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
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 639
|
Post by alnipper on Sept 28, 2014 19:35:45 GMT -5
I would prefer Lester over Shields if the market doesn't go to crazy for both. Lester I feel will go to the Cubs. I think Shields will be much harder than media most fans think. GM's know the value Shields which will push his price up and another year on his contract. If this happens what do we do?
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 28, 2014 20:11:17 GMT -5
I would prefer Lester over Shields if the market doesn't go to crazy for both. Lester I feel will go to the Cubs. I think Shields will be much harder than media most fans think. GM's know the value Shields which will push his price up and another year on his contract. If this happens what do we do? Sign him! He was a winner in Tampa and is now a winner in kc.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Sept 28, 2014 21:09:55 GMT -5
I would prefer Lester over Shields if the market doesn't go to crazy for both. Lester I feel will go to the Cubs. I think Shields will be much harder than media most fans think. GM's know the value Shields which will push his price up and another year on his contract. If this happens what do we do? Sign him! He was a winner in Tampa and is now a winner in kc. And he'll totally be a winner with his next team. Cause Big Game Shields that's why.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 28, 2014 21:24:58 GMT -5
It would be huge for two of Victorino, WMB, Craig or Buccholz to have bounce back years. Any two.
I'm also a proponent of Betts at SS and Xander at 3B.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Sept 28, 2014 21:28:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 28, 2014 22:26:56 GMT -5
Let's assume we get shields and hamels and we are up one game to none in the divisional playoffs. Who do you want to trot out to the bump for game 2, Buchholz or shields? In my mind it is not even a close call.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 29, 2014 0:14:59 GMT -5
I still don't know why the Sox would prefer Shields to Lester. Their biggest fear is the back half of the contract when the pitcher hits the mid 30s. Shields is pretty much there and the contract would capture that entire period, while Lester would have roughly half of his contract in his early 30s and the other half in his mid 30s. I'd rather have Lester at age 31 than Shields at age 34.
And of course with Lester you don't surrender a draft pick to sign him like you would for Shields. If they're going to go the free agency route, I can't see a better argument for signing Shields over Lester.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 29, 2014 9:23:36 GMT -5
Workman and Barnes even could be decent relievers next year. Webster would be a good candidate too.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 29, 2014 10:34:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Sept 29, 2014 11:10:31 GMT -5
I still don't know why the Sox would prefer Shields to Lester. Their biggest fear is the back half of the contract when the pitcher hits the mid 30s. Shields is pretty much there and the contract would capture that entire period, while Lester would have roughly half of his contract in his early 30s and the other half in his mid 30s. I'd rather have Lester at age 31 than Shields at age 34. And of course with Lester you don't surrender a draft pick to sign him like you would for Shields. If they're going to go the free agency route, I can't see a better argument for signing Shields over Lester. I can't wait for the one-game playoff tomorrow between these two. Shields definitely has the most on the line in this one.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 29, 2014 11:29:52 GMT -5
I still don't know why the Sox would prefer Shields to Lester. Their biggest fear is the back half of the contract when the pitcher hits the mid 30s. Shields is pretty much there and the contract would capture that entire period, while Lester would have roughly half of his contract in his early 30s and the other half in his mid 30s. I'd rather have Lester at age 31 than Shields at age 34. And of course with Lester you don't surrender a draft pick to sign him like you would for Shields. If they're going to go the free agency route, I can't see a better argument for signing Shields over Lester. Because Shields will be substantially cheaper. Also, because it's harder to predict a player's performance six/seven years in the future, while it's somewhat easier to predict a player's performance four/five years in the future, and Shields will get the shorter deal. In other words, Shields at 36 four years from now is lower-risk than Lester at 36 six years from now, because you already know Shields at 32 has been healthy and productive.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Sept 29, 2014 11:44:39 GMT -5
I don't know that it is or should be a consideration, but there is also a strong argument to be made that the Red Sox' best pitching prospects are disproportionately left handed. That could also influence them to look for right handed pitching.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,509
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Sept 29, 2014 12:12:54 GMT -5
