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.
2015 Official Spring Training thread
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 23, 2015 7:51:23 GMT -5
Wow, Cafardo doesn't know what he's asking for when he says rosters should expand to 28. Can you imagine scoring the games where Joe Maddon was the manager and he uses 24 guys every game? Talk about slowing the game down.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 23, 2015 8:41:26 GMT -5
Of course, this is leaving aside the argument that Wright is, right now, one of your five most valuable starters, and that Kelly and Masterson should be competing for the fifth starter, with the other taking a long relief role. But I'm OK with seeing if either of those guys pitches himself out of the rotation in April. Wait, let's not leave that aside since it was exactly the point I came here to make ... I think it's at least probable and maybe likely that Steven Wright is among the four best pitchers on the Sox right now. It looks like Buchholz is Good Clay so far this year and Porcello's a very good pitcher, and then ... maybe Miley? But, honestly, it could be Wright that's the next best pitcher on the Red Sox. He's now pitched well really for three seasons in a row, and a knuckleball pitcher doesn't get the same kind of negative adjustment coming into MLB. We've thrown around 3-3-3-3-3 as a description for the Sox rotation, but it's really more like 2-2-4-5-5 right now, with Masterson and Kelly as the 5's. But, it's probably fine to see what Masterson and Kelly can do once the games are real. I definitely lean toward Kelly among the two unless Masterson starts throwing 4-5 MPH faster than he's shown so far, but we'll see. But I think moving one of them into the pen and making Wright a full-time starter should be in play as we go forward, *especially* as the other AAA pitchers develop enough to be more of an option for starter depth. Of course, with the durability questions among the Sox pitchers, this is probably moot; Wright will get plenty of starts.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Mar 23, 2015 9:09:40 GMT -5
If Castillo continues to look strong I think, barring injury, Craig is almost certainly the odd-man out. I think its been discussed here before that he does not have an option remaining, so I would expect a deal in the next week or two.
He's a nice insurance policy for 2016 I guess, but Napoli appears to love it here and a healthy Victorino (if such a thing still exists) might even be a better 1B conversion, or at least no worse, than what we hope Craig returns to.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 23, 2015 9:22:41 GMT -5
It's a bit bizarre that Mookie has 0/3 BB/K in 34 PAs so far (for a .471/.471/.853 slash). The zero walks probably have something to do with him being able to square absolutely any pitch up and drive the ball fair.
He is the best young player I've seen since Trout. I'm going out on a limb and calling for him to finish in the top 5 for AL MVP this year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 23, 2015 10:12:50 GMT -5
If Castillo continues to look strong I think, barring injury, Craig is almost certainly the odd-man out. I think its been discussed here before that he does not have an option remaining, so I would expect a deal in the next week or two. He's a nice insurance policy for 2016 I guess, but Napoli appears to love it here and a healthy Victorino (if such a thing still exists) might even be a better 1B conversion, or at least no worse, than what we hope Craig returns to. Craig does have an option left.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 23, 2015 12:41:18 GMT -5
If Betts is starting in center and leading off and Victorino is healthy then why would Cherrington want to start Castillo in Boston? Farrell will play Victorino and there is no reason to have Castillo has a backup. He's way better off getting regular at bats for the first month or so in AAA than he is playing a couple times a week. Especially since, he will take time from Hanley and Betts.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 23, 2015 13:28:00 GMT -5
If Castillo continues to look strong I think, barring injury, Craig is almost certainly the odd-man out. I think its been discussed here before that he does not have an option remaining, so I would expect a deal in the next week or two. He's a nice insurance policy for 2016 I guess, but Napoli appears to love it here and a healthy Victorino (if such a thing still exists) might even be a better 1B conversion, or at least no worse, than what we hope Craig returns to. Craig does have an option left. By my observation he has two. Judging from Alex's newsletter, he has looked awful so far this spring so it looks like at some point, he's gonna get optioned.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 23, 2015 13:34:28 GMT -5
