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 michael on Nov 7, 2014 14:58:22 GMT -5
It will get uglier if he hits 30 bombs for someone else.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 7, 2014 15:09:29 GMT -5
It will get uglier if he hits 30 bombs for someone else. The way I felt when they gave up on Phil Plantier an he got 30 for San Diego. If we survived that then we can survive the improbability that WMB can do it, even for one year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 7, 2014 15:25:07 GMT -5
Middlebrooks has an option left and I don't think the Red Sox will sell low on him. He'll likely be in the organization on Opening Day, and he'll have the opportunity to win back MLB time, including maybe even a starting spot if the Red Sox add a short-term guy (Murphy, Freese, Valbuena, etc.) rather than a long-term guy (Sandoval, Headley).
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Nov 7, 2014 15:48:39 GMT -5
I've been thinking about the Sox giving WMB a whole season at Pawtucket next year and seeing if he can turn things around.
But where does that leave Cecchini? I know he moved off of 3B last year, so would this make that move more permanent or do you guys think him and WMB would split time at 3B???
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 7, 2014 17:10:00 GMT -5
I've been thinking about the Sox giving WMB a whole season at Pawtucket next year and seeing if he can turn things around. But where does that leave Cecchini? I know he moved off of 3B last year, so would this make that move more permanent or do you guys think him and WMB would split time at 3B??? Move WMB off of 3b and leave Cecchini alone.. Problem solved.. On another note? All those people here thinking Boston may go after Sandoval? He's a huge risk, Headley is too, maybe bigger even. Ramirez is also, but I'd rather the Sox chase him if they HAVE to sign a FA 3b this off season since now he seems willing to move away from SS.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 7, 2014 17:12:18 GMT -5
I never thought I'd say this, but I want no part of Hanley. Definitely not at five or six years, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 7, 2014 17:16:54 GMT -5
I've been thinking about the Sox giving WMB a whole season at Pawtucket next year and seeing if he can turn things around. But where does that leave Cecchini? I know he moved off of 3B last year, so would this make that move more permanent or do you guys think him and WMB would split time at 3B??? Move WMB off of 3b and leave Cecchini alone.. Problem solved.. On another note? All those people here thinking Boston may go after Sandoval? He's a huge risk, Headley is too, maybe bigger even. Ramirez is also, but I'd rather the Sox chase him if they HAVE to sign a FA 3b this off season since now he seems willing to move away from SS. You might be forgetting that Cecchini may not be a third baseman whether or not Middlebrooks is around though, so that doesn't really make sense. That's the problem, and that's the bigger reason why the Red Sox are even in on Headley and Sandoval. I've been thinking about it, and I think the fact that they're not certain if he'll stick at third base defensively is the reason they apparently aren't giving him a crack at the job out of the chute here. If he were definitely sticking at third, the bat would certainly seem to play there if you think what happened this season is a super-long slump that he worked his way out of, and it'd probably make more sense to let Holt or Middlebrooks keep the spot warm for him if he needed half a season of finishing school in Pawtucket.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 7, 2014 17:18:24 GMT -5
Middlebrooks has an option left and I don't think the Red Sox will sell low on him. He'll likely be in the organization on Opening Day, and he'll have the opportunity to win back MLB time, including maybe even a starting spot if the Red Sox add a short-term guy (Murphy, Freese, Valbuena, etc.) rather than a long-term guy (Sandoval, Headley). I agree with this, but just to play devil's advocate, the counterpoint is that if someone out there likes Middlebrooks then the Red Sox have the chance to get value in exchange for someone with a real chance to be DFA in a year. It's only selling low if they think he's better than this. Phil Plantier is actually a pretty good comparison. He had no skill other than power, and they got Jose Melendez (who unfortunately got hurt) for him. Melendez became used in the Boston press as an example of Gorman's impatience and incompetence, but he was a 26-year-old with good stuff, low walk rates and had success both starting and relieving with San Diego. It didn't work out, but it was a smart trade.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 7, 2014 18:11:16 GMT -5
According to Heyman, Hanley is willing to move off SS and the Red Sox are 1 of many to have checked in.
We should not read much into this as I would've been more surprised if they had not checked since they check on everything.
We can say he is not a good fit right now but let's see how his market develops. There is always a point where you are getting good value even if it's not an ideal fit.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 7, 2014 18:13:35 GMT -5
Scary part is only next year left on options for WMB and him nose diving last season and 2013 not being anything to write home about either. If cecchini doesn't get a chance to work out at 3b next year, they have nobody at 3b coming up the pipe until Devers, or Chavis and that's at least another 2y, so they are forced to make a FA sign.
