SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2014-15 offseason discussion
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 7, 2014 16:41:10 GMT -5
Mea culpa. It was simply a matter of data overload in my spreadsheet. I copied your post and now I see that the numbers got transposed. So what I saw as the 2015 projection was the 2014 actual! Yikes.
So that changes the analysis. The average of the correct wRC+ is, as you say, around 110, and a bit higher with Cespedes. That's about the same as the 10 players with the most PAs in 2007. That team scored 867 runs! (However, there were some phenomenal OBPs on that team, quite a bit better than the current team does). The 2007 wRC+ average is depressed because it includes Cora and Lugo, but does not include Ellsbury. As you no doubt recall, Ellsbury was brought up, and sparked the team. He hit .353 with a wRC+ of 136, but he only had 127 PAs.
If those ten players do perform close to those projections, then the Sox will score a lot more runs. They still will have to cut their runs allowed amount. This year's RA was 58 more than allowed in 2007. That probably is doable.
The caveats are the things we can't project, such as injuries. Pedroia, Ortiz, Napoli and Headley are all high risks for injuries, or nagging problems. Based on what little I saw of Castillo, I was encouraged. I think that 90 might be low, but a couple others might be high.
The techniques of projection have gotten reasonably good with players who are reasonably consistent. I think it is very hard to project on very young players with limited records, and with aging players who sometimes just fall off cliffs.
Based on the risks, I still would keep Cespedes. But I concede your overall point!
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 7, 2014 16:50:26 GMT -5
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. 2 Ryan Dempster type of signings wouldn't benefit the team much at all. That would still mean going into the season with Clay as the #1. No thanks. Those types of moves and holding on to the prospects would get this team nowhere.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 7, 2014 17:41:55 GMT -5
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. As you probably have noticed, I have not been a fan of Buchholz for a long time. If he had not been so sensational on occasion, they probably would have gotten rid of him a long time ago, and it is too bad they didn't. But it should be obvious now that he is never going to be reliable. So he should be gone. I don't think Workman is a starter, but he could be a really good RP. The same might be true of Ranaudo. I haven't seen enough of him to say. I am confused by Webster, and don't know if he is worth keeping, and what might be his proper role. I think they are going to have to dig a little deeper into the minors to get the guys who will be their mainstays in the future, but they will be heavily lefthanded. So they are going to have to add a couple top pitchers from outside.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Oct 7, 2014 19:12:30 GMT -5
Steamer600 (playing-time adjusted) has Headley as the 26th best player in baseball next year. That's right around guys like Mookie, Jose Abreu, and Carlos Gomez, and half a win per 600 PA ahead of Sandoval, who's going to get a much bigger deal. Unless Headley gets much more than people are expecting right now, I can't see a single better deal for the Red Sox this offseason. On the pitching side, I would love to see Brandon McCarthy brought in, maybe on a 2-year deal with a vesting option? He's great when he can stay on the mound, and his 2014 was especially excellent (77 xFIP-). He shouldn't be expected to be the #1 guy on our staff, but Shields/McCarthy wouldn't be too bad of a top of the rotation at all. (Man, the Yankees had a good trade deadline...)
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 7, 2014 19:45:04 GMT -5
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. As you probably have noticed, I have not been a fan of Buchholz for a long time. If he had not been so sensational on occasion, they probably would have gotten rid of him a long time ago, and it is too bad they didn't. But it should be obvious now that he is never going to be reliable. So he should be gone. I don't think Workman is a starter, but he could be a really good RP. The same might be true of Ranaudo. I haven't seen enough of him to say. I am confused by Webster, and don't know if he is worth keeping, and what might be his proper role. I think they are going to have to dig a little deeper into the minors to get the guys who will be their mainstays in the future, but they will be heavily lefthanded. So they are going to have to add a couple top pitchers from outside. I think Webster has really good stuff and if he can command his pitches and learn to pitch with runners on base, he could be special.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 19:54:33 GMT -5
McCarthy is in that 2013 Kazmir mode of "one really great season, had performed well in the past, but has never stayed healthy for a sustained period of time." That's a great risk to take for 2/$22m, but I don't think that McCarthy will come equally cheap. He's best off taking as much guaranteed money as he can get, and you have to think there's a team willing to give him three or four years at a premium rate. MLBTR guessed 3/$36m, but I think that's on the low side, and I wouldn't be shocked if he got 4/$52m or so.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 7, 2014 21:30:14 GMT -5
