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.
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Sept 6, 2014 2:00:11 GMT -5
Call me crazy but I rather have Cespedes, Betts and any of the other prospects that would go for Stanton or any Left Fielder not named Manny Ramirez. Just waiting for the spreadsheet mafia to tell me why I'm wrong now. Going to be an interesting offseason. I'm hoping like hell that the plan includes carving out a consistent job in Boston for Mookie. He'll struggle at some point - this year has taught me that if nothing else - but he looks pretty special. Craig is the big concern at the moment. Just a lost year for him at this point. Hopefully that's all it turns out to be. There exists a potential future in which he's a $10M backup corner OF/1B/DH who provides no significant positive value either offensively or defensively, and that's pretty scary.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 6, 2014 6:00:45 GMT -5
Call me crazy but I rather have Cespedes, Betts and any of the other prospects that would go for Stanton or any Left Fielder not named Manny Ramirez. Just waiting for the spreadsheet mafia to tell me why I'm wrong now. Going to be an interesting offseason. I'm hoping like hell that the plan includes carving out a consistent job in Boston for Mookie. He'll struggle at some point - this year has taught me that if nothing else - but he looks pretty special. Craig is the big concern at the moment. Just a lost year for him at this point. Hopefully that's all it turns out to be. There exists a potential future in which he's a $10M backup corner OF/1B/DH who provides no significant positive value either offensively or defensively, and that's pretty scary. There's a looming future where he has no logical spot on the roster as soon as next year, and that's terrifying. There are a lot of scenarios* where they either have to give Nava's spot as the backup corner OF / 1B to Craig and hope it's not a downgrade, or just eat the contract (especially since in most of those scenarios, Bradley and Cecchini are in Pawtucket hoping to prove that that bench job should be theirs.) *Cespedes in LF, Castillo in CF, trade for Heyward with Mookie at 3B, or Mookie in RF; Victorino as one backup, with Bradley called up whenever he's hurt.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 6, 2014 8:16:28 GMT -5
If we extend that planning horizon just a little bit further, to two years, there are a lot of open questions that suggest caution. The contracts for Napoli, Victorino, and Cespedes are all up. I really hope Craig is not a sunk cost at this point, but he's making so little contact that it has to be a bit sobering to the front office. If he's still the downer he is right now, he's not a serious piece either. That punches quite a few holes in the roster, just about all of them right handed. So shedding young right handed bats makes less sense, unless it's to get a few of those back in return. But those are in very short supply at this point.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 6, 2014 12:51:28 GMT -5
Potential solver involves Cespedes to RF, Betts sticking in CF and Castillo to LF, or switch Castillo/Cespedes. Spring training can give both a chance to learn the positions before the season starts if it's Cespedes in RF.
The team can sit, or eat on a contract of Victorino with his way negative value and send Nava down until he's moved. Having the best 3 out there should not begin by sending betts to Pawtucket because they owe a small fortune to a combined Victorino/Craig.
Making it worse, what to do after, or during ST with the Cespedes contract. Do they start negotiating then? Norm has a good point. On the market, he could possibly get 100m.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 6, 2014 13:26:50 GMT -5
The Sox should give Cepedes the $100M in a deal this winter. There isn't another player available who can give the Sox what he does.
I don't think there is a problem in the OF. The OF next year, barring revelations in ST, will be Cespedes, Castillo and Betts. JBJ also will be in the mix, but I think he would have to hit about .500 in ST to avoid starting the season at Pawtucket - assuming he isn't traded during the winter.
I have a feeling that neither Craig, nor Victorino, will be with the team when the regular season starts next year.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Sept 6, 2014 13:28:54 GMT -5
Victorino with his way negative value Victorino provided 5.6 WAR last year, and he is getting paid like a 2 WAR player. It's possible that he has negative value next year but it doesn't seem very likely.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Sept 6, 2014 13:33:42 GMT -5
Victorino with his way negative value Victorino provided 5.6 WAR last year, and he is getting paid like a 2 WAR player. It's possible that he has negative value next year but it doesn't seem very likely. So with this year in other words ... he is about break even for his contract and he needs to be better next year for someone else?