WMB at 3b with Pawtucket is a bad deal, unless he and Cecchini strictly 50/50 platoon the position.
|
|
jdb
Veteran
Posts: 2,386
Member is Online
|
Post by jdb on Nov 7, 2014 19:50:34 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to hand out a $100 million contract to either Sandaval or Hanley. Lots could happen but if we end up with a platoon in LF featuring Nava it could open up some RH options at 3B like Freese with Holt getting a decent amount of ABs vs RHP.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 7, 2014 20:18:02 GMT -5
I never thought I'd say this, but I want no part of Hanley. Definitely not at five or six years, anyway. Hypothetical: at any given price, would you rather have Hanley or Sandoval?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 7, 2014 20:56:42 GMT -5
I never thought I'd say this, but I want no part of Hanley. Definitely not at five or six years, anyway. Hypothetical: at any given price, would you rather have Hanley or Sandoval? Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 7, 2014 20:57:57 GMT -5
Surely cherrington can figure out another option and not give out a huge contract to sandavol or Headley?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 7, 2014 21:00:21 GMT -5
Middlebrooks has an option left and I don't think the Red Sox will sell low on him. He'll likely be in the organization on Opening Day, and he'll have the opportunity to win back MLB time, including maybe even a starting spot if the Red Sox add a short-term guy (Murphy, Freese, Valbuena, etc.) rather than a long-term guy (Sandoval, Headley). Correct. I don't get the Cecchini not staying at 3rd stuff. He's been developing there his whole career. Between Will and Cecchini and Holt...I don't see any reason to making big cash outlays to free agents. Let's get some starting pitching...for crying out loud.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Nov 7, 2014 21:29:21 GMT -5
Middlebrooks has an option left and I don't think the Red Sox will sell low on him. He'll likely be in the organization on Opening Day, and he'll have the opportunity to win back MLB time, including maybe even a starting spot if the Red Sox add a short-term guy (Murphy, Freese, Valbuena, etc.) rather than a long-term guy (Sandoval, Headley). Correct. I don't get the Cecchini not staying at 3rd stuff. He's been developing there his whole career. Between Will and Cecchini and Holt...I don't see any reason to making big cash outlays to free agents. Let's get some starting pitching...for crying out loud. Honestly, he didn't look great defensively in his short stint w/ Boston. His footwork was all over the place, and his throwing motion was quite jerky. It's hard to say whether the bat will play up in LF, not to mention that it's no guarantee that he can adjust to LF, so the best move would be to start him in AAA at 3B. I'd say play Cecchini at 3B 75%, and LF/1B/DH 25% w/ Middlebrooks playing 1B/DH 75% of the time and 3B 25% (since he's already solid defensively there), with Coyle playing 2B or being dealt. I'm with Chris here, if he was a sure thing defensively at 3B, they'd be more open to him starting the year w/ the big club, or going w/ a 1-year stopgap.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 7, 2014 23:13:44 GMT -5
Middlebrooks has an option left and I don't think the Red Sox will sell low on him. He'll likely be in the organization on Opening Day, and he'll have the opportunity to win back MLB time, including maybe even a starting spot if the Red Sox add a short-term guy (Murphy, Freese, Valbuena, etc.) rather than a long-term guy (Sandoval, Headley). Correct. I don't get the Cecchini not staying at 3rd stuff. He's been developing there his whole career. Between Will and Cecchini and Holt...I don't see any reason to making big cash outlays to free agents. Let's get some starting pitching...for crying out loud. Does it matter where he's been developing? He moved to third after he was drafted. If he doesn't progress enough then he can't play the position and has to move. Happens all the time.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Nov 8, 2014 8:06:27 GMT -5
Players move off of positions all the time and we are talking about an infielder moving to the outfield. It's not like he's a 1B moving to catcher. Just because he's been a 3B moving up the ranks doesn't mean that is where he belong. Should all the relief pitchers in the league really be starters because they came up through the minors as starters???
Jerry is right about the pitching though, that should be our focus. If I had to choose between addressing 3B and getting pitching/leaving 3B alone I'd address the rotation. Correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought I heard/read somewhere that the Sox actually really liked what they saw during Cecchini's limited time in the outfield last year??? I suspect he should spend more time there in 2015; either full time or splitting time between OF/3B. I know we all envisioned Cecchini as someone who would develop into an average defender and tap into some power but a more realistic ceiling might be a Nava-esq offensive/defensive profile. Which is fine by me.
