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.
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 6, 2014 22:33:44 GMT -5
Think what you are suggesting getting in return is approximate to 2-3x as much as they gave up, that is half a season of a #2 and getting (in a Latos type) 2 full seasons of something that is nearly the same. I can't see a team giving up that much talent, even if Boston sweetened the pot by including of the Pawsox pitchers, say Workman, Ranaudo, Wright. None of the others, but one of those 3 or adding Middlebrooks also. My 2c. You might have other thoughts? I'd be curious to hear what are thinking of a possible Latos/Cespedes. Have thought of him, much more than Hamels, who would be very difficult with the contrary Amaro. This is more a question for the trade proposal subforum, but I think Cespedes and one of Workman or Ranaudo would be enough to get Latos. Latos struggled with injuries this year, and didn't perform as well when he was on the field. I think he and Cespedes are both likely to be three to three and a half win-ish players next year, which makes exchanging them seem like it could work. The addition of Workman/Ranaudo is meant to make up for the fact that Latos can receive a QO but Cespedes can't. Alternatively, maybe Cespedes for Mike Leake straight-up. I've always liked Leake, and he's made big strides this year. Right on with Meta forum. Feel free to cause am going to add more names have ran thru my head and watched during the season.. Why not Tyson Ross? Padres aren't known to be big spenders. He's arbitration eligible, coming off 2.0m, already losing Kennedy after another Jeckyl/Hyde season by him. Boston has the near MLB pitching that is middle of the rotation for most parks, that in San Diego we know means better. San Diego needs a 3b, OF. Wonder if a package if enough kids and veterans with subsidy pay could work it out somehow?
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Sept 6, 2014 22:46:16 GMT -5
I started a thread for discussing trading Cespedes in the trade proposal forum.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 6, 2014 22:59:12 GMT -5
The 2015 outfielder should be cespedes in left, betts in center and victorino in right with Castillo as the fourth outfielder/ part time centerfielder or right fielder.
I think we can sell high on holt, move nava and Craig as part of a bigger trade(s) and stash Bradley at Pawtucket.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 6, 2014 23:32:21 GMT -5
This is not magic, and it's no more about obscure numbers than tomorrow's weather is John. Baseball isn't football. It's played over a 162 game season. After a few of those seasons you have plenty of information - more than enough to know what you're looking at. The weighted on base average takes into account how often players get on base, how hard they hit the ball when they make contact - that stuff you like so much - and where they do their damage. It correlates cleanly with the runs a player brings to a team and runs mean wins. It really is that simple. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. This isn't voodoo, it's baseball in 2014.
Cespedes has a value, certainly, but it isn't a gut feeling, it's backed by his performance, and we know what that is. As for Trumbo, I've watched him play dozens of games. He would drive you and everyone on this board nuts. He's like the big brother Middlebrook picked up all the bad habits from.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 7, 2014 1:12:23 GMT -5
This is not magic, and it's no more about obscure numbers than tomorrow's weather is John. Baseball isn't football. It's played over a 162 game season. After a few of those seasons you have plenty of information - more than enough to know what you're looking at. The weighted on base average takes into account how often players get on base, how hard they hit the ball when they make contact - that stuff you like so much - and where they do their damage. It correlates cleanly with the runs a player brings to a team and runs mean wins. It really is that simple. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. This isn't voodoo, it's baseball in 2014. Cespedes has a value, certainly, but it isn't a gut feeling, it's backed by his performance, and we know what that is. As for Trumbo, I've watched him play dozens of games. He would drive you and everyone on this board nuts. He's like the big brother Middlebrook picked up all the bad habits from. Yet Trumbo was consistently driving you/me, the fans nuts and putting up the same numbers, the same with Pedro Alvarez (LH however) vs Middlebrooks, who has only done that in 2 extremely limited streaks over what amounts to 3 partial seasons. Trumbo, Alvarez both have managed to produce runs for their respective teams. Have watched both also and you are 100% correct it can be brutal watching both when they get into funks and both do and it happens in long streaks, kind of like Gomes used to when he played for the Rays and once K'd 18 of 20AB's once (remember that