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 redsox4242 on Oct 5, 2014 1:20:36 GMT -5
Step one is determine what we can sign in free agency. Step two is lay as much pipe as possible at the winter meetings as far as potential future trade partners. Offensively: Catcher - Vazquez projects below average offensively, but he did drive in a few runs when given the chance. 1st base - Napoli. Will he bounce back. Was his finger to blame for his worthlessness? Do we need a backup plan in case he plays terrible again next season. Clearly in decline. 2nd base - should be mookie, but we as stuck with a declining bat in pedroia. Does he have a good year left in him? Doubtful! Worst mistake of he cherrington era is signing him to a long term deal.
SS - bogaerts. Hit lefties well. Can he learn not to pull righties that pitch him away? Can he learn to punch it the other way? 3rd base - mystery, but anything is probably an improvement over middlebrooks. LF - cespedes/Craig/nava - Craig can not hit. Very slow bat. Nava is a platoon bat only. Cespedes has great trade value but can not get in base. Decent power, indifferent defensively. CF - Castillo/betts - complete duplication of effort. They are for all intensive purposes the same player. Betts has much higher upside. RF - victorino - very scary. He will be good for 250 at bats as best next season . I prefer not to trade betts, but because we are stuck with pedroia, betts had to play outbid position. I prefer not to trade cespedes but recognize he has more value the anyone on the team not named betts it bogaerts. Bottom line: we need to trade pieces for starting pitching if we are unsuccessful in free agency and we need better options at 3rd, 1st and RF. I think the worst move in the Cherington Era was Signing Stephen Drew in May out of desperation. Look how that one turned out.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 5, 2014 6:59:44 GMT -5
Step one is determine what we can sign in free agency. Step two is lay as much pipe as possible at the winter meetings as far as potential future trade partners. Offensively: Catcher - Vazquez projects below average offensively, but he did drive in a few runs when given the chance. 1st base - Napoli. Will he bounce back. Was his finger to blame for his worthlessness? Do we need a backup plan in case he plays terrible again next season. Clearly in decline. 2nd base - should be mookie, but we as stuck with a declining bat in pedroia. Does he have a good year left in him? Doubtful! Worst mistake of he cherrington era is signing him to a long term deal. SS - bogaerts. Hit lefties well. Can he learn not to pull righties that pitch him away? Can he learn to punch it the other way? 3rd base - mystery, but anything is probably an improvement over middlebrooks. LF - cespedes/Craig/nava - Craig can not hit. Very slow bat. Nava is a platoon bat only. Cespedes has great trade value but can not get in base. Decent power, indifferent defensively. CF - Castillo/betts - complete duplication of effort. They are for all intensive purposes the same player. Betts has much higher upside. RF - victorino - very scary. He will be good for 250 at bats as best next season . I prefer not to trade betts, but because we are stuck with pedroia, betts had to play outbid position. I prefer not to trade cespedes but recognize he has more value the anyone on the team not named betts it bogaerts. Bottom line: we need to trade pieces for starting pitching if we are unsuccessful in free agency and we need better options at 3rd, 1st and RF. How have you determined that Betts and Castillo are the same player? Castillo is still a mystery to me and I doubt that he has the patience to be the leadoff hitter the way Betts does. I don't know that signing Pedroia long-term was the worst mistake of the Cherington era. His decline is due to nagging injuries. I think not giving Lester a legit contract offer was a bad mistake or not getting a long-term asset for him in a trade could be a mistake. I'd also rather have Melancon than Brock Holt. Whatever. Cherington hasn't make a franchise crippling mistake so I can live with it One other question. Why can't in your scenario Betts play RF and Castillo play CF or vice versa especially since you can't imagine Victorino (nor can I) getting more than 250 ABs? The Sox will need both of these guys to perform well, and most likely in the same OF.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 5, 2014 8:41:13 GMT -5
How was Napoli worthless? He had a wRC+ of 124, 2nd to Papi. He doesn't need to bounce back, he needs to play more games.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Oct 5, 2014 16:23:20 GMT -5
Per Nick Cafardo, (Take it with a grain of salt) "The mind wanders when you think that Boston’s Allen Craig and Cincinnati’s Jay Bruce had horrendous years. Boston needs a lefthanded hitter. Could you swap these guys?...Craig costs less — $5.5 million, $9 million, $11 million, and $13 million (option) over the next four years, while Bruce is at $12 million and $12.5 million over the next two. A factor for the frugal Reds."
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 639
|
Post by alnipper on Oct 5, 2014 19:11:36 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind that trade at all.
