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 joshv02 on Sept 24, 2014 15:25:08 GMT -5
(((10 years??!! -- wOBA should be highest by it was designed to be highest, it's self reinforcing. But, Woah. Shouldn't that change wOBA calculation - after all, wOBA is just a static run multiplier, unlike, say BaseRuns which changes by context. If the relative run values of the components change, wOBA should too. Coincident with 2004, scarcity of power, etc. very interesting. Would also lead to different DIPs multipliers, etc etc. Basically it makes all linear weights styled stats presumptively suspect at the margins, esp for players like Cespedes or extreme FB/GB pitchers, etc. Thanks for sharing.)))
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 24, 2014 18:29:13 GMT -5
Simple correlations alone are not necessarily probative. All kinds of potential confounding variables. Need multivariate analysis for more certainty. But yeah, interesting stuff.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 24, 2014 19:05:35 GMT -5
The more analysis I do, trying to figure out how the Sox can improve the team, the more I realize how difficult it is to do.
I've been analyzing the position players by the various statistical means, and they all come out with basically the same conclusions. Using wOBA, which seems to be a pretty decent measurement, the Sox have five players who, statistically, are better than average at their position: Ortiz, Betts, Napoli, Cespedes and Pedroia. But Cespedes and Pedroia are only slightly better than average (but Pedroia might be much better next year). Ortiz is the only player who approaches the "great" level in wOBA.
The players who are slightly below average are Nava and Holt.
Then there is Bogaerts, who is between poor and awful, but I don't think any of us expect him to stay there.
Then there are the "awfuls:" Ross, Vazquez, Middlebrooks and Craig, and the jury is out on whether Vazquez can hit enough to be the starter over the longer term.
Craig has been near or at the "great" level in the recent past. This year is by far his worst. Is it because of his injury, or, as some think, he is just gone into decline?
Given the present makeup of the team, the best position to improve is 3B unless Betts is moved there, then it would be an outfield position.
I have not considered trades because the possibilities are ridiculously endless. It is fun to speculate, but that's all it is.
Looking at the free agent list, the following players come up as above average reasonable possibilities (I am not including old players near the end, or at the end, of their careers): OF: Melky Cabrera, Nelson Cruz, Nick Markakis (team option) 3B: Headley, Sandoval
And that's about it for positions the Sox might fill.
The pitchers who stand out are Lester, Scherzer and Shields.
Cruz is not a long term fix, but he probably has at least a couple of years left of 30 plus HRs. His D is a problem.
Markakis had been a quite good all-around player, but his performance declined this year and there is talk that the Orioles might not exercise their option. It is possible that he might be the best choice if Betts is moved to third. If Betts is not moved to third, then it really is a choice between existing players, Middlebrooks and Cecchini, or the two decent FAs, Headley and Sandoval. My opinion is that Sandoval would be a better choice than Headley, and that Cecchini would be as good as Headley as a hitter, but possibly not as a fielder. Jmei makes a strong case for Headley.
At this point, I don't know what the best strategy is, other than I think the Sox should sign two of those three pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Sept 24, 2014 19:25:11 GMT -5
I don't think it's too surprising that SLG correlates better with run scoring than OBP - OBP treats all extra base hits the same as singles, while SLG just ignores walks. It doesn't seem weird to be that power is a bigger thing to ignore than walks. The issue of OBP being "more valuable" just comes into play when we're talking whether one point of OBP is worth the same as one point of SLG, like OPS assumes. Research shows that a point of OBP is roughly 1.8x as valuable as a point of SLG. That doesn't make OBP "more important" though, or imply that the correlation would be 1.8x stronger.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 24, 2014 19:58:11 GMT -5
I think there is a real good chance they trade someone, rather than fit people in slots they have never played before in their life. And they probably trade a right handed hitter.
As I said earlier, they probably make a run at an extention for Cespedes and if he doesn't accept a reasonable deal, trade him. Slot Nava/Craig in LF, Mookie in CF, Castillo/Victorino in RF.
