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
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 7, 2014 11:24:32 GMT -5
In his article today, Cafardo suggested that Masterson and Grilli will be on next year's team. While both could be signed to"pillow"contracts, who sees them as upgrades for the team next year? What was he smoking? The odds are much greater that several oif the Sox pitching prospects will outperform these two.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Sept 7, 2014 14:38:05 GMT -5
He referenced an injury (knee?) that is the root of Masterson's issue, essentially mentioning him as a buy low candidate. Based on the article I see his point.
Grilli...no idea. He didn't give much information on that one.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 7, 2014 22:15:42 GMT -5
He referenced an injury (knee?) that is the root of Masterson's issue, essentially mentioning him as a buy low candidate. Based on the article I see his point.. Has anyone confirmed this? A torn meniscus on his plant leg could affect his entire delivery.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Sept 8, 2014 9:57:06 GMT -5
I think my preferred option would be going after Headley but I thought of another interesting option. I was against trading Napoli, but if we could get equal value for him at 3B it could make a lot of sense. Move Craig to 1B and have a starting OF of Cespedes, Castillo, and Betts, with Nava spelling the RHers at LF/1B, and Victorino as basically a 4th OF/defensive replacement. From their the rest of the pieces fit in together well, just need a 2nd catcher. The problem is finding the fit, the best match I could find in the couple minutes I looked through is Aramis Ramirez. Admittedly I don't get to see him much, so I might be missing a big factor, but the stats and the contract status at first glance seems like a decent fit. Brewers haven't gotten much production from 1B, but there also isn't a clear replacement for them at 3B.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Sept 8, 2014 11:24:16 GMT -5
He referenced an injury (knee?) that is the root of Masterson's issue, essentially mentioning him as a buy low candidate. Based on the article I see his point.. Has anyone confirmed this? A torn meniscus on his plant leg could affect his entire delivery. Yeah he has had knee issues this year. I don't know which leg.
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Sept 8, 2014 12:41:35 GMT -5
I think my preferred option would be going after Headley but I thought of another interesting option. I was against trading Napoli, but if we could get equal value for him at 3B it could make a lot of sense. Move Craig to 1B and have a starting OF of Cespedes, Castillo, and Betts, with Nava spelling the RHers at LF/1B, and Victorino as basically a 4th OF/defensive replacement. From their the rest of the pieces fit in together well, just need a 2nd catcher. The problem is finding the fit, the best match I could find in the couple minutes I looked through is Aramis Ramirez. Admittedly I don't get to see him much, so I might be missing a big factor, but the stats and the contract status at first glance seems like a decent fit. Brewers haven't gotten much production from 1B, but there also isn't a clear replacement for them at 3B. IDK, Craig is a much larger risk as our starting 1B. If he's one of 5 OFers you can minimize the damage if he still sucks next year but if he's your starting first baseman you are forced to trade with a gun to your head. I like the idea of keeping him around to see if he bounces back but there's no way I'm counting on him as a starter without a good back up plan. I do like Headley on a 1 year over pay, pillow, whatever you want to call it.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 8, 2014 13:41:08 GMT -5
Somebody, maybe it was Eric, had some data on Craig's bat speed the other day, showing that it has decline for something like four straight years. If that is the case, then his problem is not his foot, and it may not be as curable.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 8, 2014 14:03:47 GMT -5
Has anyone confirmed this? A torn meniscus on his plant leg could affect his entire delivery. Yeah he has had knee issues this year. I don't know which leg. It's his right. Lot of people would have liked him back before his velocity drop. One place has him averaging 90.5 now. Found this: hypothetical/actual possible surgeries for 2014
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Sept 8, 2014 14:34:51 GMT -5
Right, I would agree with most of this, but in the same sense you are putting Craig up against Middlebrooks, at least with no other moves. I really like Napoli and I still think he is underrated in general. I think Headley is our best move, but we might not even get a chance at him. If Headley and Panda are both out of our price range it might make more sense to move Napoli for a 3B. I was also looking for a way to get Betts into the everyday lineup, as it seems like a move for him to the left side of the infield is not an option. Also you can play the platoon game with Craig and Nava if he doesn't return to form.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 8, 2014 14:59:17 GMT -5