I'm sure the Sox don't have any set in stone plans, they will probably weigh the cost of signing Headley/Pablo vs. the cost of trading for a 3B such as Valbueno.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 8, 2014 8:20:47 GMT -5
I never thought I'd say this, but I want no part of Hanley. Definitely not at five or six years, anyway. Hypothetical: at any given price, would you rather have Hanley or Sandoval? Does price include years? Then I guess Sandoval due solely to age. But I'm not crazy about either of them. Give me Headley or give me death.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Nov 8, 2014 8:36:51 GMT -5
I like Cecchini as well as a lot of other people on here, but I think the concerns on if he can stay at 3b are very real, and absolutely need to be accounted for. When we look at our system, there aren't a lot of guys that project as potential bats to put in a corner (left because we play in Fenway), though there is the thought that down the road that might be one of Cecchini or Bogaerts (if he cannot stick at SS, which I think he actually will for the first several years of his career).
That said, I think we need someone at 3b with multiple years of control (or whom we could reasonably extend) that you can pencil in as being an above average player, which we really haven't had at 3b in approximately 3 seasons (save for Bogaerts somehow being excellent there last October). In my opinion, that means Daniel Murphy - he just fills so many holes on this team perfectly. He's been an above average player each year since taking over more at bats in NY (wRC+ ranges from 103 to 126 over those four years, and Steamer projects him at 104 this year). He is a left handed bat, hits RHP very well to the tune of a wRC+ of 115 and looks to grade out as a roughly average to a bit better defensive 3b. He looks to have good pull power to RF, but also could be aided by an ability to go the other way while at Fenway with some fly ball tendencies to left field.
With an ability to play 2b, 3b, 1b and the outfield (he's played more than 40 games at each position in his career) and someone who will only be 30 next season, he fits this team exceptionally well. Say Cecchini develops and Bogaerts is able to stay at SS (he could play LF, or even 1b). If the stars align perfectly (ala the freaking lunar eclipse that took place in 2004) and Allen Craig becomes Allen Craig again, Bogaerts and Cecchini stick at their respective places and Napoli rakes and we extend him, Murphy in a Ben Zobrist type of role still fits perfectly.
This is the guy I want at 3b, he's just about tailor made for our present situation.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 8, 2014 10:04:18 GMT -5
Hypothetical: at any given price, would you rather have Hanley or Sandoval? Does price include years? Then I guess Sandoval due solely to age. But I'm not crazy about either of them. Give me Headley or give me death. I get the impression that Hanley has gotten a little underrated. As recently as 2013, he was an MVP candidate and a five-win player despite playing just half the season, and there's no question that he's a considerably better hitter than Sandoval and a true middle-of-the-order guy (note: I think that's a silly label, but apparently it means something to many). He's been a pretty bad defensive shortstop over the years, but most of that is due to his limited range, and there's a decent chance that he's an averagish third baseman. It's not like he's particularly old, either, as he's the same age as Headley and a five-year deal would take him to age 36. Maybe Sandoval has a slightly higher floor (though, between his weight and plate discipline, I tend not to think so), but Hanley has the much higher median projection and ceiling. On something like a 5/$100m deal, I'd much rather have Hanley than Sandoval. Of course, Hanley will probably require more than that, but maybe not. I suspect that Hanley's market might be pretty limited. The Dodgers under Friedman may choose not to re-sign a guy who fits better at 3B with Uribe (a very underrated guy) under contract next year and Seager on the horizon. Most of the other big-market teams either don't really have a need at SS/3B (Mariners, Rangers, Nationals, Cardinals, Orioles, etc.) or are capped out (Tigers, Angels, Braves). The elephant in the room is, of course, the Yankees, but they appear to be looking for more mid-end additions (Headley, McCarthy, etc.) than Hanley-esque talent. They do really need a shortstop, though, and the rest of the available guys at the position are pretty meh, so I could see them going hard after Hanley. Fangraphs crowd projects them at 5/$90m (which is too low), MLBTR projects 6/$132m (which I think is too high), and Sherman projects 5/$80m (which, again, seems too low). At the lower end of those estimates (say, the aforementioned 5/$100m), I'd much rather have him than Sandoval and maybe even Headley (who I think the Yankees will pay heavily to retain-- think 4/$68m).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 8, 2014 10:09:18 GMT -5
