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.
Blocked prospects/logjams
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 16, 2014 9:56:34 GMT -5
You're inventing a problem. No team has ever failed because they had too much talent that they didn't know what to do with it. 1. Not all of those players will pan out. Even if they all look great now, a couple will have a flaw that is exposed in the high minors or majors, and it's more than likely that injuries will appear. 2. Trades. Getting off topic now, but where is Betts playing? It is a problem already.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 16, 2014 10:48:57 GMT -5
You're inventing a problem. No team has ever failed because they had too much talent that they didn't know what to do with it. 1. Not all of those players will pan out. Even if they all look great now, a couple will have a flaw that is exposed in the high minors or majors, and it's more than likely that injuries will appear. 2. Trades. Exactly. Prospects are like stocks. The key is knowing when to sell and when to hold.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 16, 2014 10:52:50 GMT -5
You're inventing a problem. No team has ever failed because they had too much talent that they didn't know what to do with it. 1. Not all of those players will pan out. Even if they all look great now, a couple will have a flaw that is exposed in the high minors or majors, and it's more than likely that injuries will appear. 2. Trades. Exactly. Prospects are like stocks. The key is knowing when to sell and when to hold. That was exactly what I was saying, so I'm not sure where the disagreement lies. There is a logjam, so something has got to give - meaning trades.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 16, 2014 10:54:13 GMT -5
You're inventing a problem. No team has ever failed because they had too much talent that they didn't know what to do with it. 1. Not all of those players will pan out. Even if they all look great now, a couple will have a flaw that is exposed in the high minors or majors, and it's more than likely that injuries will appear. 2. Trades. Getting off topic now, but where is Betts playing? It is a problem already. "Against lefties," says the manager. Which is insane. (Spark + Plug)Energy = Success. Ok, maybe that formula's not exact but close in Betts case. All will become clearer when they dump Drew (Manager's Binky#1). But even then, if Victorino ever heals, Betts prob heads back to AAA over Nava/Holt/Bradley - though a case could be made to rotate Betts through RF-CF-LF giving him 4-5 starts a week and working match-ups. But that would also exclude Manager's Binky #1A, Jonny Gomes, so won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 16, 2014 10:55:31 GMT -5
Exactly. Prospects are like stocks. The key is knowing when to sell and when to hold. That was exactly what I was saying, so I'm not sure where the disagreement lies. There is a logjam, so something has got to give - meaning trades. Sometimes added comments aren't disagreement. Sometimes they are validation that you are, in fact, very wise on a particular point. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 16, 2014 10:59:11 GMT -5
It's only a problem because desperation made it one. Betts should be learning how to play the outfield in Pawtucket, but the team was on its last legs, so they called up a guy who is not ready defensively. Besides, that's more of a roster crunch in the outfield than one in the infield.
If Betts mostly plays outfield next year, there's not much of a problem even if no trades are made. Xander/Holt/Middlebrooks in Boston, Cecchini/Marrero/Coyle in Pawtucket-- that's plenty of playing time for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 16, 2014 10:59:51 GMT -5
That was exactly what I was saying, so I'm not sure where the disagreement lies. There is a logjam, so something has got to give - meaning trades. Sometimes added comments aren't disagreement. Sometimes they are validation that you are, in fact, very wise on a particular point. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) My response was more for James in response to my inventing a problem. Don't think I am. There is a logjam and not everyone can play today. Some of them have to be traded. And it gets worse if we have another offseason more concerned with depth than with what is the best thing to do with our young players.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 16, 2014 11:04:26 GMT -5
It's only a problem because desperation made it one. Betts should be learning how to play the outfield in Pawtucket, but the team was on its last legs, so they called up a guy who is not ready defensively. Besides, that's more of a roster crunch in the outfield than one in the infield. If Betts mostly plays outfield next year, there's not much of a problem even if no trades are made. Xander/Holt/Middlebrooks in Boston, Cecchini/Marrero/Coyle in Pawtucket-- that's plenty of playing time for everyone. So you think we're adding no bats and going with 5 1st or 2nd year players + WMB, excluding pitchers next year? This is kinda why I think we're not contenders in 2015. This doesn't belong here, sorry. When are they promoting Coyle?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 16, 2014 11:21:30 GMT -5
I'm saying that as of right now, there's no logjam and there's plenty of playing time for everyone both this year and next. There may be a logjam if they add external options, but that's always true with every prospect on every team, and something you worry about when it actually happens rather than doing so a year early. True situations where a logjam is severe enough that it meaningfully hurts a player's development are very rare.