Right, I would agree with most of this, but in the same sense you are putting Craig up against Middlebrooks, at least with no other moves. I really like Napoli and I still think he is underrated in general. I think Headley is our best move, but we might not even get a chance at him. If Headley and Panda are both out of our price range it might make more sense to move Napoli for a 3B. I was also looking for a way to get Betts into the everyday lineup, as it seems like a move for him to the left side of the infield is not an option. Also you can play the platoon game with Craig and Nava if he doesn't return to form. Aramis Ramirez has a $14m mutual option ($4m buyout), and those are rarely exercised by both parties (and even less likely to be exercised and then for the team to trade the guy). That means he's likely to become a free agent, and this kind of transaction would be moot. I don't really see any other third basemen that seem like a trade fit for the Red Sox (Luis Valbuena? Trevor Plouffe? Pedro Alvarez? No thanks), so I see the position requiring free agency or internal solutions. In general, the idea of going from Napoli to a Craig/Nava platoon at 1B is fairly frightening. That's probably a two-win drop, not to mention that if you were really bullish on Craig, you'd rather have him platoon with Nava in LF. You'd have to get a pretty hefty return for me to think that moving Napoli makes much sense.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Sept 8, 2014 15:49:07 GMT -5
In general, the idea of going from Napoli to a Craig/Nava platoon at 1B is fairly frightening. That's probably a two-win drop, not to mention that if you were really bullish on Craig, you'd rather have him platoon with Nava in LF. You'd have to get a pretty hefty return for me to think that moving Napoli makes much sense. More frightening than Middlebrooks being depended on as a starter? Looks like there is no fit, I thought it was an interesting idea to fit all our pieces together. Headley would still be my first option, but hey if Ramirez is going to be a free agent he is a decent option too. If Craig is not looked upon as a starter, well then why they hell did we trade Lackey?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 8, 2014 16:02:45 GMT -5
I tend to think that difference between Napoli and Nava/Craig at 1B is larger than the difference between Aramis Ramirez and Holt/Middlebrooks at 3B. That's largely because I don't love Aramis-- he turns 37 next year and has never been the best defender.
As for Craig, he's just a high-risk player. He might be great, or he might be awful, or anything in between. I was against the Lackey trade from day one, so someone more sanguine about Craig will have to answer that one.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 8, 2014 16:36:23 GMT -5
Napoli played the entire season this year with a bum finger, and he still had a decent season. Assuming everything is OK next year, he should do a little better. Age is going to start catching up, but he is a tough guy who, like Ortiz, probably isn't going to fade much for a while. So I like him at 1B. I don't like the Nava/Craig idea.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 8, 2014 16:45:02 GMT -5
Was Craig REALLY the actual target or was Joe Kelly though. We've heard both in the media, we've heard a little wishy washy from the Sox. Taking Craig could have some salary relief for a team that has little coming off of the books, other than Masterson and is already at it's "normal" average payroll over the last 3 seasons with several arbitration eligible players.
Am thinking other teams, or some may possibly rate Kelly fairly high and absorbing the 8mAAV Craig has due over the last 3 seasons making taking on his risky contract for the reward of the upside on Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Sept 8, 2014 16:49:15 GMT -5
I tend to think that difference between Napoli and Nava/Craig at 1B is larger than the difference between Aramis Ramirez and Holt/Middlebrooks at 3B. That's largely because I don't love Aramis-- he turns 37 next year and has never been the best defender. As for Craig, he's just a high-risk player. He might be great, or he might be awful, or anything in between. I was against the Lackey trade from day one, so someone more sanguine about Craig will have to answer that one. I didn't like the trade but I don't think you need to be sanguine on Craig to understand it. We gave up 1.3 seasons of Lackey for an X% chance that Craig bounces back and we then have him on a great contract for 4 years + a Y% chance Kelly grows into a really valuable pitcher. It's the sort of trade that produces a clear winner and loser once it plays out but the RESULT doesn't make it good or bad, it's all about the odds going into it. It's like winning a prize where you get two choices: A) a 10% chance of winning $1m or B) guaranteed $50,000. A is clearly the better choice (you have $100k in equity) but 9 times out of 10 you walk away with nothing and feel like you made the wrong choice. The odds in this trade can't really be quantified but it's pretty easy to see them as skewing in the Sox favor once you factor in the odds of Lackey declining next year, the chance he'd be a negative presence if forced to pitch for the Sox at minimum salary, etc. The problem I have with it is we needed solid pitching more than another OFer/1B. I guess getting Kelly addresses that argument but his most likely result is more of something we already have in spades ... young pitchers who profile as #4-5 but have some upside. In this instance, I'd rather keep the good pitcher than the __% chance of the trade being a huge win but I might be discounting how unhappy Lackey was or how nervous the FO was about him falling off a cliff. Actually as I write this out and start thinking of what X and Y need to be for it to be a win, I think I might have underestimated our FO.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 8, 2014 21:46:54 GMT -5
I seriously doubt anyone is trading for Craig or napoli.