streak). Difference is that as I mentioned. Trumbo has that sought after track record. He HAS put together 3 consistent seasons in a row of production and it cannot be denied. Middlebrooks has never, ever put together anything but a handful (several weeks) of production together. Anyone saying injuries have derailed his development, lost time.. It is irelevant. No matter. He still has never done it and until he manages to put together at least 2 full seasons? He will be an unproven talent, just like Dominic Brown, Josh Reddick, etc. Cespedes has that track record, same as Trumbo with defense. Should Reddick ever manage to get his health together and cease hammering his body into immobile walls, think he could have a chance to join that list of excellent free swinging and the best defensive of the lot power hitters. Lastly.. Understand Norm it's all based on opinions and mean no offense towards anyone if any of my posts seem that way. As for based on voodoo and totally based on facts? Of course it is. The advent of all the modern stats makes the game more confusing towards analyzing players has always been my gripe as have posted here before and started that thingie several years back. Quick rehash and if this needs deleting, please guys do it as have no intentions of offending anyone: I was taught to read players many years ago by Joe Dobson, Joe Morgan, George Digby whaen he was around Winter Haven, and the guy who spent the most time with me in patience.. Rac Slider. I'd get there well before games, or on days they had extended workouts with Rac and he'd go into extensive detail when guys were in the cage with me on everything somebody would need to know on swings, habits the hitter was doing wrong, then with the pitcher if one was getting his work in. Joe would do the same thing during spring training. Rac introduced me to him during the '71 season. Most of those numbers being thrown around never existed.. Hitches, location, break. That was all that mattered. Have learned to add some of the newer stats in, but all of this is just bloody confusing and can't see where it means more than a guys habits I honestly think learned more from 2 days work of watching the GCL Sox from eyes on than some numbers. Guys, hope didn't make you mad at me. Just 2c from an old fart.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 7, 2014 3:23:45 GMT -5
This is apparently the current plan.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 7, 2014 9:00:45 GMT -5
Those scouting techniques were valuable, they still are, but they left hall of famers like Wade Boggs and Edgar Martinez sitting in the minors. And the better metrics FOs use these days would have identified guys like Dwight Evans and Bobby Grich for the great players they were.
Look, I regularly use my eyeballs to pick stuff up. I haven't bothered posting on the Betts thread for a while because I'm done. He has just about the fastest bat on the team, very good discipline, and he makes excellent contact. He's going to be a very good, maybe great, player. But when a guy has 2000+ at bats, I'd be foolish not to evaluate him on the performance he's shown also. wOBA is just about the best shorthand number for doing that.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 8, 2014 5:18:32 GMT -5
I'll have more to say tomorrow, but I can't get to sleep without posting this observation ...
Do people honestly believe that they won't try Mookie Betts at 3B, when:
A) They don't have a 3B but have five other outfielders B) 2B to 3B is a routine conversion which works the vast majority of the time C) Betts can be 9 runs per 150 games worse defensively at 3B than in RF and still be as valuable to the team, and the team certainly knows this D) Acquiring a 3B would not only cost money and/or talent, but force Betts to the OF without ever trying him at 3B (from A-C, a bleeding-from-the-ears obvious thing to at least try), and block Garin Cecchini, the other excellent in-house long-term 3B candidate ...
... just because Ben Cherington has uncomfortably said some somewhat vague things about not expecting to do this? I mean, wouldn't such a comment need to be backed up by, say, a picogram of sense? And where such vague comments can be credibly ascribed to their not wanting Betts to start thinking now about it, when he's already had to learn three new leagues and two new positions this year?
Or, to put it another way ... would you want to root for a team that stupid?
There's no logjam. Betts at 3B. Cespedes, Castillo, Victorino left to right, with Nava and Craig on the bench. No, you can't count on Shane to be healthy, but that doesn't mean you pencil him in as a reserve unless you have a better RF. If he is healthy, that is clearly the best alignment. You have plenty of options when he isn't healthy; depending on how guys are doing in AAA, you can recall Cecchini and play Betts in RF, or recall Bradley and play Castillo in RF, or worst case platoon Holt (mostly in Fenway), Nava, and Craig (mostly on the road) in RF while recalling whoever seems likely to be most useful.