I have a feeling JBJ will adjust to ML pitching next season. I hope we keep him around rather than trade him. Think of an outfield in 2016 of JBJ, Mookie, and Castillo. Now that is one great defensive outfield. Bruce can play DH.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,511
|
Post by nomar on Oct 5, 2014 19:29:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 6, 2014 9:30:14 GMT -5
2nd base - should be mookie, but we as stuck with a declining bat in pedroia. Does he have a good year left in him? Doubtful! Worst mistake of he cherrington era is signing him to a long term deal.
I think the worst move in the Cherington Era was Signing Stephen Drew in May out of desperation. Look how that one turned out. This bolded statement is ridiculous. He put up a 4.4 Fwar this year. Most of that was tied to his defensive value, but he was still league average with the bat. He took less than half the money that Cano got for 2 years less of team control, and deferred some of those payments so the Red Sox can use the money elsewhere. If you calculate cost of war at 5M a year, which is low, he would have to worth 22 war over the life of his contract, 20% of which he earned this year, his worst year while battling injuries. Name one person who thought the signing at the time was a bad move and I would be able to name one person who took a blind guess and is still not right. I don't expect him to ever be an MVP candidate again, but that's OK and it does not make it a bad signing. One thing people really underestimate is the marketing of these players. Pedroia is a guy who will make more money for the team than the simple WAR per dollar calculation would suggest. He is always in the top 10 in jersey sales, he is plastered all over Fenway and NESN in advertisements, he is a home grown player who is a great role model for the fans. The contract that Pedroia got is a huge bargain even with his offensive numbers being in decline. Pedroia has been worth more WAR in both a 3 year sample and 4 year sample, than Stanton and Tulo. Actually in the 4 year sample he is 8th and 3 year he is 15th. Edit: as for the worst move by Cherington, off the top of my head it had to be the Bailey or Harahan trades. I can justify the Drew signing, as I really don't attribute Xanders fall of to Drew, I don't think there was much else we could of done with the Drew spot, I don't think it hurt the teams future, and I don't think anyone could of foresaw how bad Drew played. I still define this as "not a bad move, but a move that worked out badly" if that makes sense. In the Bailey trade we got a reliever with an injury history for a full time young position player. I wasn't completely against the move at the time, but I didn't think it was a slam dunk either. With Harahan we also got a reliever on the decline with an injury history, and I remember being vocal at the time that we shouldn't of given up or sold low on Melancon. That was one of the "rightest" things I have ever said on these forums (I am not right often).
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 6, 2014 11:20:09 GMT -5
There seems to be a lack of realization on the part of many posters that the greatest need the Sox have is more offense. In order to compete the Sox have to increase their run scoring by 150-200 runs. Anyone suggesting that Cespedes be traded and not replaced by someone of at least equal offensive production is not understanding the runs problem. A platoon of Craig and Nava is not an adequate replacement.
And to make the problem very difficult to solve, the Sox are more or less set at almost every position except 3B, barring a radical restructuring of the team. Castillo or Betts will be in CF, Betts, Castillo or Victorino will be in RF (probably some combination of two of them), Napoli at 1B, Pedroia at 2B, Bogaerts at SS and Vazquez at C (yes, I am convinced he will be the starting catcher next year, at least at the beginning of the season).
That leaves 3B as the only position that could be significantly improved, and most likely improved without weakening another position. However, the choices there are limited. I think Sandoval is the most likely addition. A good argument can be (and has been made) for Headley, but I am willing to bet he re-signs with the Yankees. They need him even more than the Sox do, and their chances of making the postseason next year arguably are better than the Sox's.
I think there is an outside chance that Betts will be the 3B and Victorino will be the RF, or that the Sox will trade for a slugging RF - which would be my first choice of all the options.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Oct 6, 2014 11:55:57 GMT -5
There seems to be a lack of realization on the part of many posters that the greatest need the Sox have is more offense. Agreed. In order to compete the Sox have to increase their run scoring by 150-200 runs. Well, that would put them 8% above the next highest team, which is just wild. They don't need that. But, they do need roughly 100 runs. Some of that will come from dumb luck -- the Sox actually scored about 9% fewer runs than their Runs Created would suggest (the league average was 3%) -- while the vast majority is lack of talent/production. 100 runs isn't a wild number, but agreed that it is hard to see how moving from Cespedes + Nava to Nava/someone-else gets you there. They either need an upgrade, or depth; but thinning without an upgrade doesn't help.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,511
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2014 12:21:49 GMT -5
Offense definitely isn't the problem now. The only reason the offense was bad was because Bogaerts didn't hit, we lacked a starting 3B, we gave JBJ the starting job, and we signed AJP. That's 4 black holes in one lineup.