Problem solved. Castillo was Cespedes insurance. He brings a lot of the same things Cespedes does. His game has changed and probably projects for some power now and he is probably a whole lot cheaper than Cespedes.
If Cespedes takes a reasonable deal trade someone else. We are close to a winning team then if we just solve the problem at 3rd and starting pitching.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 24, 2014 20:59:15 GMT -5
I don't think it's too surprising that SLG correlates better with run scoring than OBP - OBP treats all extra base hits the same as singles, while SLG just ignores walks. It doesn't seem weird to be that power is a bigger thing to ignore than walks. The issue of OBP being "more valuable" just comes into play when we're talking whether one point of OBP is worth the same as one point of SLG, like OPS assumes. Research shows that a point of OBP is roughly 1.8x as valuable as a point of SLG. That doesn't make OBP "more important" though, or imply that the correlation would be 1.8x stronger. That's a good point. Something else to consider is the range of SLG among players vs the range of OBP. The variance is significantly different on a per-point basis, since of course OBP is between 0 and 1.000 and SLG is between 0 and 4.000. So in a way, OBP being worth only 1.8x as much as SLG per point isn't that much at all...of course they overlap, so that's a much wider discussion.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 24, 2014 21:11:16 GMT -5
As a team, I think our obp ranks in the middle of the pack. But our risp average is the third worst in baseball.
At the end of the day, if our RISP average would have been around the middle of the pack all year, then a lot less trades would have been made in July and we would be preparing for the playoffs.
To fix this team, we need three major pieces. Two top of rotations starters and a left handed power bat.
We have tons of cap space to purchase free agents and tons of pieces to use in trades.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 25, 2014 4:43:54 GMT -5
I hope no one assumed I think obp is much less valuable than slg. There's a sweet spot between the two that I think might get lost in the argument between power and walks. For example: I think I would prefer an offense with a .330 obp and a .450 slg than a team with a .380 obp and a .400 slg. Stringing guys on base seems to result in fewer runs than getting one on and hitting a double. Unless you have a team filled with fantastic base runners that is. I can't do the research my phone, but if I get the chance today I'll try to find out where the 2014 Sox players rank in terms of runs per time on base. I do know that Ortiz is one of the worst in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 25, 2014 5:49:03 GMT -5
I hope no one assumed I think obp is much less valuable than slg. There's a sweet spot between the two that I think might get lost in the argument between power and walks. For example: I think I would prefer an offense with a .330 obp and a .450 slg than a team with a .380 obp and a .400 slg. Stringing guys on base seems to result in fewer runs than getting one on and hitting a double. Unless you have a team filled with fantastic base runners that is. I can't do the research my phone, but if I get the chance today I'll try to find out where the 2014 Sox players rank in terms of runs per time on base. I do know that Ortiz is one of the worst in that regard. It boils down to you got to get on base. Maybe like trying to get a guy like Cecchini out there, who up until this past season has gotten on base at a .400 OBP+ rate, over someone else who has struggled to get on base at every level and seems to be getting every last chance, just because of the "potential" power. It seems to me that having someone who could get on base (potentially) at a steady rate of .350-.370 rate at the MLB level, for starters would negate all this "potential" of power Middlebrooks brings, along with the abysmal poor OBP along side of it. Not to forget, Cecchini is LH, something else the team is in need of.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 25, 2014 11:09:02 GMT -5
I can't do the research my phone, but if I get the chance today I'll try to find out where the 2014 Sox players rank in terms of runs per time on base. I do know that Ortiz is one of the worst in that regard. A good part of that is just how slow Ortiz is. He rarely scores from second on a single or from first on a double, and it's tough if you have to string together multiple hits to score him (especially considering how bad the middle/bottom of the order has been this year).