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 6, 2014 13:38:00 GMT -5
Victorino with his way negative value Victorino provided 5.6 WAR last year, and he is getting paid like a 2 WAR player. It's possible that he has negative value next year but it doesn't seem very likely. Negative value from playing less than 1/3 of a season and -0- from July on. That would give negative value on a guy who is due nearly 14m and entering his age 34 season with the skill set Victorino has. It's nothing personal against him, I like the guy also, but you have to look at what it would take to move him and would any team be willing to take any of his salary, even 10-12m and give up the barest minimal type prospect ATM in order to save the current OF of Betts/Cespedes/Castillo as hoped by some of us and save the projected savings? I can't think any team would, unless Victorino could get onto a MLB field over a consistent period and perform, which would defeat the purpose of having probably Betts out there all along.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 6, 2014 13:40:18 GMT -5
Lotta people here are big on sell low strategies. Usually works out about as well as it sounds.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 6, 2014 13:46:02 GMT -5
Victorino provided 5.6 WAR last year, and he is getting paid like a 2 WAR player. It's possible that he has negative value next year but it doesn't seem very likely. So with this year in other words ... he is about break even for his contract and he needs to be better next year for someone else? So, save this one for next April when you may be complaining about Betts not being on the 25 man roster because the team kept Victorino? Sometimes you have to break a little glass. Can't always have it both ways. Get rid of contracts, even if you know the guy has some life left in him, like Victorino does. Just move him (in this case) to the NL.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 6, 2014 13:51:23 GMT -5
Lotta people here are big on sell low strategies. Usually works out about as well as it sounds. I'm going to stop on this one because have been posting like a machine gunner Guidas. Just post one name as a guy to look up and stop on "sell low strategies" to clear a spot for young kids.. Carney Lansford. Check 'em out..
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 6, 2014 14:03:40 GMT -5
Lotta people here are big on sell low strategies. Usually works out about as well as it sounds. I assume you are referring to Victorino? What are the alternatives? 1. Keep him and give him one of the five outfield spots. Which means you would have to: a. Sell low on Craig. b. Sell Nava and have 5 righties in the OF. c. Sell Cespedes and weaken the starters. d. Sell/start Mookie in the minors and weaken the starters. You can't count on him as one of your top 3 OFers. He doesn't make sense as the 4th OFer with 3 righties ahead of him. He could possibly make sense as the 5th outfielder, but that would also involve selling low on Craig. He also isn't critical in that role because Betts, Castillo, and Holt are all capable of playing CF and Cespedes, Craig, Nava, Betts, Castillo, and Holt can all play right. It makes more sense to hold on Craig because if he does bounce back he is likely to replace either Cespedes or Napoli in 2016. Victorino has no value beyond next year. So with that said, what do you suppose we do? I know jmei has mentioned trading Cespedes and I agree with him that of the above options that makes the most sense assuming you can get a starter back for him, but I think dumping Victorino is the better option, since I don't like the idea of weakening the top 3 OF spots.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 6, 2014 14:27:27 GMT -5
Victorino with his way negative value Victorino provided 5.6 WAR last year, and he is getting paid like a 2 WAR player. It's possible that he has negative value next year but it doesn't seem very likely. Given that he's only been a 2 war player 1 out of the last 4 years...it's more possible than you think. The guy has been hamstrung by his hamstring. If Castillo shows anything...I'd rather keep him as an expensive 4th outfielder/potential trade deadline tradebait..than have the others lose their at-bats because of him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 6, 2014 14:33:05 GMT -5
I was just coming to post about trading Cespedes rather than trading Victorino. Specifically, I think Victorino fits in great as the fourth/fifth outfielder. No, as a RHH, he couldn't be platooned with any of the starters, but he's great Castillo/Betts insurance and would also be useful as a pinch runner/defensive replacement. Plus, there's a good chance that finally fixing his back eliminates a lot of his health problems, and when healthy, he almost certainly represents surplus value over his salary.