Now: - the CF will hit whether it's Castillo or Mookie if Castillo doesn't pan out. - Bogaerts looks like he's going to substantially improve offensively at an offensively weak position - We have time to find a 3B - We have a plethora of COF choices and trade targets as well - with the rest of the holes filled, Vazquez being in the lineup will be offset by his tremendous work behind the plate
There should be a lot fewer holes next year in the lineup. Our pitching numbers are strong this year, but our rotation is in shambles after getting rid of an ace and a #2 pitcher. You can't rely on this years rookies in the rotation other than RDLR at the back end. Buchholz is as inconsistent as it gets and frail. And you have Kelly who to this date is a back end guy. Also our bullpen isn't looking so hot.
I definitely see pitching as more of a need than hitting.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 6, 2014 12:33:12 GMT -5
There seems to be a lack of realization on the part of many posters that the greatest need the Sox have is more offense. In order to compete the Sox have to increase their run scoring by 150-200 runs. Anyone suggesting that Cespedes be traded and not replaced by someone of at least equal offensive production is not understanding the runs problem. A platoon of Craig and Nava is not an adequate replacement. And to make the problem very difficult to solve, the Sox are more or less set at almost every position except 3B, barring a radical restructuring of the team. Castillo or Betts will be in CF, Betts, Castillo or Victorino will be in RF (probably some combination of two of them), Napoli at 1B, Pedroia at 2B, Bogaerts at SS and Vazquez at C (yes, I am convinced he will be the starting catcher next year, at least at the beginning of the season). That leaves 3B as the only position that could be significantly improved, and most likely improved without weakening another position. However, the choices there are limited. I think Sandoval is the most likely addition. A good argument can be (and has been made) for Headley, but I am willing to bet he re-signs with the Yankees. They need him even more than the Sox do, and their chances of making the postseason next year arguably are better than the Sox's. I think there is an outside chance that Betts will be the 3B and Victorino will be the RF, or that the Sox will trade for a slugging RF - which would be my first choice of all the options. I think the offense will be better even if the Sox did nothing. I assume that if the Sox did deal Cespedes they'd have a plan to replace his offense which isn't that irreplaceable. Guys with an OBP of around .300 are replaceable, even if they have some power. What would really boost the Sox offense forward would be 1) the maturation of Xander Bogaerts into a middle of the order hitter 2) a full season of a legit leadoff hitter in Mookie Betts 3) the Red Sox being correct in their assessment that Rusney Castillo is a young Shane Victorino or Castillo just even being better than the automatic out that was JBJ. 4) Just about anybody who is better than WMB at 3b, which is a really low bar to clear, but I'm assuming Sandoval or Headley, or even Holt or Cecchini can clear that bar. 4) growth of Christian Vazquez as a hitter or an early blossoming of Blake Swihart come midseason 5) better health for Pedroia 6) better health for Napoli These are a lot of factors that can markedly and realistically improve the Sox offense without doing anything drastic or even without having Cespedes around, and you might notice I didn't list the possibility that Craig bounces back, which is possible, but I think the odds are very low for. The Red Sox real problem in my mind is that they have not replaced the quality and quantity of innings they were getting from Lester and Lackey. That will be very key this offseason. The first wave of kids they brought up are more likely to be back end starters or relievers and I'm talking De La Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo. Barnes was brought up at the very end of the year, but I think he along with the next wave of pitchers in Owens and Rodriguez, represents a real shot at replacing what Lackey gave them and being a heckuva lot better than what Buchholz gave them. They key is the top of the rotation guy they must get from outside the organization, and yes, I'd feel better if they got another quality guy from outside the organization - you can't have too much pitching, and then they need to build the bullpen back up again. So without much tinkering, I see no reason they can't score at least 100 more runs simply by having things actually break right a little bit more. I mean 2014 was the perfect storm of everything going wrong just as much as 2013 was the perfect storm of everything just falling nicely and neatly into place. The Sox perhaps can shave 75 - 100 runs off their pitching numbers conversely as well. If they can manage to do both the Sox will be plenty entertaining in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2014 13:34:24 GMT -5