As you probably have noticed, I have not been a fan of Buchholz for a long time. If he had not been so sensational on occasion, they probably would have gotten rid of him a long time ago, and it is too bad they didn't. But it should be obvious now that he is never going to be reliable. So he should be gone. I don't think Workman is a starter, but he could be a really good RP. The same might be true of Ranaudo. I haven't seen enough of him to say. I am confused by Webster, and don't know if he is worth keeping, and what might be his proper role. I think they are going to have to dig a little deeper into the minors to get the guys who will be their mainstays in the future, but they will be heavily lefthanded. So they are going to have to add a couple top pitchers from outside. I think Webster has really good stuff and if he can command his pitches and learn to pitch with runners on base, he could be special. I need a GM with that same belief so Sox can trade Webster to him ASAP for a top prospect before the realiztion sets in that Webster will likely be a reliever.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 7, 2014 21:34:55 GMT -5
Steamer600 (playing-time adjusted) has Headley as the 26th best player in baseball next year. That's right around guys like Mookie, Jose Abreu, and Carlos Gomez, and half a win per 600 PA ahead of Sandoval, who's going to get a much bigger deal. Unless Headley gets much more than people are expecting right now, I can't see a single better deal for the Red Sox this offseason. On the pitching side, I would love to see Brandon McCarthy brought in, maybe on a 2-year deal with a vesting option? He's great when he can stay on the mound, and his 2014 was especially excellent (77 xFIP-). He shouldn't be expected to be the #1 guy on our staff, but Shields/McCarthy wouldn't be too bad of a top of the rotation at all. (Man, the Yankees had a good trade deadline...) What do you think Headley will get - or what are the projections you've seen? Because I keep thinking he'll get 3 years at $13M-14M a year, and maybe even a QO from Los MFYs, but I'm just basing that on things like Steamer, how good he looked in the second half and $ per WAR.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 7, 2014 21:37:35 GMT -5
Headley can't get a qualifying offer. He was traded in-season.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 21:52:43 GMT -5
Steamer600 (playing-time adjusted) has Headley as the 26th best player in baseball next year. That's right around guys like Mookie, Jose Abreu, and Carlos Gomez, and half a win per 600 PA ahead of Sandoval, who's going to get a much bigger deal. Unless Headley gets much more than people are expecting right now, I can't see a single better deal for the Red Sox this offseason. On the pitching side, I would love to see Brandon McCarthy brought in, maybe on a 2-year deal with a vesting option? He's great when he can stay on the mound, and his 2014 was especially excellent (77 xFIP-). He shouldn't be expected to be the #1 guy on our staff, but Shields/McCarthy wouldn't be too bad of a top of the rotation at all. (Man, the Yankees had a good trade deadline...) What do you think Headley will get - or what are the projections you've seen? Because I keep thinking he'll get 3 years at $13M-14M a year, and maybe even a QO from Los MFYs, but I'm just basing that on things like Steamer, how good he looked in the second half and $ per WAR. I suggested earlier that Headley would get 4/$60m, though that's a gut feel number and not one backed by a lot of careful thought. From a simple $/WAR perspective, assuming he's a four win player next year, declines half a win per year, and $/WAR is a flat $7m, he's easily a $20m a year player (4/$91m or 5/$109m). But injuries and the fact that he's probably not a four win player bump that down significantly. If he's a three win player next year, that simple analysis gets you to 4/$63m, which is roughly what I have above.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Oct 7, 2014 22:35:35 GMT -5
Steamer600 (playing-time adjusted) has Headley as the 26th best player in baseball next year. That's right around guys like Mookie, Jose Abreu, and Carlos Gomez, and half a win per 600 PA ahead of Sandoval, who's going to get a much bigger deal. Unless Headley gets much more than people are expecting right now, I can't see a single better deal for the Red Sox this offseason. On the pitching side, I would love to see Brandon McCarthy brought in, maybe on a 2-year deal with a vesting option? He's great when he can stay on the mound, and his 2014 was especially excellent (77 xFIP-). He shouldn't be expected to be the #1 guy on our staff, but Shields/McCarthy wouldn't be too bad of a top of the rotation at all. (Man, the Yankees had a good trade deadline...) What do you think Headley will get - or what are the projections you've seen? Because I keep thinking he'll get 3 years at $13M-14M a year, and maybe even a QO from Los MFYs, but I'm just basing that on things like Steamer, how good he looked in the second half and $ per WAR. I've seen the guys at Fangraphs, who are usually pretty good with these things, throw out numbers like 2/25 or even 1 year deals. I highly doubt he gets that little, but if it's something like 3/$42, that would be a great deal. It seems like he's a little underrated publicly, but I don't know how much that perception will affect his market value, if at all. I think 4/$60 is probably the most he would get. It will be interesting to see the Fangraphs contract crowdsourcing for him - those are usually pretty accurate if you bump them up a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 7, 2014 23:29:33 GMT -5
The Redox gave around 3/$39 for Victorino, which most thought was an overpay at the time. I don't see us signing any FA 3rd baseman for more than 3 years which means to me it probably isn't Sandoval. If Headly can be had for 3 years at $45 mil that would be the high end to me. If he gets 4 years and $60 mil he should probably take it. I agree some team like the Yanks might go there.
