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 awall on Sept 30, 2014 8:44:34 GMT -5
If you move Holt, you also have Weeks as an option for utility man at SS and 2B.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 30, 2014 9:14:10 GMT -5
Cespedes for a 3b and Nava/Craig in LF? That's a lateral move at best. Just start Holt at 3b unless you're moving Mookie there. Keep Cespedes in LF. See how Cecchini performs in first half at Pawtucket. I doubt it, but there could be an in-house option. Pick one up durng the season if outlook not promising. What did Prado cost? I'd rather spend my assets to improve our pitching staff. I think you get max value for Holt if you trade him now. He had an aberrant year and is highly unlikely to repeat that first half-type of performance ever again. He is more likely what he was in the second half and, while a gamer, they have Betts to cover the OF and 2nd, and Cecchini and Marrero to cover 3rd/SS if there is an injury. Holt, as brilliant as he looked is a replaceable skill set, but may still be perceived as a starter/super utility guy by some GMs. That needs to be leveraged if true as his value will never be higher. . People say this all the time. Drives me nuts. What is max value for Brock Holt? Another utility player?? No GM is going to give you a good pitcher for him. Other GM's aren't stupid. Brock is as valuable to the Red Sox as he is to any other team. He's just a super-sub. I'd only play him at 3b to start the year because I don't want to deal Cespedes or sign fat arse Sandoval.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 30, 2014 9:32:32 GMT -5
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. Not trying to single out jmei here because the bolded part is something that Internet posters say all the time and it makes no sense to me. A guy's ability to give you 3 WAR doesn't mean it's a good idea to pay him $20 million or anything close to that. A decent FO can get three-win players without busting the payroll like that. Daniel Nava, for instance, has been 3.3 and 2.8 WAR the last two years and he's earned south of $1.1 million for those two years combined. Here's a list of members of the 2013 World Champs who had 3 WAR or more: Pedroia, Victorino, Ellsbury, Papi, Napoli, Drew, Buchholz, Koji and Lester. Salty just missed at 2.9. (All numbers are bRef.) That list includes guys on short-term contracts, guys on long-termers, oldies, guys in their prime, guys recently acquired as FAs and guys who had been here for a long time. And not one was making $20 million. Exactly my point. You can get a 3 WAR OF or better by platooning Nava, a cost controlled resource, with another OF who hits lefties well, and save the cash and years for a 4+ or 5+ WAR player who is worth the investment. (the hard part is getting Farrell to buy into the strict L/R platoon when one player may demonstrate scrappiness. Heck you will prob get more than 3 WAR out of Betts next year for MLB minimum. In other words, Cespedes isn't the guy I'd blow the money or years on. He's just not all that.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Sept 30, 2014 9:34:38 GMT -5
If you move Holt, you also have Weeks as an option for utility man at SS and 2B. Jemile Weeks is never the answer.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Sept 30, 2014 9:37:34 GMT -5
Then there is this: Nick Cafardo ?@nickcafardo 2m2 minutes ago Jon Lester's Newton,Ma home is up for sale.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 30, 2014 10:23:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Sept 30, 2014 10:31:29 GMT -5
I would love to see Lucchino's first offer on to the real estate agent
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 30, 2014 10:42:18 GMT -5
Either he's planning to play elsewhere or he's going to take his Red Sox millions and invest in a Brookline mans. near Brady.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 30, 2014 12:47:16 GMT -5
I'm ok with it. Not upset. I honestly think all three of them are wrong! Any takers on my bet? I see both positions. It's good natured fun. It could go either way. If I lose jmei wouldn't be mean about it. I wouldn't either if I won. I think they trade Cespedes anyway. Well we were arguing over which hitter was better in the past. Good luck coming up with some kind of statistical proof that Cespedes has been better than Napoli.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 1, 2014 9:50:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 1, 2014 11:21:53 GMT -5
Lester $25 mil minimum Headley $15 mil
That's $40 mil right there. Catcher? Another Starting Pitcher? Relievers?