There seems to be a lack of realization on the part of many posters that the greatest need the Sox have is more offense. In order to compete the Sox have to increase their run scoring by 150-200 runs. Anyone suggesting that Cespedes be traded and not replaced by someone of at least equal offensive production is not understanding the runs problem. A platoon of Craig and Nava is not an adequate replacement. And to make the problem very difficult to solve, the Sox are more or less set at almost every position except 3B, barring a radical restructuring of the team. Castillo or Betts will be in CF, Betts, Castillo or Victorino will be in RF (probably some combination of two of them), Napoli at 1B, Pedroia at 2B, Bogaerts at SS and Vazquez at C (yes, I am convinced he will be the starting catcher next year, at least at the beginning of the season). That leaves 3B as the only position that could be significantly improved, and most likely improved without weakening another position. However, the choices there are limited. I think Sandoval is the most likely addition. A good argument can be (and has been made) for Headley, but I am willing to bet he re-signs with the Yankees. They need him even more than the Sox do, and their chances of making the postseason next year arguably are better than the Sox's. I think there is an outside chance that Betts will be the 3B and Victorino will be the RF, or that the Sox will trade for a slugging RF - which would be my first choice of all the options. As others have mentioned, you can't judge the 2015 Red Sox offense using the 2014 Red Sox offense as a baseline. This year's team had a whopping ten players who got 100+ PAs and who put up sub-80-wRC+ seasons. Five guys certainly won't be returning (Carp, Pierzynski, Sizemore, Herrera, Drew), and those guys collectively hit .222/.288/.324 (69 wRC+) in 831 PAs (13% of the team's total playing time). Two others are almost certain to start the season in Pawtucket (Bradley and Middlebrooks), and they combined to hit an unspeakably bad .195/.262/.265 (46 wRC+) in 657 PAs (11% of the team's total playing time). That's a quarter of the 2014 team's playing time given to players who combined for -77.9 offensive runs below average (summing batting runs below average with baserunning runs below average). Replace those guys with average hitters (as they should be able to do), and that gets them to a top-ten offense. That's not even to mention expected improvement from guys like Bogaerts and Pedroia.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2014 13:55:15 GMT -5
To put it another way: here are the Steamer projections for a realistic non-Cespedes 2015 roster (except Castillo, who they haven't projected yet), listed alongside the 2015 production of the league-average player at their position: Player | 2015 Steamer projection
| 2014 league-average
| Betts (RF)
| .289/.356/.426, 120 wRC+ | 107 wRC+
| Pedroia (2B)
| .282/.350/.406, 111 wRC+ | 92 wRC+
| Ortiz (DH)
| .276/.365/.495, 134 wRC+ | 107 wRC+
| Napoli (1B)
| .243/.351/.444, 123 wRC+ | 112 wRC+
| Headley (3B)
| .257/.344/.406, 112 wRC+ | 101 wRC+
| Bogaerts (SS)
| .259/.321/.406, 103 wRC+ | 90 wRC+
| Nava (LF)
| .267/.348/.392, 108 wRC+ | 104 wRC+
| Castillo (CF)
| ?
| 103 wRC+
| Vazquez (C)
| .255/.317/.358, 88 wRC+
| 94 wRC+
|
That's a lineup with six players projected to be at least 10% better than the league-average marks at their position, one player who is slight better than the league-average, one player who is slightly worse than the league-average, and one player who is a question mark but probably will be no worse than mildly below-average. If these guys play to their projections, that's clearly a top-10 offense, and likely a top-5 one. Now, maybe the Steamer projections are a little optimistic, and this method obviously doesn't account for injuries and bench players (though I'll note that a bench of, say, Holt, Craig, Victorino, and Ross would be an above-average bench unit, IMO). But even if you take it with a large grain of salt, that lineup looks more than fine, and I'd be more worried about the rotation. ADD: by the way, this is the same kind of analysis I used to suggest that the 2013 Red Sox offense needed only minor tweaks to be excellent, when many on this forum were convinced that the team was going to be terrible and that they needed to punt the year. The same logic then applies now-- you can make a big one-year jump if you replace a bunch of awful hitters that you gave a ton of playing time to with even average ones.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 6, 2014 17:08:58 GMT -5
To put it another way: here are the Steamer projections for a realistic non-Cespedes 2015 roster (except Castillo, who they haven't projected yet), listed alongside the 2015 production of the league-average player at their position: Player | 2015 Steamer projection
| 2014 league-average
| Betts (RF)
| .289/.356/.426, 120 wRC+ | 107 wRC+
| Pedroia (2B)
| .282/.350/.406, 111 wRC+ | 92 wRC+
| Ortiz (DH)
| .276/.365/.495, 134 wRC+ | 107 wRC+
| Napoli (1B)
| .243/.351/.444, 123 wRC+ | 112 wRC+
| Headley (3B)
| .257/.344/.406, 112 wRC+ | 101 wRC+
| Bogaerts (SS)
| .259/.321/.406, 103 wRC+ | 90 wRC+
| Nava (LF)
| .267/.348/.392, 108 wRC+ | 104 wRC+
| Castillo (CF)
| ?