Now, how to make this even better, that's another post.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 8, 2014 7:03:03 GMT -5
Do people honestly believe that they won't try Mookie Betts at 3B, when: A) They don't have a 3B but have five other outfielders B) 2B to 3B is a routine conversion which works the vast majority of the time C) Betts can be 9 runs per 150 games worse defensively at 3B than in RF and still be as valuable to the team, and the team certainly knows this D) Acquiring a 3B would not only cost money and/or talent, but force Betts to the OF without ever trying him at 3B (from A-C, a bleeding-from-the-ears obvious thing to at least try), and block Garin Cecchini, the other excellent in-house long-term 3B candidate ... Some thoughts: -They don't have a third baseman, but that's the deepest position in position player free agency this year and they have something like $50-60m to spend. They have one extra outfielder, but two of those guys are complete question marks (Victorino and Craig), two are effectively rookies (Castillo and Betts), and another is a sell-high candidate who is a pending free agent and unlikely to sign a long-term extension (Cespedes). -There are questions about Mookie's arm at 3B. You might not think so, but I think so, and the team might think so as well. At the very least, it makes it hard to project him as a plus defender at 3B. -The team has frequently said that they want a center fielder in Fenway's right field, which almost certainly means they've run the numbers and concluded that the normal RF positional adjustment might not apply in Fenway's right field. If there's, say, only a 7 run difference between 3B and FenwayRF, it's incredibly easy to imagine Betts being 7 runs better a defender in RF as compared to 3B, especially since he's gotten a good number of OF reps but never played 3B in his career. Even at 9 runs, it's pretty easy to imagine him being something like a +7 defender in RF and a -2 defender at 3B. Hell, if I were to project it, that's about what I would project for him at each respective position. There's also the fact that moving him to 3B comes with a lot more risk-- it's very possible that he just doesn't take to the position and is a lot worse than a -2 defender there, whereas we can be pretty confident that he'll be an above-average defensive RF. This matters for a front office which is relatively risk-adverse and has seen first-hand the dangers that can come with moving a stud prospect to an unfamiliar defensive position. -Cecchini might not be a good enough defensive 3B or have the bat to stick as a full-time starter (even at 3B). This is a very peripheral concern at best.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 8, 2014 7:53:14 GMT -5
Think where Eric might be getting this from is seeing Bett's throws from CF and from RF so far and thinking his arm strength is good enough for 3b. The loopy throws from the OF are not as hard/accurate as is required by a 3b that is needed sometimes to be thrown flat footed, with little arc and straight to the bag. There isn't a lot to Betts (size wise) and if he was able to take the position switch, as in field it. How much would it wear down his ability to play his "game" in other ways anyway, not even factoring in the throwing, that I have doubts on anyway.
Just another small sized guy. The 5'8 Coyle, with a larger core might be someone better suited if just looking at shorter guys at 3b.
Joe(Moragn) used to never say anything, or say his usual praise of "sweetie" from the cage when Boggs was in the cage during the spring and he was hitting way back. Morgan had this habit of getting under the skin, making it known when guys were taking hacks, looking bad on swings and letting it WELL known. You'd be talking to him about a guy. Maybe the guy in the cage, somebody else and he'd start critiquing the dude LOUD so everybody could hear. It didn't matter if you were next to the cage talking with Joe, outside the backdrop with him, sitting in the dugout.. He'd hammer the guy mercifully until he stopped doing whatever it was. Otis Foster was his favorite target, he of the **40oz** bat. Soon as Otis would stop swinging, go grab a lighter one? Joe would go back to talking normal.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 8, 2014 7:54:53 GMT -5