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 25, 2014 11:25:20 GMT -5
I can't do the research my phone, but if I get the chance today I'll try to find out where the 2014 Sox players rank in terms of runs per time on base. I do know that Ortiz is one of the worst in that regard. A good part of that is just how slow Ortiz is. He rarely scores from second on a single or from first on a double, and it's tough if you have to string together multiple hits to score him (especially considering how bad the middle/bottom of the order has been this year). That's exactly the point. You need to balance every offensive category (OBP, SLG, BsR) in order to create a successful team. My hypothesis is that a team filled with high OBP, slow/poor baserunners scores fewer runs than a team with middle of the road OBP but great speed/excellent baserunning. Somewhere in there slugging plays a major role too.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 25, 2014 11:38:26 GMT -5
I could buy that it matters for extreme cases, but I think when you're making individual personnel decisions, you just try to get the best hitter you can without worrying too much about how he gets there (i.e., whether through OBP, slugging, or speed).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 25, 2014 13:12:29 GMT -5
First cut of jmei's 2014 offseason plan (comments welcome): Assumption: $60m to spend (haven't done the math-- this might be too high or too low) Moves:Trade Yoenis Cespedes and Anthony Ranaudo to CIN for Mat Latos (+1m AAV) Trade Allen Webster and German Taveras to HOU for Jason Castro (+4) Re-sign Koji Uehara for one year, $10m (+10) Sign Jon Lester for six years, $144m (+24) Sign Chase Headley for four years, $60m (+15) Sign Neal Cotts for two years, $8m (+4) (Total: +$58m) Lineup (versus RHP):Betts RF Pedroia 2B Ortiz DH Napoli 1B Bogaerts SS Headley 3B Castillo CF Nava LF Vazquez C Craig LF/1B Victorino RF Holt IF/OF Castro C Rotation/bullpen:Lester Latos Buchholz Kelly De La Rosa Uehara Tazawa Mujica Cotts Workman Wilson Layne Comments: not necessarily the most talented team in the world, but an extraordinarily deep one. Every hitter but Vazquez in the starting lineup projects to be an above-average hitter, with Ortiz and Napoli as your tentpoles, Pedroia, Headley, and Nava/Craig as your steady veterans, and high-upside guys in Betts, Bogaerts, and Castillo. Only Bogaerts and maybe Nava/Craig look like below-average defenders, so the defense should be above-average. The bench is full of guys who you wouldn't worry about stepping into the starting lineup in case of injury/underperformance (Victorino in particular is fine Castillo/Betts/Craig insurance), and there's a good amount of depth in Pawtucket beyond that. The pitching side could be a little stronger. I think Latos is a fine buy-low candidate, but he could also continue to be injury-prone and see his velo continue to decline. Buchholz, Kelly, and De La Rosa are higher-risk than I'd prefer, but the fact that the PawSox rotation is stacked with legit prospects (Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes, Johnson, Wright, Escobar) helps mitigate some of that risk. Lester is the anchor I reluctantly give an expensive, long-term contract to. The bullpen is solid but not great. I'm not too concerned about Uehara's August/September-- even during basically the worst stretch of his career, he had a 9:1 K/BB (I'm actually more concerned that someone offers him 2/$24m or something). I like Andrew Miller but he'll be too expensive to re-sign. The crop of left-handed relief pitching is actually pretty weak, but Cotts has been great enough since returning to the majors. (Quoting the whole thing since it's now on a previous page. And I started writing this a day ago, before Cecchini's great game.) It's funny. I know that this was a perfectly rational analysis by one of the most thoughtful people here, but nevertheless it strikes me, also thoughtful and perfectly rational (cough), as a huge over-reaction to this season. In fact, to me it reads as if you wrote it while high after snorting a ground-up Nick Cafardo column. I know it's actually just your combination of pessimism and caution (versus my optimism and willing to embrace risk), but that's how it feels to me: I see the farm system glass as 90% full, and you see any farm system, no matter how good, as inherently failing to fit that metaphor. We have a 3B prospect who, a year ago, was ranked #51 by BP, #57 by MLB, and #74 by BA. He had a very rough stretch in the middle of this year, but scouts still like him enough that his writeup in BP's "The Season's Most Disappointing Prospects" article was