| 103 wRC+
| Vazquez (C)
| .255/.317/.358, 88 wRC+
| 94 wRC+
|
That's a lineup with six players projected to be at least 10% better than the league-average marks at their position, one player who is slight better than the league-average, one player who is slightly worse than the league-average, and one player who is a question mark but probably will be no worse than mildly below-average. If these guys play to their projections, that's clearly a top-10 offense, and likely a top-5 one. Now, maybe the Steamer projections are a little optimistic, and this method obviously doesn't account for injuries and bench players (though I'll note that a bench of, say, Holt, Craig, Victorino, and Ross would be an above-average bench unit, IMO). But even if you take it with a large grain of salt, that lineup looks more than fine, and I'd be more worried about the rotation. ADD: by the way, this is the same kind of analysis I used to suggest that the 2013 Red Sox offense needed only minor tweaks to be excellent, when many on this forum were convinced that the team was going to be terrible and that they needed to punt the year. The same logic then applies now-- you can make a big one-year jump if you replace a bunch of awful hitters that you gave a ton of playing time to with even average ones. This is excellent data and I appreciate your putting it together and posting it. Since Sandoval is a possibility at 3B, I'd note that his projected wRC+ is 120. Also, I might like Nava as a platoon with Victorino in RF, once the Flyin' Hawaiian is ready to play (May 1?). That would move Mookie to LF, where I think his arm plays better. Steamer has Shane at only 102 wRC+. But if he gets the bulk of his ABs against LHP, he'd probably do better than that. This would allow us to move Cespedes in a trade for much needed SP. Also, if we can get a halfway decent LHH catcher, that would mean fewer Vasquez ABs against RHP. That would probably help his numbers, too.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Oct 6, 2014 19:06:33 GMT -5
After watching the Royals in the last 4 games It makes me think Defense and Pitching! I think our Left-side of the infield is good baring trades, injuries. Outfield looks very good. Vazquez, well yeah. So Third Base and Shortstop are the questions. I think Xander is gonna be Average at short and if we were to sign one or the other I would pick Headley (if his back holds up) over Sandoval because of of is Defense and splits are almost the same also has a better WAR Avg over the last 4 years. Then I would go after 2 starting pitchers at least one top(Jon Lester, Max Scherzer, James Shields, Johnny Cueto, Cole Hamels) and if not 2 top another 2-3 tier pitcher. Then really work on the bullpen, bullpen seems key for Orioles and Royals.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 6, 2014 19:11:27 GMT -5
Before it goes any further.... Luis Diaz did not hit 100, Kiley meant to say Jason Garcia which he corrected in a later tweet.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Oct 7, 2014 0:05:02 GMT -5
What do we think young Jake Lamb 3B (ARI) would cost?
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 7, 2014 13:21:47 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox' main problem is that they have a lack of young cost controlled players that currently provide value. This could rapidly change if Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, Blake Swihart and some of their young pitchers develop, and Rusney Castillo could very easily be a value signing if he turns out be anything like the player he looked like this last September. However, if they don't, it will be very hard for the Red Sox FO to build a sustainable contender.
A team needs to generate between 45 and 50 WAR to reasonably compete for a division title. The average cost of one WAR for a player once he has become eligible for free agency is $7 million and the luxury tax threshold is $189 million. You can't make the math work without (a) blowing well past the luxury tax threshold or (b) having at least some high-end home grown players. Right now, at this moment, the Red Sox desperately need to hold on to their top prospects and hope that they become high end cost controlled players.
That being said, the Red Sox enter next year with a high-risk, possibly high reward lineup, no starting pitchers other than Joe Kelly guaranteed to be better than replacement, and $52 million to spend. I think the Red Sox should do the following:
(1) Don't trade Cespedes and don't extend him. Cespedes isn't good enough to warrant an extension, but he is the least risky outfielder on the team. Craig, Castillo, Victorino, Betts and even Nava all come with enough risk that I don't the Red Sox can afford to trade Cespedes (unless they can get a much higher return than I expect).
(2) Don't trade Betts. With Castillo still a question mark, and Victorino and Cespedes both likely gone at the end of the year, trading Betts would almost certainly leave them with a gaping hole in the outfield come 2016.
(3) Go with Holt and Vazquez as your starting 3B and C. This isn't an ideal situation, but they should put up 3 to 4 WAR (and could put up more) and cost $1 million combined. I don't see any free agent options that are going to yield more than 3 to 3.5 WAR at either position, and they will cost you $15 million per year. Given the need for pitching, upgrading either of these positions is a poor use of resources.