But they will line up around the block to get a shot at our pitching prospects sans Webster
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Sept 10, 2014 11:09:25 GMT -5
Now we find out that Petey had discomfort all year. I applaud him for playing thru it but did he help or hurt the situation? He is a major cog of the lineup. But he wasn't the only problem this year. I just feel the rookies got blamed for a lot this year and I feel there is justification for it but it was overkill from the media. People on here are too smart for that. I really like Ben and he is gonna take a hit for this year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 11, 2014 14:09:22 GMT -5
I'll be insanely busy over the next couple of weeks, so some quick thoughts, intended to provoke further thoughts in others.
1) They obviously need to obtain at least one front-line pitcher. I think there are four ways to do this:
a) Sign the most logical FA for whatever money it takes. That guy is very likely to be Lester, who has indicated that the Sox will get a market discount relative to everyone else.
b) Trade for a guy with a few years left on his contract who is on the trade market for well-established reasons, like Hamels.
c) Trade for a guy in his walk year, like Mat Latos, and put off the question of adding a long-term frontline starter for another year.
d) Overwhelm some team with a prospect offer that is an obvious on-paper win for the other team. Easier said than done, but there may be a frontline pitcher on a bad and rebuilding small-market team, where it would make sense for them to deal that guy for, say, Swihart et al than to keep him around and have him get prohibitively expensive at around the time they hope to contend. (Please don't complain that this is very unlikely. You want to look at even very unlikely strategies; sometimes they surprise you.)
2) Whether they need to obtain two top pitchers is a subject of potentially fierce debate. The answer to the above and a hopefully back-to-form Buchholz anchor the rotation, while the last three spots are filled with three of De La Rosa, Kelly, Barnes, and Wright. (Note that the first three are all, in the eyes of some, potential top relievers). If you trade some prospects to rent Latos etc. for a year, you have to ask how much better the addition will be then the 3rd best of that group, and whether that upgrade is worth the cost. That's tough to answer. It's even tougher when you factor in the possibility of injuries. 3) Whether they should obtain a 3B over the winter remains another fiercely debatable topic. I have argued that the fact that they have not yet tried Betts at 3B in order to discover whether he might be the answer there (an incredibly obvious thing to at least try), but have instead indicated that such a trial is a ST option, is a very strong indication that they have not committed to adding a 3B from outside the org. That strategy is clearly viable if you a) think there's a solid chance that Betts or Cecchini (or even Coyle or Castillo, who could also get a ST look) establishes themselves as the long-term 3B answer by mid-season, and if b) you think that in in the interim, Holt is an adequate stopgap. And I indeed think that both of those are defensible thoughts.
Edit: Here's one likely further reason they're skeptical about adding a 3B. That would mean your OF is Cespedes, Castillo, Betts, and that means you have Nava, Craig, Victorino for two bench spots. You have to keep Nava because he's the only LHH of all the OF and 1B. You have to keep Craig because he has no trade value but might well bounce back to either be a perfect 4th OF / backup 1B, or even Napoli's successor. And you have to keep Victorino because he has no trade value because of health, but is just a year removed from an MVP-discussion season. And, furthermore waiting until ST to make that decision mean you probably lose a Noe Ramirez or Aaron Kurcz in the Rule 5 draft. Being forced to lose a potentially good and useful player adds to the acquisition cost of the 3B, who, after all, might not be any better than Betts or Cecchini, or (from the POV of the batting order) the Victorino / Nava / Craig platoon.
There's an argument that adding a 3B this winter is a similar sort of move to adding a virtual 3B (Drew) this year. In the worst-case scenario it's just an upgrade over Brock Holt, but there are unavoidable downsides in every scenario.
4) The OF alignment is the final major puzzle, which I'll talk about in that thread at some point in the next few days.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 11, 2014 20:13:59 GMT -5
b) Trade for a guy with a few years left on his contract who is on the trade market for well-established reasons, like Hamels. c) Trade for a guy in his walk year, like Mat Latos, and put off the question of adding a long-term frontline starter for another year. How about we trade for an up and coming potential #1 pitcher ala how we got Pedro. I would propose we trade with San Diego for Ross. I think he could be really special in the near future. Command scares me, but the stuff appears special. It may take a kings ransom to get him, but I am willing to push the chips to the center of the table and go for it.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 11, 2014 21:10:46 GMT -5
The Sox, despite Werner's declaration of spending big bucks this offseason, might not wind up with Lester if this is true: www.csnne.com/blog/red-sox-talk/report-cubs-interest-lester-may-be-mutualThe Cubs have a ton of money to spend and it wouldn't exactly be shocking to see Theo go get his guy. He'd be perfect for the Cubs. That would probably steer the Sox toward either a deal for Hamels or a James Shields signing.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2014 0:44:17 GMT -5
b) Trade for a guy with a few years left on his contract who is on the trade market for well-established reasons, like Hamels. c) Trade for a guy in his walk year, like Mat Latos, and put off the question of adding a long-term frontline starter for another year. How about we trade for an up and coming potential #1 pitcher ala how we got Pedro. I would propose we trade with San Diego for Ross. I think he could be really special in the near future. Command scares me, but the stuff appears special. It may take a kings ransom to get him, but I am willing to push the chips to the center of the table and go for it. That's precisely what I meant by my d) option, which I see that I didn't make clear: pay the "king's ransom" to get a guy that everyone feels is just coming into his frontline years, or is smack in the middle of them, rather than perhaps just leaving them. And, yes, because of revenue sharing, these guys are much easier to sign long-term and hence much harder to trade for than back when we got Pedro. I'm going to wait until the end of the year and then try to take a detailed look at possible pitchers to acquire.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 12, 2014 15:45:34 GMT -5
Interesting tidbit from Keith Law's chat today, esp for those who believe we have one or more #1 or #2 starters somewhere above A ball:
Emmett (LA) What is an out pitch on the 20-80 scale? 65+? Klaw (2:47 PM) I'd say at least 60. If you're saying it's a 55 (above-average), you're saying it's not good enough to be an out pitch.