Besides, weren't you the one going on about perspective in that other thread? It is always better to have too much talent than to not have enough.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 16, 2014 11:33:11 GMT -5
I'm saying that as of right now, there's no logjam and there's plenty of playing time for everyone both this year and next. There may be a logjam if they add external options, but that's always true with every prospect on every team, and something you worry about when it actually happens rather than doing so a year early. True situations where a logjam is severe enough that it meaningfully hurts a player's development are very rare. Besides, weren't you the one going on about perspective in that other thread? It is always better to have too much talent than to not have enough. It's a great problem to have. I just hope that they are patient and stop panicking with dumb Drew and Sizemore signings. And that Farrell doesn't play Carp and the next Gomes over Betts or sit JBJ for 5 out of 10 games when he's on a tear. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 16, 2014 11:48:45 GMT -5
It's a great problem to have. I just hope that they are patient and stop panicking with dumb Drew and Sizemore signings. And that Farrell doesn't play Carp and the next Gomes over Betts or sit JBJ for 5 out of 10 games when he's on a tear. Etc. There is only one Jonny Gomes, lets be real. No way Farrell comes up with some other guy who can't hit righties to play every day in the outfield, I don't even think we have one. I feel pretty confident Gomes is on his way out in the very near future- maybe that gets Mookie some more playing time. He has been getting into more games recently. Nitpicking, but I don't think it's fair to characterize signing Sizemore as either dumb or a panic move- at the time, I thought it was a good low risk bet on a guy who had a lot of upside, even if he could only get to 75% of what he was. Didn't turn out the way we hoped, but I wouldn't be surprised if he manages to post a few solid years before it's all said and done- won't help us, but it might validate Cherington a little. The Drew signing was a horrible move, and I think they should've realized that from the beginning- adding a guy who missed spring training and the first 2+ months of the season to a lineup where 50% of the hitters can't give us anything like league average production was inexcusably dumb for people who do this for a living. Anyway, as it relates to Coyle, I don't think it becomes an issue unless he goes to Pawtucket and keeps hitting like this- then I don't know how we get them all on the field as things currently stand. But it's also worth remembering that a lot of these guys that are competing for playing time, or will next year, weren't close to the bigs this year- the front office couldn't really consider them depth for the big league team cause they weren't ready. That won't be the case next year, so I think any free agents we sign will be guys to play every day at positions of need and pitching- I would be surprised to see more veteran stop gaps/cheap bets like Sizemore or Drew
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 16, 2014 13:03:16 GMT -5
It's a great problem to have. I just hope that they are patient and stop panicking with dumb Drew and Sizemore signings. And that Farrell doesn't play Carp and the next Gomes over Betts or sit JBJ for 5 out of 10 games when he's on a tear. Etc. Here's my real point: you're being far too unequivocal about this blocked prospect stuff. Literally half of your posts contain some barb about depth and blocking prospects. Yes, sometimes a veteran signing struggles on the field and takes playing time away from a promising young player (2014 Drew, Pierzynski, Sizemore). But the solution is not to trust 100% in prospects-- just as often, they struggle to produce, and you would have been better off adding a veteran safety net (2014 Middlebrooks, a good portion of 2014 Bradley and Bogaerts). Remember, the same criticism was levied against signing Drew last year, as many wanted Iglesias to be the full-time shortstop, but Drew ended up being a crucial piece of a World Series champion, while Iglesias got plenty of playing time anyways and ended up being a valuable trade chip. They're going to add veterans in free agency this year. Just because there's a guy ahead of Coyle (or Betts, or Marrero, or Middlebrooks/Holt) does not mean that it's the end of the world and our prospects are going to languish on the vine. If the prospects are good enough, they're going to force their way up and get the playing time they deserve. Maybe it takes a little longer than you'd like, but it'll happen eventually-- see, for instance, the DFAs of Sizemore and Pierzynski, the move of Doubront to the pen, and the upcoming trades of Peavy and Gomes. Or Bogaerts starting at 3B in the playoffs last year, the trading of Youkilis in 2012, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 16, 2014 16:17:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 16, 2014 19:30:03 GMT -5
It even includes a refutation for Eric's refrain of "moving someone from SS to position X automatically loses Y runs of value, don't do it!" ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 17, 2014 1:09:24 GMT -5
Before I type what I'm about to type, let's try not to stray from the topic because it has topic derailer potential written all over it.
I don't know what the Sox brass will conclude but one thing I'm pretty sure they will think about is moving Pedroia to left field. It has nothing to do with Pedoia's capabilities at second where he's clearly an elite second baseman. Fact is though, Dustin has a 3-4 year history of injuries which haven't kept him out of the lineup but have given plausible explanations of lower than expected production. If we take the reasonable assumption that left field would make Pedroia far less likely to have a minor injury, we have to ask, what's more valuable, Petey as a healthy left fielder or an often times injured second baseman ?