mostly praise. And that author was unaware that he hit .318 / .397 / .523 over his last 122 PA (29 games), and that the hot streak started after he homered twice in 5 PA after homering twice in his previous 540, which, given that, at the time, he was struggling mightily for the first time in his pro career, strongly suggests that he made some kind of adjustment at that point. [And, oh yeah, in his first 20 MLB PA he has a 188 wRC+ and looks very good defensively.] What are the odds that Cecchini outperforms Headley over those four years, for about $55 million less? I'm loath to make that move unless the odds are low. And sure, you can maybe use Cecchini at 1B or LF if he fails to turn into a Bradley, oops, I mean pumpkin, but his value is likely to be much higher at 3B; although 1B to 3B is one of the most common defensive spectrum moves, it is also one of the most costly. I'm going to start a thread discussing whether we need to acquire one or two starting pitchers; everyone seems to be assuming it's the latter, but it's been reported that Cherington has indicated it's the former. And that's what I'd do. In Latos you've got a guy who looks to be about 7% better than the average MLB pitcher (I'm splitting the difference between his ERA- / FIP- and his SIERA / xFIP-) but was shut down at the end of the year because of elbow soreness. At season's start, Latos's value to us will be the difference between him and the best of Wright, Barnes, and longshot Webster. By July, it will be the difference between him and the second best of that group plus De La Rosa (always a pen candidate given his repertoire and how fiercely he hit the wall after 122 innings this year), Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, and longshot Escobar. From that group of 6 to 8 candidates (and toss in Ranuado and Workman if you'd like, but they seem to have demonstrated fourth-starter ceilings), do we have two that project to be better than average? If so, it makes little sense to acquire Latos (or anyone else). Now, everyone will answer this question differently. Personally, I would bet on Steven Wright outpitching Latos next year, but that's just me. But again, investing resources in any player who may well be a downgrade over what we've got seems to me to be unduly cautious. Bottom line: it seems wise to me to start next year with Holt at 3B and Weeks as the backup MI, while planning on having Cecchini take over 3B by mid-May. And I'd have no problem starting next year with Wright as the fifth starter, knowing that the entire PawSox rotation plus one was after his job (and eventually Rubby's), each one a legitimate claimant. BTW, my "plan" (by which I mean "possibly insane dream") is to save all the money you're spending on these insurance policies and invest it in both Heyward and Stanton. That will require a bunch of positive results from the blocked young players, but stranger things have happened.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 25, 2014 16:00:12 GMT -5
I could buy that it matters for extreme cases, but I think when you're making individual personnel decisions, you just try to get the best hitter you can without worrying too much about how he gets there (i.e., whether through OBP, slugging, or speed). I think it matters in most cases. Only at the margins does it matter less because you aren't sitting David Ortiz on account of his poor baserunning. Similarly, you deal with Billy Hamilton's 40 hit tool because when he does get on base his fantastic speed allows him to score twice as often as the average person would. I'm of a mind that 90% of total offensive value can be determined from wRC+ (or wOBA) and BsR [following Pareto's rule, for example]. Your team will score a lot of runs if you fill it with better than average hitters (according to wRC+) who can all run well. An example of a team that meets these criteria without being ostentatious: Todd Frazier, Ian Kinsler, Ian Desmond, Anthony Rendon, Jason Heyward, Desmond Jennings, Cespedes, DH is a bit harder to find a good runner at so just insert Ortiz. The final 10% can complete the picture, but shouldn't be the focus of it. And, that final 10% makes for more fun analysis when determining what types of pitches a players should be able to succeed on , or why they may be struggling, etc.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Sept 25, 2014 17:07:51 GMT -5
What about dealing for Jeff Samardzija?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 25, 2014 19:19:01 GMT -5