|
|
|
Post by supersquid on Oct 8, 2014 1:38:36 GMT -5
I see Sandoval as a better fit personally for 3rd next year. He obviously represents taking a calculated risk , but I dont think his weight issues are any more of a concern than Papi's were when he was aquired. Albeit sandoval will be playing a position higher on the defensive spectrum,but I think he can handle it and I believe he'd provide exactly what we need in our lineup from a position that was a virtual black hole this year. Think it would be a marked improvement in our lineup and i'd be comfortable with something along the lines of 4/64
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 8, 2014 13:30:23 GMT -5
Bleacher report thinks sandavol could be asking for a nine figure contract.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 8, 2014 13:41:13 GMT -5
Bleacher report thinks sandavol could be asking for a nine figure contract. Just a heads up, Bleacher Report isn't its own entity with thoughts, just a publishing mechanism (with excellent SEO). It's like saying that blogger or Geocities thinks something. There are some useful writers on the platform, but most have no clue what they are talking about. Without question, you will find better discussion and analysis on this forum than just by browsing B-R.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 8, 2014 17:46:04 GMT -5
Bleacher Report isn't its own entity with thoughts, just a publishing mechanism I used to think that too. Then I was shocked by the discovery that Mike Tanier is now "National Lead NFL Writer" for B-R rather than a writer for Sports on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Oct 8, 2014 20:25:10 GMT -5
You're right-- I assumed you meant something like sign Lester and Shields and Masterson, all to long-term deals. Signing all 3 only makes sense if you need Buchholz in a deal, which seems unlikely given his track record (but who knows, maybe another GM sees something there). Otherwise, just the big 2: Lester for 5+1vest, Shields for 4+1vest. Still like the idea of Masterson on a 1 year 'make good' deal in some capacity, depending on the rest of the 2015 equation..... Offense should be fine unless a young core bat comes available..... Keep the main kids (Betts, Swihart, Owens, Eddie), use the surplus (re: blocked prospects) to tweak the pen...
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 8, 2014 22:49:33 GMT -5
Why shouldn't we take a flier on masterson?
Maybe Farrell can work some old pitching coach magic to help masterson rediscover his mechanics and some confidence.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 8, 2014 22:49:54 GMT -5
Bleacher Report isn't its own entity with thoughts, just a publishing mechanism I used to think that too. Then I was shocked by the discovery that Mike Tanier is now "National Lead NFL Writer" for B-R rather than a writer for Sports on Earth. Good tip. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 8, 2014 22:55:16 GMT -5
Why shouldn't we take a flier on masterson? Maybe Farrell can work some old pitching coach magic to help masterson rediscover his mechanics and some confidence. Maybe because he's a terrible pitcher and according to Francona not exactly dedicated to his craft. I mean the Sox can sign him for cheap and perhaps he can help the pen out but I'd hate to see the Sox have to depend on him for a rotation spot. They need at least one sure thing acquisition in the rotation, if not two, and Masterson doesn't qualify as a sure thing.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 8, 2014 23:08:10 GMT -5
Maybe because he's a terrible pitcher and according to Francona not exactly dedicated to his craft. Wait, what? Francona said that? What's that even supposed to mean? Didn't his 2011 and 2013 seasons happen?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 9, 2014 6:10:39 GMT -5
Maybe because he's a terrible pitcher and according to Francona not exactly dedicated to his craft. Wait, what? Francona said that? What's that even supposed to mean? Didn't his 2011 and 2013 seasons happen? Yeah, that's the first I've ever heard of that. Link?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 9, 2014 7:34:34 GMT -5
Bleacher Report isn't its own entity with thoughts, just a publishing mechanism I used to think that too. Then I was shocked by the discovery that Mike Tanier is now "National Lead NFL Writer" for B-R rather than a writer for Sports on Earth. Right. But my point is more that, when reading B-R we should be quoting the individual authors rather than the site itself. "Mike Tanier thinks" or "King Kaufman thinks" carries some weight since they are both bright, serious people - but it doesn't make Johnny Know-Nothing the Rangers fan who just created a login and posted a half-dozen slideshows any more legitimate or knowledgeable than he would be if he did the same thing on blogger. Also, the thing with Masterson not being dedicated is totally the opposite I've heard from every single person on the subject. His reputation is of being one of the most coachable guys out there. Every time Masterson pitched against Boston when Francona was still here, Tito made a point to tell everyone who would listen how much he liked Masterson personally and professionally.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 9, 2014 12:44:38 GMT -5
Wait, what? Francona said that? What's that even supposed to mean? Didn't his 2011 and 2013 seasons happen? Yeah, that's the first I've ever heard of that. Link? I'm sorry. I was reciting from what was probably a faulty interpretation of something I was reading in which I interpreted a comment that meant that he wasn't as dedicated to pitching as much as he had been in the past, but I cannot find where that was from and all I can see when I google Francona and Masterson is that Francona blamed his lack of command, as opposed to an injury, for Masterson's struggles. Either way I wouldn't want to attach any high hopes for the Sox based on an acquisition of Masterson. He'd have to be a heckuva discount. He's kind of up and down sort of the way Buchholz is, and I don't trust Buchholz that much anymore.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 9, 2014 19:54:37 GMT -5
If his mechanics got off kilter, the inability if the pitching coach to fix it tells me it is something major.
|
|
|