I don't know that it is or should be a consideration, but there is also a strong argument to be made that the Red Sox' best pitching prospects are disproportionately left handed. That could also influence them to look for right handed pitching. Given that there's a very small chance all three of our big LHP prospects stick in the rotation, I don't think they'll worry about that much with Lester or Hamels. 2014 taught us not to count our chickens before they've hatched and then some.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 29, 2014 12:49:55 GMT -5
I still don't know why the Sox would prefer Shields to Lester. Their biggest fear is the back half of the contract when the pitcher hits the mid 30s. Shields is pretty much there and the contract would capture that entire period, while Lester would have roughly half of his contract in his early 30s and the other half in his mid 30s. I'd rather have Lester at age 31 than Shields at age 34. And of course with Lester you don't surrender a draft pick to sign him like you would for Shields. If they're going to go the free agency route, I can't see a better argument for signing Shields over Lester. Because Shields will be substantially cheaper. Also, because it's harder to predict a player's performance six/seven years in the future, while it's somewhat easier to predict a player's performance four/five years in the future, and Shields will get the shorter deal. In other words, Shields at 36 four years from now is lower-risk than Lester at 36 six years from now, because you already know Shields at 32 has been healthy and productive. I get your point and somebody like Curt Schilling circa November 2003 would be a good illustration, but even with the proven track record up to this point of his age he is still most likely to slide into decline during his contract, sooner than later. I don't believe that Shields will come that cheaply. I believe there will be more bidding for him because he won't require six or seven years. Lester will probably be restricted to the Yankees, Cubs (who I think he'll wind up with), Sox, and Dodgers. Shields will have more suitors in my opinion and I think he will reach or top $100 million. I can see five years $100 - $110 million. I think the Sox would be more likely to get three or four good seasons out of a six year deal for Lester and I do think he is the better pitcher and the Sox are certainly more familiar with him than anybody else. And again, I'd rather see the Sox keep that 2nd round pick, who if he turns out to be something valuable could certainly bridge the gap between what Shields and Lester's payroll is. In other words Lester + Draft Pick could be greater than Shields + possible player needed down the road to replace Draft Pick who blossoms into valuable major leaguer. Perhaps not, but it's worth considering. I know it's a big stretch. I believe Lester has four more strong seasons left and I think Shields probably has a couple of those left. Again, it's just an opinion. I certainly don't have a crystal ball to back that up.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 29, 2014 12:58:26 GMT -5
Yeah, at this point, I'd probably prefer Lester at 7/$144m over Shields at 5/$100m. But if Lester gets blown out of the water with a Tanaka-esque deal, I'd submit that Shields is a decent enough plan B or C.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,966
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 29, 2014 15:47:31 GMT -5
Let's assume we get shields and hamels and we are up one game to none in the divisional playoffs. Who do you want to trot out to the bump for game 2, Buchholz or shields? In my mind it is not even a close call. If Buchholz is our NO. 2 starter next year, it's pretty likely that we won't have to worry about the divisional playoffs. Clay has had exactly two years in his career in which he was more than 2 WAR and has been a pretty bad P in two of the last three years. One of this two years above 2 WAR was 2013 and he wasn't a No. 2 starter type that year either because he made only 16 starts and pitched only 108 innings.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Sept 29, 2014 15:56:10 GMT -5
Why do we have to boil it down to Shields or Buchholz? Its not the actual reality of the decision that needs to be made. The rotation needs strengthening irregardless of Buchholz. The reality is if its worth it to commit significant dollars/years, draft pick on James Shields.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 29, 2014 15:56:51 GMT -5
Yeah, at this point, I'd probably prefer Lester at 7/$144m over Shields at 5/$100m. But if Lester gets blown out of the water with a Tanaka-esque deal, I'd submit that Shields is a decent enough plan B or C. I got to think that is an serious overpay for both JMEI. Paying Shields through his age 37 season at 20AAV and Lester likewise 20mAAV through his age 37 season, though he dropped a full mph off his fb this season already in his career season. Does everyone expect him to repeat it? seriously? He's a really good pitcher, granted. FB dropped to 91.8 this season, 5y is max Cherrington should go at all costs on Lester and 3, *maybe* 4/w an option on Shields to me. They have the "people in the lower/upper minors ATM to acquire a decent arm under club control for a considerable time, over paying for a frontline pitcher is a move Epstein used to make, lets hope Cherrinton does not make that same type of move. I'd prefer to see a flurry of trades this off season over FA moves, there just are no biggies out there, other than possibly Nelson Cruz and it seems as if he is about to get over paid, but if not? check on him in the market. Cespedes can be moved if his bat can be brought in.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 29, 2014 16:37:27 GMT -5