I know it's actually just your combination of pessimism and caution (versus my optimism and willing to embrace risk), but that's how it feels to me: I see the farm system glass as 90% full, and you see any farm system, no matter how good, as inherently failing to fit that metaphor. We have a 3B prospect who, a year ago, was ranked #51 by BP, #57 by MLB, and #74 by BA. He had a very rough stretch in the middle of this year, but scouts still like him enough that his writeup in BP's "The Season's Most Disappointing Prospects" article was mostly praise. And that author was unaware that he hit .318 / .397 / .523 over his last 122 PA (29 games), and that the hot streak started after he homered twice in 5 PA after homering twice in his previous 540, which, given that, at the time, he was struggling mightily for the first time in his pro career, strongly suggests that he made some kind of adjustment at that point. [And, oh yeah, in his first 20 MLB PA he has a 188 wRC+ and looks very good defensively.] What are the odds that Cecchini outperforms Headley over those four years, for about $55 million less? I'm loath to make that move unless the odds are low. And sure, you can maybe use Cecchini at 1B or LF if he fails to turn into a Bradley, oops, I mean pumpkin, but his value is likely to be much higher at 3B; although 1B to 3B is one of the most common defensive spectrum moves, it is also one of the most costly. I hope you'll concede that for all your enthusiasm re: Cecchini, his median projection is still significantly worse than Headley's (by the magnitude of at least a win). For all his success from August onwards (.326/.396/.477), Cecchini still struck out 18.7% of the time and heavily relied on an unsustainable .398 BABIP. His ISO was still a good-but-not great .152, and his walk rate (9.3%), while improved, was still a far cry from the obscene 15%+ walk rates of 2013. I've not been impressed with his defense-- I haven't seen every one of his games, but his footwork still looks awkward and clunky to me, and the defensive metrics hate him (albeit in a teeny tiny borderline unusuable sample size). You're right that there are some scenarios where Cecchini is better than Headley as soon as 2015 or 2016, but those scenarios represent two tails meeting-- the 90% projection on Cecchini and the 10% projection for Headley-- and I see that as rather unlikely. Remember, under my strategy, even if Cecchini does overtake Headley, the team still has both guys in the organization and has the option of trading the veteran to open up playing time for the hot up-and-comer (something they've done multiple times-- trading Youkilis to open up 3B for WMB, trading Crisp to open CF for Ellsbury, etc). Alternatively, they could sell high on the prospect and say, trade him to a certain South Florida team we know has coveted him in the past. Or if his 3B fielding doesn't improve, shift him to LF (a position he's played before) and have him take Nava's role. The positional adjustment between 3B and LF is ten runs, and I could see Cecchini being close to a ten run better LF (he's athletic enough, but has just never gotten the footwork down at the hot corner). As for the starting pitcher stuff, we've previously discussed it here. The same logic as above applies-- if Wright or whomever else proves to be better, he'll almost certainly get his chance, whether due to injuries or Buchholz being schizo or Kelly proving he can't sustainably outperform his peripherals or dumping RDLR to the bullpen. If by midseason, one or more of the prospects looks clearly better than one of the established starters, they'll bullpen/trade the veteran and call up the prospect (think benching Doubront last year). Plus, Latos is a free agent after 2015, which means that you can reevaluate after the year and give his rotation spot to whichever of the prospects looks best after next year, and you don't even have to trade someone to open up space. My overall point is just this-- one of the thing a big-market team can and should do is use its financial advantage to buy out downside risk, especially when their internal options present considerable risk (as the hodgepodge of Middlebrooks, Cecchini, and Holt does at 3B and Ranaudo/Workman/Wright/etc. do in the rotation). If the prospects look better than expected? We can make room for them. But if the prospects bust? You're going to have a hell of a time trying to replace them midseason, and their struggles in the first half of the season may have already sunk any chance the team has to contend.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 25, 2014 20:06:31 GMT -5
We protect against downside risk by signing/trading for 2 quality top of the rotation pitchers. (Sign shields and trade for hamels or someone of that calibre)
Trade for tulo and move bogey to 3rd.
Betts must play.