Do people honestly believe that they won't try Mookie Betts at 3B, when: A) They don't have a 3B but have five other outfielders B) 2B to 3B is a routine conversion which works the vast majority of the time C) Betts can be 9 runs per 150 games worse defensively at 3B than in RF and still be as valuable to the team, and the team certainly knows this D) Acquiring a 3B would not only cost money and/or talent, but force Betts to the OF without ever trying him at 3B (from A-C, a bleeding-from-the-ears obvious thing to at least try), and block Garin Cecchini, the other excellent in-house long-term 3B candidate ... A brief response: -They don't have a third baseman, but that's the deepest position in position player free agency this year and they have something like $50-60m to spend. They have one extra outfielder, but two of those guys are complete question marks (Victorino and Craig), two are effectively rookies (Castillo and Betts), and another is a sell-high candidate who is a pending free agent and unlikely to sign a long-term extension (Cespedes). -There are questions about Mookie's arm at 3B. You might not think so, but I think so, and the team might think so as well. At the very least, it makes it hard to project him as a plus defender at 3B. -The team has frequently said that they want a center fielder in Fenway's right field, which almost certainly means they've run the numbers and concluded that the normal RF positional adjustment might not apply in Fenway's right field. If there's, say, only a 7 run difference between 3B and FenwayRF, it's incredibly easy to imagine Betts being 7 runs better a defender in RF as compared to 3B, especially since he's gotten a good number of OF reps but never played 3B in his career. Even at 9 runs, it's pretty easy to imagine him being something like a +7 defender in RF and a -2 defender at 3B. Hell, if I were to project it, that's about what I would project for him at each respective position. There's also the fact that moving him to 3B comes with a lot more risk-- it's very possible that he just doesn't take to the position and is a lot worse than a -2 defender there, whereas we can be pretty confident that he'll be an above-average defensive RF. This matters for a front office which is relatively risk-adverse and has seen first-hand the dangers that can come with moving a stud prospect to an unfamiliar defensive position. -Cecchini might not be a good enough defensive 3B or have the bat to stick as a full-time starter (even at 3B). This is a very peripheral concern at best. You might still think Mookie at 3B makes sense, but you should probably stop calling it a no-brainer and that anyone who disagrees is stupid. There are legitimate concerns about whether moving Betts to 3B is the best use of his prodigious skills. This is an excellent argument for why Mookie might now work at 3B. I don't disagree with any of it. Mookie ultimately as a RF instead of a 3B is not what I'm calling stupid. It might even be somewhat more likely. Never even trying Mookie at 3B, not even for an inning, not even in ST, is what I'm calling stupid. (I guess it's easy to read "try Mookie at 3B" as "play Mookie at 3B," but if I meant the latter, I would have said the latter.) I mean, really, impossibly stupid. Maybe you were in high school and you heard some reports that the girl you had a huge crush on and whom you thought was out of your league actually dug you. It would not be stupid in the least to think that the reports might somehow be in error. In fact, that's a good thought to have, so you don't get your hopes up. But it would be impossibly stupid not to ask her out, and find out.
That's all I'm saying and all I'm asking. Actually find out if Mookie can play 3B or not, by, you know, trying it. As opposed to proceeding as if you know he can't. Because if he can play 3B, that's a huge boon. It may even be a huge boon if he plays it merely adequately for a year, or even half a year, and then goes to RF to make way for Cecchini ... versus investing a lot of money and perhaps a draft pick in a player who may well turn out not as good as the better of the two of them. I don't buy the argument that they can't afford to find out in ST or by May that he is, after all, not a 3B. That wouldn't ruin the season, since Holt would be perfectly OK there as a stopgap, even for a year. And, in fact, that Cherington said "if that happens, it will happen in ST" suggests that they think the same thing; he has never said they have decided to never try Mookie at 3B, and if they thought they needed to find out whether he could play it this year, they would have. What it looks like is that 3B is still an option of some sort, and they may try it next ST. That's what he said (initially). Now, it's possible that Plan A is to sign or trade for a 3B at a price they really like and that Mookie at 3B next ST is just a plan B. If that's the case, though, you can certainly hope that the price they really like is one we'd regard as somewhat of a steal. The point about learning their lesson about shifting a kid to an unfamiliar position is a good one, but it is of course not a reason to avoid a new position tryout in ST -- it is, in fact, a reason to defer it until ST, as they would be doing (if it happens at all). A final thought: given how many chances they've given WMB at 3B, does a preemptive strike to block Betts and Cecchini from ever getting any kind of chance there seem like their M.O.? I sure hope not.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 8, 2014 8:08:06 GMT -5
