoon splits, ripe for a AAA relief conversion, where he'd be insurance against Layne being a mirage, or could provide a 3rd LHR (swapping places with the winner of the Wilson / Hembree / [Workman] battle). If Ranaudo is dealt, however, there would be room for him in the PawSox rotation, where they could continue to develop him as a starter, with an eye towards trading him. I'm not sure how mch sense that makes, though; it might make more sense to give that last rotation slot to Couch, Diaz, or even Hernandez.
|
|
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Sept 1, 2014 11:14:34 GMT -5
1.Cole Hamels or Chris Sale Does this make sense for the Sox 's rotation next year? I would much prefer Sale over Hamels. Saw reference to Sale in the Edes article posted recently, now here. Did I miss something? Why would they be putting Sale on the market?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 1, 2014 11:16:34 GMT -5
Billy Wagner comes to mind, he was electric. I loved it when Billy was here during the short time in Boston. Over 400 saves and a career 2.31 era and 1196 K's. Solid. As does Sparky "where's that cake" Lyle. To a lesser extent Bob Veale. All ten pitches of him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 1, 2014 11:31:31 GMT -5
I would much prefer Sale over Hamels. Saw reference to Sale in the Edes article posted recently, now here. Did I miss something? Why would they be putting Sale on the market? To get Mike Trout or maybe a package of Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart and Owens. IOW, they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 1, 2014 11:32:19 GMT -5
I would much prefer Sale over Hamels. Saw reference to Sale in the Edes article posted recently, now here. Did I miss something? Why would they be putting Sale on the market? I guess because it would be convenient for the Red Sox?
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,966
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 1, 2014 11:59:06 GMT -5
How about Pablo Sandoval for 3B? With money and prospects to spend, I can't imagine the RS going into 2015 with WMB at 3B unless he turns things around in a big way in the last month.
Sandoval is a FA after this season and is putting up a solid .291/.335/.441 line, good for an OPS+ of 121. That's in line with his numbers from the past two years (117 in 2013 and 123 in 2012). He's just an average defensive player, with a career BRef dWAR of 1.6.
He just turned 28 but teams may be skittish about giving him a long-term deal because of his body type. I recall Theo Epstein saying about a year ago that the FO thought Youks would be a good player but with a short career. That turned out to be correct. I can see the current RS front office having concerns about Sandoval's long-term productivity.
But at least in the short term, he'd give us a solid LH bat. After Napoli's contract expires at the end of 2015, he could be a possibility for 1B. He could also be a post-Papi DH.
Does 4 years/$60 million get it done? If the Giants don't extend a QO, I'd make the deal at those numbers.
|
|
|