Fill in depth using the free agency strategy of the past two years.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 25, 2014 20:46:09 GMT -5
Is it just me or soes Mookie absolutely cream left handers? It just looks so effortless when he faces a left hander.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 25, 2014 20:51:24 GMT -5
I know it's actually just your combination of pessimism and caution (versus my optimism and willing to embrace risk), but that's how it feels to me: I see the farm system glass as 90% full, and you see any farm system, no matter how good, as inherently failing to fit that metaphor. We have a 3B prospect who, a year ago, was ranked #51 by BP, #57 by MLB, and #74 by BA. He had a very rough stretch in the middle of this year, but scouts still like him enough that his writeup in BP's "The Season's Most Disappointing Prospects" article was mostly praise. And that author was unaware that he hit .318 / .397 / .523 over his last 122 PA (29 games), and that the hot streak started after he homered twice in 5 PA after homering twice in his previous 540, which, given that, at the time, he was struggling mightily for the first time in his pro career, strongly suggests that he made some kind of adjustment at that point. [And, oh yeah, in his first 20 MLB PA he has a 188 wRC+ and looks very good defensively.] What are the odds that Cecchini outperforms Headley over those four years, for about $55 million less? I'm loath to make that move unless the odds are low. And sure, you can maybe use Cecchini at 1B or LF if he fails to turn into a Bradley, oops, I mean pumpkin, but his value is likely to be much higher at 3B; although 1B to 3B is one of the most common defensive spectrum moves, it is also one of the most costly. I hope you'll concede that for all your enthusiasm re: Cecchini, his median projection is still significantly worse than Headley's (by the magnitude of at least a win). For all his success from August onwards (.326/.396/.477), Cecchini still struck out 18.7% of the time and heavily relied on an unsustainable .398 BABIP. His ISO was still a good-but-not great .152, and his walk rate (9.3%), while improved, was still a far cry from the obscene 15%+ walk rates of 2013. I've not been impressed with his defense-- I haven't seen every one of his games, but his footwork still looks awkward and clunky to me, and the defensive metrics hate him (albeit in a teeny tiny borderline unusuable sample size). You're right that there are some scenarios where Cecchini is better than Headley as soon as 2015 or 2016, but those scenarios represent two tails meeting-- the 90% projection on Cecchini and the 10% projection for Headley-- and I see that as rather unlikely. Remember, under my strategy, even if Cecchini does overtake Headley, the team still has both guys in the organization and has the option of trading the veteran to open up playing time for the hot up-and-comer (something they've done multiple times-- trading Youkilis to open up 3B for WMB, trading Crisp to open CF for Ellsbury, etc). Alternatively, they could sell high on the prospect and say, trade him to a certain South Florida team we know has coveted him in the past. Or if his 3B fielding doesn't improve, shift him to LF (a position he's played before) and have him take Nava's role. The positional adjustment between 3B and LF is ten runs, and I could see Cecchini being close to a ten run better LF (he's athletic enough, but has just never gotten the footwork down at the hot corner). As for the starting pitcher stuff, we've previously discussed it here. The same logic as above applies-- if Wright or whomever else proves to be better, he'll almost certainly get his chance, whether due to injuries or Buchholz being schizo or Kelly proving he can't sustainably outperform his peripherals or dumping RDLR to the bullpen. If by midseason, one or more of the prospects looks clearly better than one of the established starters, they'll bullpen/trade the veteran and call up the prospect (think benching Doubront last year). Plus, Latos is a free agent after 2015, which means that you can reevaluate after the year and give his rotation spot to whichever of the prospects looks best after next year, and you don't even have to trade someone to open up space. My overall point is just this-- one of the thing a big-market team can and should do is use its financial advantage to buy out downside risk, especially when their internal options present considerable risk (as the hodgepodge of Middlebrooks, Cecchini, and Holt does at 3B and Ranaudo/Workman/Wright/etc. do in the rotation). If the prospects look better than expected? We can make room for them. But if the prospects