RE: trading Cespedes would weaken the starting outfield-- I'm not sure it weakens it that much, and I think he would return a pretty impressive haul. I think the difference between Cespedes in LF and Nava/Craig in LF is more than made up for by what you'd get in return for Cespedes (think someone like Latos or Leake, who would significant upgrade the rotation).
My main worries with keeping Victorino around as a reserve outfielder are that (a) if he's healthy, Farrell will start him over Betts even though Betts projects as the better player, and (b) even if Farrell does make him a reserve outfielder, he may not be happy about losing playing time to a rookie and will grouse about it. If it were fantasy baseball, I'd easily move Cespedes rather than sell low on Victorino, but given the two above factors, I'll admit that they should at least explore moving Victorino instead.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 6, 2014 14:39:53 GMT -5
Selling low on Craig might be better than holding onto him and having him not contributing anything. I view it as similar to holding onto Sizemore too long and sending Nava to the minors just in case Sizemore turned it around. So there is lost opportunity costs when you're holding onto terrible players taking up spots on the 25-man. I'm more confident in Victorino than Craig next year. And you could keep Victorino rested by putting him in the Gomes role.
But really, two outfielders need to go if they want Betts to have a place to play. I have a feeling he'll be in AAA with JBJ and WMB because I think the takeaway this year is going to be that they will want the young players to force their way into the lineup and not just be counted on from day one with some half-***ed backup plans like Sizemore and signing Drew in May.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 6, 2014 14:51:00 GMT -5
I pulled this paragraph from a posting of mine on the 2015 roster thread:
Currently, in the American league there are nine hitters above .300 and only 13 above .290. There are only 21 with 20 or more HRs and only 20 with OPS above .800. In the National League there are eight hitters above .300 and 17 above .289. There are only 17 with 20 or more HRs and only 23 with OPS above .800.
Unless Cespedes is signed to an extension, what kind of haul would he really get in a trade? He would be a one season rental. I don't think the Sox would get equivalent value, and if they don't, then the team is weakened for a long time.
There are so few hitters like Cespedes that the odds of getting another are really low. Hitting is enormously valuable now, the most valuable it has been in a generation, especially reliable high-impact hitting. It is doubly important for the Sox to keep Cespedes because Ortiz is going to run down before too much longer.
Victorino will be 34 in November. He has played one full season, 2013, in the last four. He had back surgery, but that was not the only problem he was suffering. I think he could be a fine 4th OF if he is healthy, but - and I hope I am wrong - I doubt he will play a full season next year. I just don't see how he can be counted in any plan. And since he will be gone after last year in any case, it makes no sense to keep him at the expense of someone who could be a factor in future years.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 6, 2014 14:52:00 GMT -5
We have a logjam in the OF but that often solves itself. I'm not so sure Betts or Castillo wouldn't be fine at 3rd. But the absolute first thing I would do is make a solid offer to Cespedes, who is a great fit. Considering everything, they should be able to extend Cespedes. And 5 - 6 years doesn't bother me. He's in great shape and a solid value. I'm not so sure it would take $100 mil. Seems like $85 - $90 mil would give us 5 years I would think. And his numbers and fit should be good in Fenway. If not, a probable replacement is sitting right there in Castillo. We are in a position of negotiating strength with Cespedes. We can let him walk if the demands are excessive.
If he doesn't take the deal regretably trade Cespedes this winter. He will then be a rental for just about any team but who would be be a better fit for him then Fenway? Very few teams I would think. He should be extendable. That was a great trade as far as I can see.