(4) Use the remaining salary space on pitching. I think it will be hard enough to get the pitching needed to win with $52 million. It will be even harder if you reduce the money available by trying to fix other lesser needs.
(5)Finally, resist the temptation to trade prospects for a big bat or a big arm. Taking on a Hamels' or Stanton's salary alone would make it hard to fix the holes and stay under the $189 million total payroll; taking on that salary AND trading young cost-controlled players or prospects is the equivalent of paying twice for the same thing and would make it even harder to acquire all the pieces the Red Sox need.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 7, 2014 13:26:20 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox' main problem is that they have a lack of young cost controlled players that currently provide value. This could rapidly change if Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, Blake Swihart and some of their young pitchers develop, and Rusney Castillo could very easily be a value signing if he turns out be anything like the player he looked like this last September. However, if they don't, it will be very hard for the Red Sox FO to build a sustainable contender. A team needs to generate between 45 and 50 WAR to reasonably compete for a division title. The average cost of one WAR for a player once he has become eligible for free agency is $7 million and the luxury tax threshold is $189 million. You can't make the math work without (a) blowing well past the luxury tax threshold or (b) having at least some high-end home grown players. Right now, at this moment, the Red Sox desperately need to hold on to their top prospects and hope that they become high end cost controlled players. That being said, the Red Sox enter next year with a high-risk, possibly high reward lineup, no starting pitchers other than Joe Kelly guaranteed to be better than replacement, and $52 million to spend. I think the Red Sox should do the following: (1) Don't trade Cespedes and don't extend him. Cespedes isn't good enough to warrant an extension, but he is the least risky outfielder on the team. Craig, Castillo, Victorino, Betts and even Nava all come with enough risk that I don't the Red Sox can afford to trade Cespedes (unless they can get a much higher return than I expect). (2) Don't trade Betts. With Castillo still a question mark, and Victorino and Cespedes both likely gone at the end of the year, trading Betts would almost certainly leave them with a gaping hole in the outfield come 2016. (3) Go with Holt and Vazquez as your starting 3B and C. This isn't an ideal situation, but they should put up 3 to 4 WAR (and could put up more) and cost $1 million combined. I don't see any free agent options that are going to yield more than 3 to 3.5 WAR at either position, and they will cost you $15 million per year. Given the need for pitching, upgrading either of these positions is a poor use of resources. (4) Use the remaining salary space on pitching. I think it will be hard enough to get the pitching needed to win with $52 million. It will be even harder if you reduce the money available by trying to fix other lesser needs. (5)Finally, resist the temptation to trade prospects for a big bat or a big arm. Taking on a Hamels' or Stanton's salary alone would make it hard to fix the holes and stay under the $189 million total payroll; taking on that salary AND trading young cost-controlled players or prospects is the equivalent of paying twice for the same thing and would make it even harder to acquire all the pieces the Red Sox need. So stand pat and add a SP and a reliever? Only a year away from being a year away...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 13:48:07 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox' main problem is that they have a lack of young cost controlled players that currently provide value. This could rapidly change if Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, Blake Swihart and some of their young pitchers develop, and Rusney Castillo could very easily be a value signing if he turns out be anything like the player he looked like this last September. However, if they don't, it will be very hard for the Red Sox FO to build a sustainable contender. A team needs to generate between 45 and 50 WAR to reasonably compete for a division title. The average cost of one WAR for a player once he has become eligible for free agency is $7 million and the luxury tax threshold is $189 million. You can't make the math work without (a) blowing well past the luxury tax threshold or (b) having at least some high-end home grown players. Right now, at this moment, the Red Sox desperately need to hold on to their top prospects and hope that they become high end cost controlled players. That being said, the Red Sox enter next year with a high-risk, possibly high reward lineup, no starting pitchers other than Joe Kelly guaranteed to be better than replacement, and $52 million to spend. I think the Red Sox should do the following: (1) Don't trade Cespedes and don't extend him. Cespedes isn't good enough to warrant an extension, but he is the least risky outfielder on the team. Craig, Castillo, Victorino, Betts and even Nava all come with enough risk that I don't the Red Sox can afford to trade Cespedes (unless they can get a much higher return than I expect). (2) Don't trade Betts. With Castillo still a question mark, and Victorino and Cespedes both likely gone at the end of the year, trading Betts would almost certainly leave them with a gaping hole in the outfield come 2016. (3) Go with Holt and Vazquez as your starting 3B and C. This isn't an ideal situation, but they should put up 3 to 4 WAR (and could put up more) and cost $1 million combined. I don't see any free agent options that are going to yield more than 3 to 3.5 WAR at either position, and they will cost you $15 million per year. Given the need for pitching, upgrading either of these positions is a poor use of resources. (4) Use the remaining salary space on pitching. I think it will be hard enough to get the pitching needed to win with $52 million. It will be even harder if you reduce the money available by trying to fix other lesser needs. (5)Finally, resist the temptation to trade prospects for a big bat or a big arm. Taking on a Hamels' or Stanton's salary alone would make it hard to fix the holes and stay under the $189 million total payroll; taking on that salary AND trading young cost-controlled players or prospects is the equivalent of paying twice for the same thing and would make it even harder to acquire all the pieces the Red Sox need. This is a weird mix between austerity and splurging. Spending a lot of money on free agent pitchers almost necessarily involves giving out a bunch of long-term contracts, and long-term contracts for pitchers are one of the more inefficient ways to spend cash. By the time your young cost-controlled players will be in their prime, your payroll will be burdened by aging pitchers.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 7, 2014 14:57:17 GMT -5
Ok, thanks to the great stats at fangraphs.com, I have gone over the stats of the Sox in the championship seasons of 2004, 2007, and 2013, the 2014 stats, and the Steamer projections for 2015.