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 17, 2014 2:48:25 GMT -5
Before I type what I'm about to type, let's try not to stray from the topic because it has topic derailer potential written all over it. I don't know what the Sox brass will conclude but one thing I'm pretty sure they will think about is moving Pedroia to left field. It has nothing to do with Pedoia's capabilities at second where he's clearly an elite second baseman. Fact is though, Dustin has a 3-4 year history of injuries which haven't kept him out of the lineup but have given plausible explanations of lower than expected production. If we take the reasonable assumption that left field would make Pedroia far less likely to have a minor injury, we have to ask, what's more valuable, Petey as a healthy left fielder or an often times injured second baseman ? Phew, I'd say the latter... It's not a given Dustin gets his power back and playing that at lf seems just problematic. At 2B his defense alone makes him a valuable player... Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 17, 2014 3:36:41 GMT -5
Before I type what I'm about to type, let's try not to stray from the topic because it has topic derailer potential written all over it. I don't know what the Sox brass will conclude but one thing I'm pretty sure they will think about is moving Pedroia to left field. It has nothing to do with Pedoia's capabilities at second where he's clearly an elite second baseman. Fact is though, Dustin has a 3-4 year history of injuries which haven't kept him out of the lineup but have given plausible explanations of lower than expected production. If we take the reasonable assumption that left field would make Pedroia far less likely to have a minor injury, we have to ask, what's more valuable, Petey as a healthy left fielder or an often times injured second baseman ? Phew, I'd say the latter... It's not a given Dustin gets his power back and playing that at lf seems just problematic. At 2B his defense alone makes him a valuable player... Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk Can't disagree with that logic at all but the question wasn't which increases Pedroia's value more, it was what has more value meaning value to the team. Betts is no slouch at 2B. It can't be viewed in a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 17, 2014 5:16:18 GMT -5
It seems that every year recently we have discussions about roster crunches. Either logjams with "too many prospects" or the 40 man -Rule 5 "issue".
Never once, that I can recall, has the team lost someone anyone really cared about to the a Rule 5. And never once, have there been too many good players to play.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 17, 2014 5:19:43 GMT -5
Pedey is NOT moving positions. His real value comes as a second baseman. His bat has ALWAYS been over-rated and it's certainly not good enough that you want to be trying to protect it with a move to left field. He's arguably the worst offensive MVP ever. At this point he's a solid singles hitter. At his peak, he was a very good singles/doubles guy who could steal som bases and pop a few home runs.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 17, 2014 9:26:02 GMT -5
Pedey is NOT moving positions. His real value comes as a second baseman. His bat has ALWAYS been over-rated and it's certainly not good enough that you want to be trying to protect it with a move to left field. He's arguably the worst offensive MVP ever. At this point he's a solid singles hitter. At his peak, he was a very good singles/doubles guy who could steal som bases and pop a few home runs. Which is exactly what everyone thought he was, his bat hasn't been overrated until this year. Arguably the worst offensive MVP ever? Can't agree with that, look at his MVP year: .326/.376/.493, 17 hrs, 20 SB. It's not A-Rod's 2007 or one of Cabrera's last couple years, but that's a pretty impressive season, and I guarantee you can find at least 10 worse seasons by MVP winners. His 2011 season was also MVP worthy offensively. Until about a year or two ago, he was definitely the 2nd best hitting 2b in the majors at any rate. Definitely agree that he shouldn't be moved off 2b though
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 17, 2014 10:25:40 GMT -5
It seems that every year recently we have discussions about roster crunches. Either logjams with "too many prospects" or the 40 man -Rule 5 "issue". Never once, that I can recall, has the team lost someone anyone really cared about to the a Rule 5. And never once, have there been too many good players to play. It seems that right now, people are complaining that either Betts or JBJ is on the bench or that RDLR or Workman is in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 17, 2014 12:02:20 GMT -5
Arguably the worst offensive MVP ever? I guarantee you can find at least 10 worse seasons by MVP winners. What do you want to bet you can't? Don't "guarantee" stuff, spend a few seconds to find an example. Until you find one, I'm going to argue every point you make until your ears bleed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 17, 2014 12:22:24 GMT -5
Going by wRC+
Ichiro in 2001 Ivan Rodriguez in 1999 Zoilo Versalles in 1965 Dick Groat in 1960 Nellie Fox in 1959 Yogi Berra in 1955 Phil Rizzuto in 1950 Jimmy Rollins in 2007 Andre Dawson in 1987 Maury Wills in 1962
There's 10 and not even close to looking hard.
|
|
|
Post by caseytins on Jul 17, 2014 12:46:15 GMT -5
I don't feel as though this is anything to worry about at this point. Prospects are "prospects". If this were to be considered a problem, it's a good problem to have. Personally, I think Mookie can pretty much play anywhere on the diamond - same thing with Holt. LF in Fenway does not require a stereotype "outfielder", and we are still working with a DH (which I believe should not have to be confined to a player that cannot field). Let it play out, continue to develop these assets, and it will all work out..
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 18, 2014 6:13:07 GMT -5
It seems that every year recently we have discussions about roster crunches. Either logjams with "too many prospects" or the 40 man -Rule 5 "issue". Never once, that I can recall, has the team lost someone anyone really cared about to the a Rule 5. And never once, have there been too many good players to play. It seems that right now, people are complaining that either Betts or JBJ is on the bench or that RDLR or Workman is in the minors. Yea... Neither are really log jams the Way people talk about log jams. Betts or JBjr are losing ABs to Gomes, Carp or Nava 3 guys who aren't longterm parts of the future. Just bad managing. Ruby and Workman will both be in the rotation once Peavy is traded so that is about to be solved. A log jam is when too many good and/or young talented players block one another.
|
|
|