Think where Eric might be getting this from is seeing Bett's throws from CF and from RF so far and thinking his arm strength is good enough for 3b. The loopy throws from the OF are not as hard/accurate as is required by a 3b that is needed sometimes to be thrown flat footed, with little arc and straight to the bag. There isn't a lot to Betts (size wise) and if he was able to take the position switch, as in field it. How much would it wear down his ability to play his "game" in other ways anyway, not even factoring in the throwing, that I have doubts on anyway. Yeah, this is where I'm at, too. The low, hard, accurate throws you have to make at 3B are just so different from airing it out from the outfield, and we know he struggled with making the longer SS throws a few years ago. Maybe that's changed, but it's reason to be pessimistic about how good he'd be at 3B, and that's reason to lean against trying him there at 3B.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 8, 2014 8:24:31 GMT -5
That's all I'm saying and all I'm asking. Actually find out if Mookie can play 3B or not, by, you know, trying it. As opposed to proceeding as if you know he can't. Because if he can play 3B, that's a huge boon. It may even be a huge boon if he plays it merely adequately for a year, or even half a year, and then goes to RF to make way for Cecchini ... versus investing a lot of money and perhaps a draft pick in a player who may well turn out not as good as the better of the two of them. I don't buy the argument that they can't afford to find out in ST or by May that he is, after all, not a 3B. That wouldn't ruin the season, since Holt would be perfectly OK there as a stopgap, even for a year. And, in fact, that Cherington said "if that happens, it will happen in ST" suggests that they think the same thing; he has never said they have decided to never try Mookie at 3B, and if they thought they needed to find out whether he could play it this year, they would have. What it looks like is that 3B is still an option of some sort, and they may try it next ST. That's what he said (initially). Now, it's possible that Plan A is to sign or trade for a 3B at a price they really like and that Mookie at 3B next ST is just a plan B. If that's the case, though, you can certainly hope that the price they really like is one we'd regard as somewhat of a steal. The point about learning their lesson about shifting a kid to an unfamiliar position is a good one, but it is of course not a reason to avoid a new position tryout in ST -- it is, in fact, a reason to defer it until ST, as they would be doing (if it happens at all). A final thought: given how many chances they've given WMB at 3B, does a preemptive strike to block Betts and Cecchini from ever getting any kind of chance there seem like their M.O.? I sure hope not. I think there are real disadvantages to penciling in Betts at 3B as your tentative plan entering 2015. For one thing, it implies that you don't acquire a starting-caliber 3B this year and go into 2015 with Betts/Holt/Middlebrooks/Cecchini as your options at the position. All those guys have major questions for one reason or another (I am much less bullish on Cecchini, think Middlebrooks may be a lost cause, and don't think Holt is an acceptable stopgap (it would mean you'd need to get another backup middle infielder, and I continue to think that Holt is a below-average starter)). It also takes away valuable reps at what is likely to be Betts' long-term position for the Red Sox (OF) while forcing him to expend a ton of time and energy learning a position he has never played before, one that is unlikely to be the ideal one for both him or the organization. I'd rather he use that time to finish polishing himself into the above-average right fielder I think he can be fore the 2015 Red Sox. In general, it seems like a lot of your rationale for moving Betts to 3B is to avoid adding a free agent there who would block Cecchini. But a nice August has not changed the fact that I am growing ever more pessimistic about his ability to be an above-average starter at 3B. If he proves he can be that kind of player, he might also be good enough to play LF, and he (or whatever 3B they add this offseason) could easily be moved if that looks necessary. In other words, because how unlikely it is that Cecchini pushes to be the undisputed 3B starter by 2016, we shouldn't make moves preparing for that possibility, but rather react to it if it does come to pass. Besides, Headley on a one-year pillow contract looks possible, while Aramis Ramirez on a short-term deal is also an option.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 8, 2014 9:25:40 GMT -5
If the Sox can sign Headley or Aramis Ramirez to a 1 year deal at 3B, I think it's 99% certain that one of them will be signed. And then they'll probably end up in the position where they have to option Holt at some point..
I don't think they're going to just try Betts out at 3B without a better plan than WMB/Holt/Cecchini if he doesn't work out. And that's pretty much what jmei just said. Oops.