But what if Cespedes takes the deal.In that instance we are probably going to have to eat a contract or 2 or sell low. I'm not trading Betts. Just not going to do it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 6, 2014 14:55:13 GMT -5
Selling low on Craig might be better than holding onto him and having him not contributing anything. I view it as similar to holding onto Sizemore too long and sending Nava to the minors just in case Sizemore turned it around. So there is lost opportunity costs when you're holding onto terrible players taking up spots on the 25-man. I'm more confident in Victorino than Craig next year. And you could keep Victorino rested by putting him in the Gomes role. But really, two outfielders need to go if they want Betts to have a place to play. I have a feeling he'll be in AAA with JBJ and WMB because I think the takeaway this year is going to be that they will want the young players to force their way into the lineup and not just be counted on from day one with some half-***ed backup plans like Sizemore and signing Drew in May. No, only one outfielder needs to go to open up a full-time starting spot for Betts. They have six names (Cespedes, Castillo, Betts, Nava, Craig, Victorino) for five spots, and Betts is easily penciled into the starting RF spot no matter which of the other five is moved. They could also easily enter Spring Training with the six outfielders with the idea that they'll whittle it down to five by the start of the season. There are myriad ways that could happen-- an injury puts someone on the DL, Castillo or Betts turns out to need seasoning in the majors, or they make a trade at the end of Spring Training (for instance, once Victorino has proven that he's healthy). Regardless, it's way, way too early to be kvetching about logjams already.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 6, 2014 15:04:45 GMT -5
Selling low on Craig might be better than holding onto him and having him not contributing anything. I view it as similar to holding onto Sizemore too long and sending Nava to the minors just in case Sizemore turned it around. So there is lost opportunity costs when you're holding onto terrible players taking up spots on the 25-man. I'm more confident in Victorino than Craig next year. And you could keep Victorino rested by putting him in the Gomes role. But really, two outfielders need to go if they want Betts to have a place to play. I have a feeling he'll be in AAA with JBJ and WMB because I think the takeaway this year is going to be that they will want the young players to force their way into the lineup and not just be counted on from day one with some half-***ed backup plans like Sizemore and signing Drew in May. Is that really the take-away from this year? I think "going into the season with a bunch of question marks assuming one of them will work out maybe isn't a good idea" is a better takeaway. Cespedes (with all his flaws) is a relatively known commodity. Allen Craig and Shane Victorino, with what they have been through this year, are not. Castillo is not. I don't like the idea of going into next season with Castillo, Victorino, and Craig all on the roster because the bust potential is just too high. The upside is significant, but in terms of 2015 production, they are all huge unknowns. Do we really want Betts to be our second most sure thing in the outfield behind Nava? There is value to certainty (to the extent there can be certainty). I think the debate really comes down to Craig or Victorino. Victorino is probably the better fit for 2015 due to advantage with base running and defense. Craig's ability to play 1st isn't a big advantage with Nava and Holt able to fill in there. But Craig's long-term upside is higher. If he did figure it out he's the perfect guy to have signed post-2015. I also think he would be the injury replacement for 5 spots, so the odds he gets playing time are decent. And if he does happen to look like his old self in spring training there is always the possibility of stashing Betts in AAA for a bit.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 6, 2014 15:08:38 GMT -5
There are so few hitters like Cespedes that the odds of getting another are really low. Hitting is enormously valuable now, the most valuable it has been in a generation, especially reliable high-impact hitting. It is doubly important for the Sox to keep Cespedes because Ortiz is going to run down before too much longer. You're overrating Cespedes' bat. He's a good hitter, but far from a transcendental one. He's got a 115 wRC+ this year with the Red Sox, a 115 wRC+ this year as a whole, and a career 117 wRC+ (that's a stat which accurately weighs the relative contributions of OBP and slugging, where 100 is league-average). That's good, but far from great-- it compares to the 2012-2014 offensive production of guys like Starling Marte (118 wRC+), Matt Joyce (116 wRC+), Andre Ethier (115 wRC+), and Brett Gardener (115 wRC+). Over the past three years, Allen Craig has a 118 wRC+ and Daniel Nava has a 112 wRC+, so a Craig/Nava platoon may well approximate Cespedes' offensive production (though they are worse defenders and thus likely represent worse overall production; Craig may also not be a great bet to perform similar to his 2012-14 self in 2015).