Historically, and very consistently (but not perfectly), the run differential of a team has been the best indicator of success. While this year there are some aberrations, generally the order of finish of teams is almost always very close to the order of run differentials.
I took the run differentials of the six division winners this year and of the four wildcard teams.
Division winners average: +92.5 WC average: 72.5 2014 Sox: -81 2013 Sox: +197 2012 Sox: -72 2007 Sox: +210 2004 Sox: +180
So for the Sox to be average among the division winners next year, based on this year's results, they would have to improve their run differential by 173 runs. However, to match their run differentials in the years they won the WS, (and the Eastern Division historically has had tougher competition than the other divisions), the Sox would have to improve their run differential by 260 to 290 runs.
Even a 173 run improvement is a tall task. Improving the pitching would lower the runs allowed number, but even before the trades, when the Sox had Lester, Lackey and Peavy, the runs allowed number was running higher than it did in 2013. The runs scored number was way off.
I agree that the projected lineup of the Sox next year will produce more runs than it did this year, and others have pointed the reasons why. However, I took the the wRC+ of the ten players who had the most PAs on the 2004, 2007, 2013 and 2014 teams, along with the steamer projections for ten players for the 2015 team, using the nine players jmei used but I added Cespedes (steamer projection of wRC+ of 119) just to even it out to 10 in keeping with the other years.
Here are the average wRC+ of the top ten players on each team:
2004: 114.5 2007: 110.6 2013: 117.4 2014: 97.9 2015: 102.9
Based on those numbers and projections, a 2015 as jmei constructed - and I have no problem with it except for the loss of Cespedes, so I added him - falls short of the wRC+ averages of the WS teams but is somewhat better than this year's team. Assuming this is what the result was next year, then there would have to be a very significant improvement in the pitching for the team to be in the range of previous winning teams, as well within the averages of this year's winners.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 15:46:13 GMT -5
I agree that the projected lineup of the Sox next year will produce more runs than it did this year, and others have pointed the reasons why. However, I took the the wRC+ of the ten players who had the most PAs on the 2004, 2007, 2013 and 2014 teams, along with the steamer projections for ten players for the 2015 team, using the nine players jmei used but I added Cespedes (steamer projection of wRC+ of 119) just to even it out to 10 in keeping with the other years. Here are the average wRC+ of the top ten players on each team: 2004: 114.5 2007: 110.6 2013: 117.4 2014: 97.9 2015: 102.9 Based on those numbers and projections, a 2015 as jmei constructed - and I have no problem with it except for the loss of Cespedes, so I added him - falls short of the wRC+ averages of the WS teams but is somewhat better than this year's team. Assuming this is what the result was next year, then there would have to be a very significant improvement in the pitching for the team to be in the range of previous winning teams, as well within the averages of this year's winners. I got very different numbers when I calculated the average of my above roster (and just eyeballing it, there's no way it averaged to 103). Did you forget to include Castillo or mistakenly sum the wrong column? Assuming a 90 wRC+ for Rusney (a very conservative projection, for what it's worth), my nine guys above averaged a 110 wRC+. If you include Cespedes as a tenth, it gets bumped up to a 111 wRC+. ADD: and I know it doesn't work like this (because of bench players and such), but a 110 wRC+ would have ranked as the fifth best offense in the majors this year.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 7, 2014 16:22:40 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox' main problem is that they have a lack of young cost controlled players that currently provide value. This could rapidly change if Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, Blake Swihart and some of their young pitchers develop, and Rusney Castillo could very easily be a value signing if he turns out be anything like the player he looked like this last September. However, if they don't, it will be very hard for the Red Sox FO to build a sustainable contender. A team needs to generate between 45 and 50 WAR to reasonably compete for a division title. The average cost of one WAR for a player once he has become eligible for free agency is $7 million and the luxury tax threshold is $189 million. You can't make the math work without (a) blowing well past the luxury tax threshold or (b) having at least some high-end home grown players. Right now, at this