Also, I bet they'd rather have Betts in RF than Craig and I really don't ever see Cespedes out there.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 8, 2014 9:35:24 GMT -5
I think there are real disadvantages to penciling in Betts at 3B as your tentative plan entering 2015. For one thing, it implies that you don't acquire a starting-caliber 3B this year and go into 2015 with Betts/Holt/Middlebrooks/Cecchini as your options at the position. All those guys have major questions for one reason or another (I am much less bullish on Cecchini, think Middlebrooks may be a lost cause, and don't think Holt is an acceptable stopgap (it would mean you'd need to get another backup middle infielder, and I continue to think that Holt is a below-average starter)). It also takes away valuable reps at what is likely to be Betts' long-term position for the Red Sox (OF) while forcing him to expend a ton of time and energy learning a position he has never played before, one that is unlikely to be the ideal one for both him or the organization. I'd rather he use that time to finish polishing himself into the above-average right fielder I think he can be fore the 2015 Red Sox. In general, it seems like a lot of your rationale for moving Betts to 3B is to avoid adding a free agent there who would block Cecchini. But a nice August has not changed the fact that I am growing ever more pessimistic about his ability to be an above-average starter at 3B. If he proves he can be that kind of player, he might also be good enough to play LF, and he (or whatever 3B they add this offseason) could easily be moved if that looks necessary. In other words, because how unlikely it is that Cecchini pushes to be the undisputed 3B starter by 2016, we shouldn't make moves preparing for that possibility, but rather react to it if it does come to pass. Besides, Headley on a one-year pillow contract looks possible, while Aramis Ramirez on a short-term deal is also an option. Again, a beautiful and well-reasoned argument, whose conclusion leads you inexorably to ... hey, let's try Betts at 3B during this garbage time of September and confirm our suspicion that he probably can't play there, because if he surprises us (Q: has Mookie Betts ever done anything surprisingly well on a baseball field? I mean, besides everything?), that will be a great boon. The downside is that you're putting one more thing on his plate this year, but that's worth it if in fact you need to find out now in order to either get a 3B this winter, or not. I mean, if there's a 10% chance he can play 3B well, then give it it a shot, because if he can, that's massively good. Compare the cost / benefit versus the distraction of a brief unsuccessful trial. But they have no interest trying him there now, and have instead admitted a willingness to try him there in ST. In fact, they've said, if it happens, it will happen then. That's .... odd, don't you think? Based on your argument, wouldn't it either be "we'll try that now" or "we'll never bother trying it?" This is, you know, that third, other thing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 8, 2014 9:39:06 GMT -5
I think they probably feel they've given Mookie enough adjustments for one year and will quit while they're ahead with him.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 8, 2014 9:46:23 GMT -5
I think they probably feel they've given Mookie enough adjustments for one year and will quit while they're ahead with him. Amen.....
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Sept 8, 2014 10:20:58 GMT -5
I think Bradley is getting written off too quickly for next year. He may not start the year with the team, but it doesn't mean that he will not be a consideration by the all star game. Also, why is the general assumption that Cespedes will not sign an extension. Has he stated something that suggests that?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 8, 2014 10:36:34 GMT -5
I think Bradley is getting written off too quickly for next year. He may not start the year with the team, but it doesn't mean that he will not be a consideration by the all star game. Also, why is the general assumption that Cespedes will not sign an extension. Has he stated something that suggests that? Agree regarding JBJ. The possible problem I see re: Cespedes is that the market will likely think he's worth a lot more than he is. He's a barely above average hitter and a fringy LFer. That's not worth $20+ million a year, especially if he wants 6-7 years. Napoli is worth more than he is.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Sept 8, 2014 10:49:29 GMT -5
I'm with Eric on the Mookie at 3B argument. The "he's already had to learn something new so let's avoid throwing new challenges at him" argument is a terrible one, in my opinion. It's a season to experiment and clarify what we have for 2015. One thing we know we have is Victorino, Nava, Bradley, Craig, Cespedes, and Castillo all under contract to play the outfield for us. We also know that, barring a trade for a top grade player, Mookie is a starter for us. JBJ can go to the minors, but unless we want to dump multiple players who are far more valuable to us than anything we'd get in return for them (two of Craig, Nava, and Victorino), some type of accommodation needs to be made.
It seems logical that you'd try the guy with a plus-plus glove at second base at the third base, the one position where we don't have a clear starter for next. I can't stand the "he probably doesn't have the arm for it" option when we've never seen him get a chance. Remember how many people were against putting him in RF/CF before they actually saw him there, solely because there was a belief he didn't have the arm for it? Sure, he's not throwing missiles JBJ-style, but his arm appears perfectly average in the outfield.