We still need to pinch some pennies somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 1, 2014 11:23:36 GMT -5
I'm ok with it. Not upset. I honestly think all three of them are wrong! Any takers on my bet? I see both positions. It's good natured fun. It could go either way. If I lose jmei wouldn't be mean about it. I wouldn't either if I won. I think they trade Cespedes anyway. Well we were arguing over which hitter was better in the past. Good luck coming up with some kind of statistical proof that Cespedes has been better than Napoli. The Redsox have been batting Cespedes 4th right? Napoli 5th. It's not as cut and dry as you guys are making it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 1, 2014 11:45:25 GMT -5
Well we were arguing over which hitter was better in the past. Good luck coming up with some kind of statistical proof that Cespedes has been better than Napoli. The Redsox have been batting Cespedes 4th right? Napoli 5th. It's not as cut and dry as you guys are making it out to be. And Farrell was starting Gomes vs RHP earlier in the year with Nava on the bench. And Ned Yost bunted like 8 times last night so bunting must be smart.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 1, 2014 13:17:17 GMT -5
$52m is not really that much, considering they need two front-end starting pitchers, a third baseman, and two high-leverage relievers. Of course, they could also subtract some salary (for instance, by trading Cespedes or Victorino), and Speier makes some conservative assumptions about how much cash they budget for trades. But they probably can't afford to fill all those holes by signing premium free agents.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 1, 2014 14:17:04 GMT -5
Yet another reason to avoid every available FA 3b that has glaring weaknesses with warning lights an red flags.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 1, 2014 14:27:12 GMT -5
$52m is not really that much, considering they need two front-end starting pitchers, a third baseman, and two high-leverage relievers. Of course, they could also subtract some salary (for instance, by trading Cespedes or Victorino), and Speier makes some conservative assumptions about how much cash they budget for trades. But they probably can't afford to fill all those holes by signing premium free agents. True, but there's enough money to buy two of their Big Three needs (two front-line starters and a third baseman) ... which gives them lots of options. They can try to trade for a cost-effective starter, although that's always a bear to pull off because everyone wants those. Or they could trade for a cost-effective third baseman (Cespedes for a decent third baseman solves a lot of problems). And I've developed a pretty good level of comfort with Cherington's ability to build a bullpen for reasonable cost ... he seems to have the knack for it that continually eluded Theo. Point is, $52 million isn't quite "buy their way out of all problems," but it's certainly enough to keep the team from getting locked into any one path forward or beholden to any one outcome.
|
|
|
Post by pedey on Oct 1, 2014 19:00:30 GMT -5
Going from worst to first back to worse, the Sox have needs to address this off-season to get them back into October baseball as soon as possible.
It appears these are the needs going into 2015: Third base, Catcher, 2 Starting Pitchers, Relief Pitcher.
3B: One could argue there is no need at third base with Middlebrooks and Cecchini on the 40-man. Hard to have any faith in either of them. Not saying that neither will become good players, they are just unproven.
C: Blake Swihart is the arguably the best catching prospect in baseball. Whether the Sox will go with Vazquez as the starter and sign a back up until Swihart is ready or if they sign a starter and use Vazquez as the backup remains to be seen.
SP: With 4 out of the 5 opening day pitchers traded, there is a need for both a number 1 and 2 starter. It's become evident as of late that there aren't many young starters on the roster that can be trusted with a rotation spot going into 2015. Again, not saying they won't become good pitchers, they are just unproven. Ranaudo, Webster, De La Rosa, and Workman didn't impress in their stints. Fatigue could likely be a factor. Escobar, Barnes, and Rodriguez have yet to get a shot at starting at the MLB level. Wright is also an option.
RP: With Uehara and Badenhop free agents, the relief pitching needs a little help. They could opt to retain one or both of them, trade for one, or sign as a free agent. Another possible option is converting one or more of their young starters to a reliever.