Let's assume we get shields and hamels and we are up one game to none in the divisional playoffs. Who do you want to trot out to the bump for game 2, Buchholz or shields? In my mind it is not even a close call. If Buchholz is our NO. 2 starter next year, it's pretty likely that we won't have to worry about the divisional playoffs. Clay has had exactly two years in his career in which he was more than 2 WAR and has been a pretty bad P in two of the last three years. One of this two years above 2 WAR was 2013 and he wasn't a No. 2 starter type that year either because he made only 16 starts and pitched only 108 innings. This is kind of a self-contradictory assertion. Clay is a boom or bust guy. You're keeping him here because you're hoping for boom. If he busts, he's not your #2 starter for too long, because (unlike in past years) we have many alternatives. 2010: 5.6 WAR 2011: 1.9 WAR in half a season, then hurt 2012: terrible coming off the injury (.337 / .423 / .577 allowed, first 7 starts), then quite good (.241 / .301 / .380 allowed, last 22) 2013: 4.3 WAR in half a season, the best pitcher in MLB 2014: terrible coming off the injury (.331 / .389 / .512 allowed, first 11 starts), then quite good (.239 / .303 / .359 allowed, last 17) His ERA in his good 2014 finish was over a run higher than it was in 2012 (4.62 versus 3.59), but that was crap luck in sequencing, some slow hooks because we weren't really competing, and bad inherited runner support. He's been hurt mid-season twice in five years and each time was awful at the beginning of the following year. The rest of the time, he's pitched like a #2 (2011, 2012 and 2014 finishes) or a #1 (2010, 2013). I'll take my chances with that.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 29, 2014 16:38:03 GMT -5
When the Sox got Cespedes I was pretty clear that I thought given his short term and no ability to give him a qualifying offer, it was a guy I didn't want because I was fairly sure he was/is what he has shown himself to be in years 2-3 rather than his rookie year. Many here then projected him to revert back to rookie year greatness citing above all factors park effects.
Anyone change their minds? I sure haven't. In fact, I am even more sure that he is exactly what I stated he was on July 31 - Cody Ross with a better arm (i.e a 2.8-3.0 WAR player). In other words, a lot of hype, but really a sub top-20 OF whose on base % barely top 50 for qualifying outfielders. Fine if he hits 30+HRs but he didn't and likely won't. Going forward he's certainly no one I'd want on this team next year, never mind the next 5 years (next year plus a 4 year extension) and I don't think he's worth more than $12M a year, which is likely less than he'll command in 2015. Personally I hope he's traded as part of a larger package for a #1/2 starter, a top 30 prospect, or player with a better OBP and same or better defensive value. What say y'all.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,966
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 29, 2014 17:34:20 GMT -5
If Buchholz is our NO. 2 starter next year, it's pretty likely that we won't have to worry about the divisional playoffs. Clay has had exactly two years in his career in which he was more than 2 WAR and has been a pretty bad P in two of the last three years. One of this two years above 2 WAR was 2013 and he wasn't a No. 2 starter type that year either because he made only 16 starts and pitched only 108 innings. This is kind of a self-contradictory assertion. Clay is a boom or bust guy. You're keeping him here because you're hoping for boom. If he busts, he's not your #2 starter for too long, because (unlike in past years) we have many alternatives.2010: 5.6 WAR 2011: 1.9 WAR in half a season, then hurt 2012: terrible coming off the injury (.337 / .423 / .577 allowed, first 7 starts), then quite good (.241 / .301 / .380 allowed, last 22) 2013: 4.3 WAR in half a season, the best pitcher in MLB 2014: terrible coming off the injury (.331 / .389 / .512 allowed, first 11 starts), then quite good (.239 / .303 / .359 allowed, last 17) His ERA in his good 2014 finish was over a run higher than it was in 2012 (4.62 versus 3.59), but that was crap luck in sequencing, some slow hooks because we weren't really competing, and bad inherited runner support. He's been hurt mid-season twice in five years and each time was awful at the beginning of the following year. The rest of the time, he's pitched like a #2 (2011, 2012 and 2014 finishes) or a #1 (2010, 2013). I'll take my chances with that. So, I think there are two questions here: 1. In how many of his seven seasons has CB had a season that would pass as adequate for a No. 2 starter? Answer: One. That was his brilliant 2010 when he had an ERA-plus of 187, a FIP of 3.61 and a WAR of 5.6. 