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Sept 6, 2014 15:08:35 GMT -5
Selling low on Craig might be better than holding onto him and having him not contributing anything. I view it as similar to holding onto Sizemore too long and sending Nava to the minors just in case Sizemore turned it around. So there is lost opportunity costs when you're holding onto terrible players taking up spots on the 25-man. I'm more confident in Victorino than Craig next year. And you could keep Victorino rested by putting him in the Gomes role. But really, two outfielders need to go if they want Betts to have a place to play. I have a feeling he'll be in AAA with JBJ and WMB because I think the takeaway this year is going to be that they will want the young players to force their way into the lineup and not just be counted on from day one with some half-***ed backup plans like Sizemore and signing Drew in May. No, only one outfielder needs to go to open up a full-time starting spot for Betts. They have six names (Cespedes, Castillo, Betts, Nava, Craig, Victorino) for five spots, and Betts is easily penciled into the starting RF spot no matter which of the other five is moved. They could also easily enter Spring Training with the six outfielders with the idea that they'll whittle it down to five by the start of the season. There are myriad ways that could happen-- an injury puts someone on the DL, Castillo or Betts turns out to need seasoning in the majors, or they make a trade at the end of Spring Training (for instance, once Victorino has proven that he's healthy). Regardless, it's way, way too early to be kvetching about logjams already. To me what they better worry about is having one lefty in Nava who it seems everyone wants to trade. With the mix of fielders plus Holt than Nava might just service as they have to have at least one outfield lefty (off the bench anyway). Seems as though out of all the talk no one wants to look at that aspect.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 6, 2014 15:16:02 GMT -5
No, only one outfielder needs to go to open up a full-time starting spot for Betts. They have six names (Cespedes, Castillo, Betts, Nava, Craig, Victorino) for five spots, and Betts is easily penciled into the starting RF spot no matter which of the other five is moved. They could also easily enter Spring Training with the six outfielders with the idea that they'll whittle it down to five by the start of the season. There are myriad ways that could happen-- an injury puts someone on the DL, Castillo or Betts turns out to need seasoning in the majors, or they make a trade at the end of Spring Training (for instance, once Victorino has proven that he's healthy). Regardless, it's way, way too early to be kvetching about logjams already. To me what they better worry about is having one lefty in Nava who it seems everyone wants to trade. With the mix of fielders plus Holt than Nava might just service as they have to have at least one outfield lefty (off the bench anyway). Seems as though out of all the talk no one wants to look at that aspect. Nava as the only lefty has been mentioned, so it is being talked about. I think Nava as the 4th outfielder is one of the better bets in this conversation. What I think will happen in order of confidence: 1. Castillo will be one of the three starting outfielders. 2. Nava will be one of the five outfielders. 3. Cespedes will be one of the three starting outfielders. 4. Betts will be one of the three starting outfielders. 5. Craig will be one of the five outfielders. 6. Victorino will be one of the five outfielders.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Sept 6, 2014 15:25:40 GMT -5
The Sox should give Cepedes the $100M in a deal this winter. There isn't another player available who can give the Sox what he does. Outs in 70% of his plate appearances?
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Sept 6, 2014 15:27:18 GMT -5
Would love to see Betts/JBJ start at AAA and let them force their way onto the team. Craig/Cespedes/Vic all prob easier to trade in July, for various reasons.
I'm all for letting 2015 play out like 2013-4. Don't do anything stupid long term, and maybe you get lucky, maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 6, 2014 15:34:57 GMT -5
By the way, I'm not sure Cespedes is so easily extended. Guys a year away from free agency are often unwilling to take a below-market extension-- see what it took to sign Homer Bailey and the inability to extend guys like Lester and Scherzer. In my mind, he's more a one-year rental than a long-term solution in LF.
|
|
|