What do you think the needs of the off-season needs are, and how would you address them?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 1, 2014 20:35:23 GMT -5
I think you get max value for Holt if you trade him now. He had an aberrant year and is highly unlikely to repeat that first half-type of performance ever again. He is more likely what he was in the second half and, while a gamer, they have Betts to cover the OF and 2nd, and Cecchini and Marrero to cover 3rd/SS if there is an injury. Holt, as brilliant as he looked is a replaceable skill set, but may still be perceived as a starter/super utility guy by some GMs. That needs to be leveraged if true as his value will never be higher. . People say this all the time. Drives me nuts. What is max value for Brock Holt? Another utility player?? No GM is going to give you a good pitcher for him. Other GM's aren't stupid. Brock is as valuable to the Red Sox as he is to any other team. He's just a super-sub. I'd only play him at 3b to start the year because I don't want to deal Cespedes or sign fat arse Sandoval. Max value in this case means if a GM ever is going to think Holt is a stater or a Zobrist type, it is now. That means you can get that kind of vlaue. for him either as part of a package or straight up if there is something you need that the other GM is willing to part with if Holt is (part of) the return.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 1, 2014 20:41:32 GMT -5
Lester $25 mil minimum Headley $15 mil That's $40 mil right there. Catcher? Another Starting Pitcher? Relievers? We still need to pinch some pennies somewhere. So if we trade for hamels that is what $24 million and sign shields for $18 to $20 million, then secure a left handed bat and suddenly we are up over $160 million. Still plenty of room to sign Robertson.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 1, 2014 21:13:55 GMT -5
I think the key here is using Cespedes - whose power would probably make him desirable to a lot of teams - to get an asset, preferably a 3B. If we do that, we can offset some of the new acquisition's salary by subtracting the Cespedes money. Then they could use the money that's left on pitching - Lester and either Shields or someone we would acquire in a trade.
We could also subtract some of Victorino's money by moving him and heavily subsidizing the contract. I'm not crazy about the idea, but it's a possibility. It would (at least with the current roster composition) leave us with Mookie in right and a Nava/Craig platoon in LF. That way we'd be putting ourselves in a position to benefit from a big Craig rebound, but not banking on it, since he'd be on the short side of the platoon and could easily be replaced if he stinks it up.
But the key is moving Cespedes and I'm thinking some team that plays in a HR-friendly park (Cincy? Philly? Texas? O's, as a Cruz replacement?)might be interested.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 1, 2014 22:10:44 GMT -5
2014 starting payrolls
Oakland 87.4m KC 92m Pitt 78.1m Baltimore 107.4m
52 million is a lot, and the Red Sox could blow past that number without blinking an eye. I get it, it's not a get out of jail free card but it is more payroll flexibility than most teams could dream about having.
I'm still of the thought that we have a solid core of players that underperformed this year (to be fair I thought they over performed in 2013).
In a very simplistic view, I think if we signed 2 sp. Headley. And a backup c, this team would compete for the al east solving all other holes internally.
Sent from iPhone.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 639
|
Post by alnipper on Oct 1, 2014 22:15:33 GMT -5
I think the Sox will trade one of the three players: Victorino, Cespedes, Craig. A team will need to be paid well to take on Victorino's salary and desperate for an OF. I would only sign one front end starter. In a year the Sox will have two to three number three starters. I feel confident in the Sox coaches and developmental abilities. We need to stay a little patient rather than be up against the cap the next few years again.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 1, 2014 22:23:13 GMT -5
Just to be clear, Vazquez will never be a backup to anyone. He will either start for Boston or be traded and start for another team. We're talking about one of the better defensive catchers to make it to the majors in the recent past, maybe the best.