2. Is a guy who's been good and durable enough in one of his seven ML seasons to be an adequate No. 2 a good bet to be durable enough and good enough to be an adequate No. 2 in 2015. Answer: No. You correctly point out that he has had stretches of brilliance but I wasn't making the point that he's never been any good. I was making the point that based on a pretty sizable sample of pitching, he's unlikely to provide a full season of solid pitching. Talk about self-contradictory: You say he's been a classic boom or bust guy. Doesn't that make him a bad guy to pencil in as a No. 2? It's important to have some level of reliability there, no? There's so much cherry picking in your post that it pretty much says he's been good except for the many stretches when he's been bad (or inactive due to injuries). The injuries themselves are a reason to not depend on him as a No. 2 and in fact there's news out today that he's going to get cut tomorrow to have a meniscus repaired. As for the second bolded sentence, I agree with keeping him here because his upside is pretty high. I wasn't arguing for getting rid of him. For the third bolded sentence, who are these alternatives on the current roster that you see as good bets to step into the No. 2 spot? Maybe we have different ideas about what makes a good No. 2. To me, it's a pretty darn good and durable SP. In our three championship years, the No. 2 has been: Pedro (124 ERA-plus, 5.5 WAR, 217 IP); Dice-k (108 ERA-plus, 4.1 WAR, 204 IP); and Lackey (117 ERA-plus, 2.8 WAR, 189 IP).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 29, 2014 17:46:11 GMT -5
We need 5 starters. Worrying about which one is which # is a bit silly.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 29, 2014 17:51:31 GMT -5
When the Sox got Cespedes I was pretty clear that I thought given his short term and no ability to give him a qualifying offer, it was a guy I didn't want because I was fairly sure he was/is what he has shown himself to be in years 2-3 rather than his rookie year. Many here then projected him to revert back to rookie year greatness citing above all factors park effects. Anyone change their minds? I sure haven't. In fact, I am even more sure that he is exactly what I stated he was on July 31 - Cody Ross with a better arm (i.e a 2.8-3.0 WAR player). In other words, a lot of hype, but really a sub top-20 OF whose on base % barely top 50 for qualifying outfielders. Fine if he hits 30+HRs but he didn't and likely won't. Going forward he's certainly no one I'd want on this team next year, never mind the next 5 years (next year plus a 4 year extension) and I don't think he's worth more than $12M a year, which is likely less than he'll command in 2015. Personally I hope he's traded as part of a larger package for a #1/2 starter, a top 30 prospect, or player with a better OBP and same or better defensive value. What say y'all. Three win players are worth something like $20m a year in this $/WAR environment. Cespedes is thus certainly underpaid in 2015 (assuming you expect him to continue to be the three win player he's been in recent years), though I can understand being wary of a long-term, big-money extension. You might not like it, but that's the going rate for above-average regulars.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 29, 2014 18:00:45 GMT -5
I think Cespedes is probably worth a $60 mil/4 year deal. We just signed Napoli to a $16 mil per year deal and he's a better hitter than Napoli, and healthier. Napoli is a better fielder by far but Cespedes has a chance in Fenway to be a significantly better hitter than Napoli has been.
People say RBIs don't mean squat but we don't have a lot of 100 RBI guys hanging around do we. Ortiz and Cespedes. That's it. Give me more of those 3 run HR.
All that said, if he costs a penny more than that to extend him I'd just trade him. We have a glut in the OF but I've basically given up on Craig at this point. If we don't want to go with Cechinni/Holt/Mookie/Middlebrooks/Castillo at 3rd why in hell would we go with Craig in LF after we have seen his bat speed vanish before our eyes this past year and even get worse as the year went on. I'm for dumping Craig for whoever will give us the best deal. If anyone. We saw Ortiz come back from something similar so there is some hope but we have our limits.
If Cespedes won't extend then I'd give Craig some more time as our 5th OF. Hope and pray he comes back. Other than that or some other OF trade I'd cut my losses.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,509
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Sept 29, 2014 18:03:08 GMT -5
I think Cespedes is probably worth a $60 mil/4 year deal. We just signed Napoli to a $16 mil per year deal and he's a better hitter than Napoli, and healthier. Napoli is a better fielder by far but Cespedes has a chance in Fenway to be a significantly better hitter than Napoli has been. People say RBIs don't mean squat but we don't have a lot of 100 RBI guys hanging around do we. Ortiz and Cespedes. That's it. Give me more of those 3 run HR. All that said, if he costs a penny more than that to extend him I'd just trade him. We have a glut in the OF but I've basically given up on Craig at this point. If we don't want to go with Cechinni/Holt/Mookie/Middlebrooks/Castillo at 3rd why in hell would we go with Craig in LF after we have seen his bat speed vanish before our eyes this past year and even get worse as the year went on. I'm for dumping Craig for whoever will give us the best deal. If anyone. We saw Ortiz come back from something similar so there is some hope but we have our limits. If Cespedes won't extend then I'd give Craig some more time as our 5th OF. Hope and pray he comes back. Other than that or some other OF trade I'd cut my losses. Napoli is definitely the better hitter
|
|
|