Now let's recall the recent scouting of our pitching prospects and recall who had at least 3 pitches they could command and that of those 3 (or more) at least 2 were a 55 or better, and at least one that was a 60 or better - because that's what a genuine #2 starter would need at the bare minimum.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 12, 2014 15:47:29 GMT -5
How about we trade for an up and coming potential #1 pitcher ala how we got Pedro. I would propose we trade with San Diego for Ross. I think he could be really special in the near future. Command scares me, but the stuff appears special. It may take a kings ransom to get him, but I am willing to push the chips to the center of the table and go for it. That's precisely what I meant by my d) option, which I see that I didn't make clear: pay the "king's ransom" to get a guy that everyone feels is just coming into his frontline years, or is smack in the middle of them, rather than perhaps just leaving them. And, yes, because of revenue sharing, these guys are much easier to sign long-term and hence much harder to trade for than back when we got Pedro. I'm going to wait until the end of the year and then try to take a detailed look at possible pitchers to acquire. And let's remember, "Pedros" are few and far between, and he would have to be on a team that was in a revenue crunch, and becoming into unaffordable arb years. That makes the list even smaller, if not nearly nonexistent.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 12, 2014 16:54:44 GMT -5
That's precisely what I meant by my d) option, which I see that I didn't make clear: pay the "king's ransom" to get a guy that everyone feels is just coming into his frontline years, or is smack in the middle of them, rather than perhaps just leaving them. And, yes, because of revenue sharing, these guys are much easier to sign long-term and hence much harder to trade for than back when we got Pedro. I'm going to wait until the end of the year and then try to take a detailed look at possible pitchers to acquire. And let's remember, "Pedros" are few and far between, and he would have to be on a team that was in a revenue crunch, and becoming into unaffordable arb years. That makes the list even smaller, if not nearly nonexistent. First I want to say, I am not comparing Ross or any pitcher currently in baseball, Kershaw included, to Pedro. No one throwing today is in Pedro's class. Today's pitchers would be meat in the steroid era that Pedro dominated. I was merely saying that how we got Pedro would, even in today's economics, work for us this offseason. San Diego is a prime target only because they need lots of help and if the sox, like me, think Ross could be special , then San Diego has something we need. And we have tons of prospects to throw at San Diego. Win- win, if we can have a meeting of the minds.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 12, 2014 17:42:08 GMT -5
The Sox, despite Werner's declaration of spending big bucks this offseason, might not wind up with Lester if this is true: www.csnne.com/blog/red-sox-talk/report-cubs-interest-lester-may-be-mutualThe Cubs have a ton of money to spend and it wouldn't exactly be shocking to see Theo go get his guy. He'd be perfect for the Cubs. That would probably steer the Sox toward either a deal for Hamels or a James Shields signing. Is there something wrong with the Yankees' McCarthy??? He is a FA and without draft pick comp ( I think). He is at least a #3. The Yanks will be looking for offense in the offseason so they may be reluctant to spend 50-60M over the cap with Nova, Tanaka and Sabbathia coming back to join Pineda, A-Rod et al. They have to sign Robertson and may be in on Cruz so their funds may not be limitless. 1. Maybe we can pilfer McCarthy. 2. Sign Shields too and then we have a rotation. 3. Sign Headly for 3B because the Yanks have the A-Rod dilemma. He would replace Middlebrooks and man the position ably. 4. If Prado is a FA...sign him too!! ..another multi-positional guy that hits .290 with power. He would easily replace/surpass Holt.
|
|
|