I'll also predict right now that he'll improve his hitting year over year to where he'll have value there also. As others have pointed out, he did just that in the minors when he repeated a level. Everything we've read, heard, and seen says he's a student of the game. He's too good to waste on the bench.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 1, 2014 23:04:40 GMT -5
Liriano/Santana = 3 year / $14-$15 mil per year ( if no QO ) Hamels = 4 years at roughly $22.5 mil per year in trade * Headley = 3 year / $15 mil per year ( if no QO ) Koji = 1 year at $7 mil per year Badenhop = 2 years at $6 mil per year Trade Cespedes for a solid catcher, 1-2 year contract guy. I'd love a trade for Mike Leake if at all possible, preferably involving Cespedes.
Total = around $65 mil ( If we trade Cespedes for a catcher we will maybe have more salary moved to help boost purchasing power some )
* I sense that a Hamels deal is entirely possible with their need to rebuild and all the scouting they did of our players. I'm thinking something like Owens, Devers and Coyle. They have to think long term and will absolutely want prospects. They would love getting Owens to pitch in their park and Devers to hit balls out in RF for them. They are probably 2-3 years away from a full rebuild and would covet those guys badly.
I've stated I don't want to sign Headley but would go with Cechinni right from Spring Training if it were me and use the money saved to sign Lester rather than Hamels or use the money to sign Russell Martin, but I'm including Headley because he probably is target A for 3rd. Cechinni gives us a left handed bat, builds value in him maybe and he's dirt cheap.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonsterwhalers on Oct 1, 2014 23:21:14 GMT -5
I think the key here is using Cespedes - whose power would probably make him desirable to a lot of teams - to get an asset, preferably a 3B. If we do that, we can offset some of the new acquisition's salary by subtracting the Cespedes money. Then they could use the money that's left on pitching - Lester and either Shields or someone we would acquire in a trade. We could also subtract some of Victorino's money by moving him and heavily subsidizing the contract. I'm not crazy about the idea, but it's a possibility. It would (at least with the current roster composition) leave us with Mookie in right and a Nava/Craig platoon in LF. That way we'd be putting ourselves in a position to benefit from a big Craig rebound, but not banking on it, since he'd be on the short side of the platoon and could easily be replaced if he stinks it up. But the key is moving Cespedes and I'm thinking some team that plays in a HR-friendly park (Cincy? Philly? Texas? O's, as a Cruz replacement?)might be interested. I agree that if we could move Cespedes and get a third baseman, that would be great. It would have to be a good third baseman though. Who are you thinking of? Would it be totally crazy for the Rangers to trade Beltre (for Cespedes+)? It could be Cespedes going to them directly or a three-way deal that nets them something they're looking for from the third team. I'd absolutely be willing to part with a good but not great prospect- preferably one of our major league ready pitchers- to sweeten the deal. I'd be willing to include Ranaudo because I don't think his stuff is very good, I'd probably be willing to part with Webster and his great stuff because he can't throw strikes. Of course, the Rangers would know these things too. Workman/ De La Rosa? I think I would draw the line there, but it might be negotiable. It might be an overpay to give up both Cespedes and someone like Webster/Ranaudo for Beltre, but I'd be willing to do it because of...well, OAR- Options Above Replacement, lol. I think many of us agree that an ideal situation is a decent offensive lefty hitting third-baseman on a one year contract which would allow us to have Cecchini or Middlebrooks play at third in 2016 if they earn it. The problem is those don't exist this offseason, at least not on a one year deal, and there are legitimate questions about whether it would be smart to give a 3+ year deal to the only two good offensive third basemen free agents (Sandoval's weight and being awful against lefties this year, Headley's okay but not great offensive production albeit in an extremely power-suppressing park and maybe his back). Beltre is still an excellent player and has one year guaranteed plus a second year that can be voided if Beltre fails to have either 1,200 plate appearances in 2014 and 2015 combined, or 600 in 2015. So which third basemen would we go after? Would the Rangers consider moving Beltre for the package I proposed? If not, what would it take for them to move him? He will be 36 next season...
|
|
|