That said, I think we need someone at 3b with multiple years of control (or whom we could reasonably extend) that you can pencil in as being an above average player, which we really haven't had at 3b in approximately 3 seasons (save for Bogaerts somehow being excellent there last October). In my opinion, that means Daniel Murphy - he just fills so many holes on this team perfectly. He's been an above average player each year since taking over more at bats in NY (wRC+ ranges from 103 to 126 over those four years, and Steamer projects him at 104 this year). He is a left handed bat, hits RHP very well to the tune of a wRC+ of 115 and looks to grade out as a roughly average to a bit better defensive 3b. He looks to have good pull power to RF, but also could be aided by an ability to go the other way while at Fenway with some fly ball tendencies to left field. With an ability to play 2b, 3b, 1b and the outfield (he's played more than 40 games at each position in his career) and someone who will only be 30 next season, he fits this team exceptionally well. Say Cecchini develops and Bogaerts is able to stay at SS (he could play LF, or even 1b). If the stars align perfectly (ala the freaking lunar eclipse that took place in 2004) and Allen Craig becomes Allen Craig again, Bogaerts and Cecchini stick at their respective places and Napoli rakes and we extend him, Murphy in a Ben Zobrist type of role still fits perfectly. This is the guy I want at 3b, he's just about tailor made for our present situation. Just wanted to clarify-- Murphy is a free agent after 2015. He's definitely a very appealing target, but I'm not sure he's good enough that I want to give him a long-term extension (it's going to cost $10m+ AAV and at least three years).
|
|
jdb
Veteran
Posts: 2,386
Member is Online
|
Post by jdb on Nov 8, 2014 12:06:43 GMT -5
I've seem some 7 yrs and $140 million projections though on Hanley. With some injury concerns I don't want to go near that.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 8, 2014 12:17:02 GMT -5
I would hesitate to spend big money on a guy like Hanley. Some of you don't either believe what I'm about to write or take the attitude "we can't measure it statistically do I will ignore it." I am highly suspicious of his attitude and motivation. This dates back to his time in the minors and if I'm paying a guy over $20 a year thru his age 35-36 season then he needs to be one of two things:
1. Just a dominant offensive force I can pretty much count on to produce
2. Have a great attitude and leadership abilities to cover up for some production question marks.
Hanley is no leader and his injuries and 2 and a half year hiatus playing for a crappy team gives me pause. Do you want your young players being lead and taught by a guy like Hanley? I don't...
It'd be one thing if he were a 4/70 guy but talking 5/6 at 20 per, hell no...
I'd go 6/100 on Sandoval before if pay Hanley. At least there you have youth and a winning pedigree. Hanley has been a star on lousy or underperforming teams his whole career.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 8, 2014 12:33:20 GMT -5
I don't think the talent or potential impact of Sandoval and Hanley is even close. Hanley could be one of the top 5 players in baseball over the next 5 years - without a doubt, based on occasional past performances (2007 wOBA .405; 2008 wOBA .403; 2009 wOBA .407; 2013 wOBA .442) plus he is still a good baserunner (1.5 Bsr last year - career Bsr 29.6) and at times has been an average or better SS (2008 UZR 1.1; 2009 UZR -0.2; 2013 UZR 0.5).
The things that scare me is that his work ethic was poor in the minors, he had issues with the players/coaching in Miami along with trouble staying in elite shape and his one great half season with the Dodger he was highly motivated by being dumped the previous year. (if a team dumps a top 5 talent - you know its bad) If you look at his best defensive seasons, they are directly tied to his best offensive seasons (aside for 1, which was his second pro season) which makes me wonder if those were the only offseasons where he really pushed himself.
Players grow up, but it was only 2.5 years ago that the Marlins dumped him - so has he really grown up since then? If yes (and he is willing to work hard and play 3B) 7/140 is an absolute STEAL; if not, then the big contract will lessen his desire to work hard and in a couple of years you'll be paying a guy 20mil/year to sit on a couch. If there was ever a free agent to do a background check - this is him.
The last time a player this talented was a free agent, it was Pujols. I don't think he will touch that, but as long as he hasn't already become a couch potato, I can't see him getting less than 7/150 - because it only takes 'one team'. My guess - the Yankees get him to replace Jeter and it will be entertaining if nothing else. (if he's motivated, I think he can play a solid enough SS - would be a defensive upgrade if he does)
|
|
|