There's no guarantee he'll take well to third, whether it be his throwing or something else that gives issue. But we're wasting valuable time not giving him a mere look in these final weeks of the season, instead playing a near lost cause at third in WMB. Once Pawtucket's season concludes, we're going to have the precise outfield logjam that's at issue for shaping 2015, minus Victorino of course.
Not even trying it and instead turning him exclusively into an outfielder only makes things more difficult for the team. The "glut" of free agent third base options doesn't appeal to me at all. You could attempt to get Headley or A-Ram for one year, and while that may be difficult, I don't get the appeal even if it's possible. Headley is on the wrong side of 30, and is going to give you good defense while you pray he can still wRC+ around 100. A-Ram has the lowest BB% (4.1%) and ISO (.147) of his career this year and while he's not a butcher at third, his range is rather abysmal (he's also 36). Sandoval is a good player but giving four or more years to a player with significant weight issues is always a risk.
Just try Betts at third base. If it's a disaster, put it to an end. No one try to say that it's not fair to do to him -- he can handle it just fine, and there's no pressure on him this month to do well at it.
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Sept 8, 2014 11:19:12 GMT -5
I think Bradley is getting written off too quickly for next year. He may not start the year with the team, but it doesn't mean that he will not be a consideration by the all star game. Also, why is the general assumption that Cespedes will not sign an extension. Has he stated something that suggests that? Agree regarding JBJ. The possible problem I see re: Cespedes is that the market will likely think he's worth a lot more than he is. He's a barely above average hitter and a fringy LFer. That's not worth $20+ million a year, especially if he wants 6-7 years. Napoli is worth more than he is. This is why I agree with JMEI on the possibility of trading Cespedes ... that and I don't like .300 OBP guys, especially if they don't provide +defense. If we think the league will value him more than we do come FA time, he should be the primary trade candidate right now. I'll be perfectly happy having him in LF next year, but if we need to trade someone I'd rather sell high on him than sell low on Craig. OTOH, if we can get Heyward or someone like him, clear space however you need to and don't worry about whether you're selling low. I get the appeal of trying Mookie at 3B but I'd honestly prefer Headley on a 1 year deal at this point. First, I don't think there's enough time left to get a really good read on how Mookie's D will play out over the course of a season and then there's the fact he's a rookie so who knows what he will be able to do at the plate next year. Basically, I don't like this as Plan A because we'd be taking on a two way risk when there are other options. If you want to give him some reps there in ST as a plan B I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 8, 2014 11:25:12 GMT -5
Agree regarding JBJ. The possible problem I see re: Cespedes is that the market will likely think he's worth a lot more than he is. He's a barely above average hitter and a fringy LFer. That's not worth $20+ million a year, especially if he wants 6-7 years. Napoli is worth more than he is. This is why I agree with JMEI on the possibility of trading Cespedes ... that and I don't like .300 OBP guys, especially if they don't provide +defense. If we think the league will value him more than we do come FA time, he should be the primary trade candidate right now. I'll be perfectly happy having him in LF next year, but if we need to trade someone I'd rather sell high on him than sell low on Craig. OTOH, if we can get Heyward or someone like him, clear space however you need to and don't worry about whether you're selling low. I get the appeal of trying Mookie at 3B but I'd honestly prefer Headley on a 1 year deal at this point. First, I don't think there's enough time left to get a really good read on how Mookie's D will play out over the course of a season and then there's the fact he's a rookie so who knows what he will be able to do at the plate next year. Basically, I don't like this as Plan A because we'd be taking on a two way risk when there are other options. If you want to give him some reps there in ST as a plan B I'm all for it. I go back and forth on trading Cespedes. On the one hand, I think he'll wind up much better in Fenway and that he actually is an above average bat on a team with 2 of them this season. On the other hand, I don't really want to give him $140 million and think we could get a #2 starter with him. I'm probably leaning towards keeping him because he's a much more sure of a thing than Craig, who we'd then be penciling in at LF. Maybe in a platoon with Nava, but Craig doesn't really have much of a split, when he's good or terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 8, 2014 11:30:14 GMT -5
Meanwhile, I would love to see what the actual plan is with calculated fallbacks (i.e. if we can't acquire Player A then we move onto Player B) not just in the OF and 3rd, but how it all interlocks with pitching and dollar and talent asset allocation and distribution, including some of the lesser mentioned options (such as, "if Sox are so predicated on holding on to big power that they won't sell low on Middlebrooks then what are their plans for Brentz who has a similar offensive profile" etc. - and that's just one piece of all this).