bust? You're going to have a hell of a time trying to replace them midseason, and their struggles in the first half of the season may have already sunk any chance the team has to contend. I agree with most of what you said. But I disagree with the bold part a little. People probably said the same thing about Victorino in the winter of 2012 and Drew this year. People also said it about Saltalamachia when talking about a 2 year $20 million contract and I bet the Marlins couldn't dump him if they wanted at his far lower AAV right now. It seems that when teams know you have to trade someone, they give up nothing for them. And for a guy with a $60+ million contract, I see a whole lot of money being sent to even being able to get rid of him because it will probably be a case of underperformance by Headley along with better than expected performance from Cecchini for it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 25, 2014 21:08:12 GMT -5
Is it just me or soes Mookie absolutely cream left handers? It just looks so effortless when he faces a left hander. Mookie in the lead off spot is going to make us forget Ellsbury. Next year's lineup could be Betts cf Pedroia 2b Ortiz dh Tulo ss Napoli 1b Cespedes lf Bogaerts 3b Victorino/Castillo rf Vazquez c Bench Holt utility Butler c Middlebrooks 1b/3b Starters Hamels Shields Buchholz Kelly Webster Bullpen Robertson Tawaza Layne Gregerson Breslow Barnes Wilson
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,966
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 25, 2014 21:29:40 GMT -5
A quick note on jmei's off-season plan: It's occurred to me in recent weeks that a savvy GM whose team plays in a big park might see Renaudo and his fly-ball tendencies as a value acquisition. I'm thinking of Beane in Oakland or Terry Ryan with the Twins. Seattle might also be interested.
The Twins picked up Phil Hughes, another fly-ball pitcher, and it worked out well for them. He has put up a 112 ERA-plus and a 2.64 FIP.
The Reds play in a bandbox and if their FO did any research at all I think they'd stay away from Renaudo.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 25, 2014 22:00:20 GMT -5
I agree with most of what you said. But I disagree with the bold part a little. People probably said the same thing about Victorino in the winter of 2012 and Drew this year. People also said it about Saltalamachia when talking about a 2 year $20 million contract and I bet the Marlins couldn't dump him if they wanted at his far lower AAV right now. It seems that when teams know you have to trade someone, they give up nothing for them. And for a guy with a $60+ million contract, I see a whole lot of money being sent to even being able to get rid of him because it will probably be a case of underperformance by Headley along with better than expected performance from Cecchini for it to happen. They moved Drew this year with not too much trouble. For multiyear contracts, the idea is that you get surplus in the first few years, which makes up for the later years, so even if you have to eat money to move them, that's not really that much of a shame. You're right that it's a risk, but all contracts are risks, and Headley's defense gives him a higher floor than most free agents.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Sept 25, 2014 22:59:19 GMT -5
How do you plan on getting tulo and cole while retaining Mookie and xander? Is it just me or soes Mookie absolutely cream left handers? It just looks so effortless when he faces a left hander. Mookie in the lead off spot is going to make us forget Ellsbury. Next year's lineup could be Betts cf Pedroia 2b Ortiz dh Tulo ss Napoli 1b Cespedes lf Bogaerts 3b Victorino/Castillo rf Vazquez c Bench Holt utility Butler c Middlebrooks 1b/3b Starters Hamels Shields Buchholz Kelly Webster Bullpen Robertson Tawaza Layne Gregerson Breslow Barnes Wilson
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Sept 26, 2014 2:07:09 GMT -5
How do you plan on getting tulo and cole while retaining Mookie and xander? Mookie in the lead off spot is going to make us forget Ellsbury. Next year's lineup could be Betts cf Pedroia 2b Ortiz dh Tulo ss Napoli 1b Cespedes lf Bogaerts 3b Victorino/Castillo rf Vazquez c Bench Holt utility Butler c Middlebrooks 1b/3b Starters HamelsShieldsBuchholz Kelly Webster Bullpen RobertsonTawaza Layne GregersonBreslowBarnes Wilson
I think your over the projected payroll limit by a tad.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,139
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 26, 2014 8:36:52 GMT -5
How do you plan on getting tulo and cole while retaining Mookie and xander? We trade Jim Leyritz and Bernie Williams for them.
|
|
|