moment, the Red Sox desperately need to hold on to their top prospects and hope that they become high end cost controlled players. That being said, the Red Sox enter next year with a high-risk, possibly high reward lineup, no starting pitchers other than Joe Kelly guaranteed to be better than replacement, and $52 million to spend. I think the Red Sox should do the following: (1) Don't trade Cespedes and don't extend him. Cespedes isn't good enough to warrant an extension, but he is the least risky outfielder on the team. Craig, Castillo, Victorino, Betts and even Nava all come with enough risk that I don't the Red Sox can afford to trade Cespedes (unless they can get a much higher return than I expect). (2) Don't trade Betts. With Castillo still a question mark, and Victorino and Cespedes both likely gone at the end of the year, trading Betts would almost certainly leave them with a gaping hole in the outfield come 2016. (3) Go with Holt and Vazquez as your starting 3B and C. This isn't an ideal situation, but they should put up 3 to 4 WAR (and could put up more) and cost $1 million combined. I don't see any free agent options that are going to yield more than 3 to 3.5 WAR at either position, and they will cost you $15 million per year. Given the need for pitching, upgrading either of these positions is a poor use of resources. (4) Use the remaining salary space on pitching. I think it will be hard enough to get the pitching needed to win with $52 million. It will be even harder if you reduce the money available by trying to fix other lesser needs. (5)Finally, resist the temptation to trade prospects for a big bat or a big arm. Taking on a Hamels' or Stanton's salary alone would make it hard to fix the holes and stay under the $189 million total payroll; taking on that salary AND trading young cost-controlled players or prospects is the equivalent of paying twice for the same thing and would make it even harder to acquire all the pieces the Red Sox need. This is a weird mix between austerity and splurging. Spending a lot of money on free agent pitchers almost necessarily involves giving out a bunch of long-term contracts, and long-term contracts for pitchers are one of the more inefficient ways to spend cash. By the time your young cost-controlled players will be in their prime, your payroll will be burdened by aging pitchers. Where did I advocate signing pitchers to long-term deals? Signing two "Ryan Dempsters", an "Andrew Miller" and a "Koji Uehara" alone would eat up most of the available $52 million. The only difference between what I posted and you have been posting is that I would go with Holt over Headley.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 16:32:41 GMT -5
So for the Sox to be average among the division winners next year, based on this year's results, they would have to improve their run differential by 173 runs. However, to match their run differentials in the years they won the WS, (and the Eastern Division historically has had tougher competition than the other divisions), the Sox would have to improve their run differential by 260 to 290 runs. Even a 173 run improvement is a tall task. Improving the pitching would lower the runs allowed number, but even before the trades, when the Sox had Lester, Lackey and Peavy, the runs allowed number was running higher than it did in 2013. The runs scored number was way off. This is a fair point-- even with a vastly improved lineup, the pitching will also need to improve significantly. But there's a good chance it will. The Red Sox got a combined 539 IP of 5.18 ERA ball from Buccholz, Doubront, Peavy, Ranaudo, Webster, and Workman this year. That's 56% of the starters' innings from six guys who were combined to be roughly replacement-level by runs allowed. Again, this is why using the previous year as a baseline is not necessarily the best starting point. The 2014 Red Sox gave a lot of starts to players who were terrible, both before and after the trade deadline. If they make the right moves, they might be able to avoid doing so next year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 16:38:59 GMT -5
This is a weird mix between austerity and splurging. Spending a lot of money on free agent pitchers almost necessarily involves giving out a bunch of long-term contracts, and long-term contracts for pitchers are one of the more inefficient ways to spend cash. By the time your young cost-controlled players will be in their prime, your payroll will be burdened by aging pitchers. Where did I advocate signing pitchers to long-term deals? Signing two "Ryan Dempsters", an "Andrew Miller" and a "Koji Uehara" alone would eat up most of the available $52 million. The only difference between what I posted and you have been posting is that I would go with Holt over Headley. You're right-- I assumed you meant something like sign Lester and Shields and Masterson, all to long-term deals.
|
|
|