I was lucky enough to know one of the fairly high up people in the last iteration of the front office before Ben and Larry took over; I was told then that they always tried to base-plan 5 years out and adapt to variables that came along. Also very in-tune with the Billy Beane in season philosophy of "The first two months you see what you have, the next two months you make what significant adjustments you can implement (i.e. bringing guys up/trades/roster moves), and the last two months you play it out." Finally, I was told they also maintain a talent/dollar value ranking of every MLB player (and most minor league players) just like the Pats do with giving every NFL player a dollar value (of course this can be less rigid to extrapolate outward in MLB with no salary cap as to opportunity costs/costs you think other teams will incur).
Anyway, I am assuming they still do business in a similar way using those very general models and then drill down. Would love to see how these sets of considerations is playing out in all of this.
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Sept 8, 2014 12:59:15 GMT -5
This is why I agree with JMEI on the possibility of trading Cespedes ... that and I don't like .300 OBP guys, especially if they don't provide +defense. If we think the league will value him more than we do come FA time, he should be the primary trade candidate right now. I'll be perfectly happy having him in LF next year, but if we need to trade someone I'd rather sell high on him than sell low on Craig. OTOH, if we can get Heyward or someone like him, clear space however you need to and don't worry about whether you're selling low. I get the appeal of trying Mookie at 3B but I'd honestly prefer Headley on a 1 year deal at this point. First, I don't think there's enough time left to get a really good read on how Mookie's D will play out over the course of a season and then there's the fact he's a rookie so who knows what he will be able to do at the plate next year. Basically, I don't like this as Plan A because we'd be taking on a two way risk when there are other options. If you want to give him some reps there in ST as a plan B I'm all for it. I go back and forth on trading Cespedes. On the one hand, I think he'll wind up much better in Fenway and that he actually is an above average bat on a team with 2 of them this season. On the other hand, I don't really want to give him $140 million and think we could get a #2 starter with him. I'm probably leaning towards keeping him because he's a much more sure of a thing than Craig, who we'd then be penciling in at LF. Maybe in a platoon with Nava, but Craig doesn't really have much of a split, when he's good or terrible. If we're just looking for the best OF in 2015 I'm perfectly content to keep Cespedes but the Lackey trade makes no sense if we aren't willing to give Craig a good long look to see if he can sort himself out. Yes, he's not an ideal platoon partner but it's the best way to keep him around without really counting on him. That said, I don't really like it because I also have significant questions about Nava with his complete lack of power this year. I guess I'd rather trade Cespedes because it means we have to give up less prospects to get the pitching we need but neither choice makes me happy. The more I think about it the more I dislike the Lackey trade.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 8, 2014 13:34:21 GMT -5
I think Bradley is getting written off too quickly for next year. He may not start the year with the team, but it doesn't mean that he will not be a consideration by the all star game. Also, why is the general assumption that Cespedes will not sign an extension. Has he stated something that suggests that? Agree regarding JBJ. The possible problem I see re: Cespedes is that the market will likely think he's worth a lot more than he is. He's a barely above average hitter and a fringy LFer. That's not worth $20+ million a year, especially if he wants 6-7 years. Napoli is worth more than he is. I strongly disagree with you on your overall assessment of Cespedes. I do concede that Napoli has been a better overall hitter, but that difference is rapidly disappearing. People forget that Cespedes is only 26. His best years are yet ahead of him. Napoli's are behind him. I have read and heard many assessments of Cespedes, some by people who have seen him a lot over a period of time, and almost universally he is considered to be considerably better than you think he is. I really don't understand the downgrading of him that some have done on this site. He has hit close to .300 for the Sox, with power, and he has won games. He has an excellent throwing arm with a fair number of assists. I think he has been tentative in LF in Fenway Park, but I think that will diminish as he becomes more familiar with it.
|
|
|