Craig does have an option left. By my observation he has two. Judging from Alex's newsletter, he has looked awful so far this spring so it looks like at some point, he's gonna get optioned. If the way he looked last season is the definition of awful, he looks better than that. But not by a lot and not by enough. It's early yes, but I still don't see him pulling the ball. When the games matter, pitchers are going to pound him inside and hard like they did last year.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 23, 2015 13:37:40 GMT -5
Of course, this is leaving aside the argument that Wright is, right now, one of your five most valuable starters, and that Kelly and Masterson should be competing for the fifth starter, with the other taking a long relief role. But I'm OK with seeing if either of those guys pitches himself out of the rotation in April. Wait, let's not leave that aside since it was exactly the point I came here to make ... I think it's at least probable and maybe likely that Steven Wright is among the four best pitchers on the Sox right now. It looks like Buchholz is Good Clay so far this year and Porcello's a very good pitcher, and then ... maybe Miley? But, honestly, it could be Wright that's the next best pitcher on the Red Sox. He's now pitched well really for three seasons in a row, and a knuckleball pitcher doesn't get the same kind of negative adjustment coming into MLB. We've thrown around 3-3-3-3-3 as a description for the Sox rotation, but it's really more like 2-2-4-5-5 right now, with Masterson and Kelly as the 5's. But, it's probably fine to see what Masterson and Kelly can do once the games are real. I definitely lean toward Kelly among the two unless Masterson starts throwing 4-5 MPH faster than he's shown so far, but we'll see. But I think moving one of them into the pen and making Wright a full-time starter should be in play as we go forward, *especially* as the other AAA pitchers develop enough to be more of an option for starter depth. Of course, with the durability questions among the Sox pitchers, this is probably moot; Wright will get plenty of starts. Traditionally, the team has been very slow to remove veteran starters and position players from their opening day roles. April conditions in the Northeast are never optimal and it's not unusual for a veteran starter to start slowly because the games maybe spaced out because of rainouts, and hell it's freakin cold out. I'd be very surprised if they removed Masterson or Kelly for the rotation for any reason other than injury early unless they completely blow up.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,149
|
Post by nomar on Mar 23, 2015 13:44:53 GMT -5
It's a bit bizarre that Mookie has 0/3 BB/K in 34 PAs so far (for a .471/.471/.853 slash). The zero walks probably have something to do with him being able to square absolutely any pitch up and drive the ball fair. He is the best young player I've seen since Trout. I'm going out on a limb and calling for him to finish in the top 5 for AL MVP this year. Knock on wood. But damn the kid looks great and incredibly safe in comparison to most specs. I think it's funny how people give him a 60 hit tool. Like on minorleagueball, people were debating him vs Buxton. Im fine with people taking Buxton over Betts, but people were saying Buxton has a better hit tool. Really? Mookie hit for a higher average in A+ (So far... Buxton hasn't played AA/AAA). Betts also strikes out at a rate of less than half of Buxton's. If Mookie doesn't have a 70 hit tool, who does? I dont think there's a better bet for someone hitting .300 over the next decade other than Trout, who's Ks may hurt him in that department eventually.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 23, 2015 13:50:01 GMT -5
It's a bit bizarre that Mookie has 0/3 BB/K in 34 PAs so far (for a .471/.471/.853 slash). The zero walks probably have something to do with him being able to square absolutely any pitch up and drive the ball fair. He is the best young player I've seen since Trout. I'm going out on a limb and calling for him to finish in the top 5 for AL MVP this year. Knock on wood. But damn the kid looks great and incredibly safe in comparison to most specs. I think it's funny how people give him a 60 hit tool. Like on minorleagueball, people were debating him vs Buxton. Im fine with people taking Buxton over Betts, but people were saying Buxton has a better hit tool. Really? Mookie hit for a higher average in A+ (So far... Buxton hasn't played AA/AAA). Betts also strikes out at a rate of less than half of Buxton's. If Mookie doesn't have a 70 hit tool, who does? I dont think there's a better bet for someone hitting .300 over the next decade other than Trout, who's Ks may hurt him in that department eventually. I give Betts a 70+ for hit tool. The contact rates match that and so does the eye test. If he isn't at least close to .300 in his baseball career, I'll be quite disappointed. I mean when you see him flick that bat at a low outside slider and he almost hits the ball over the fence, it's just amazing to see. And he can do that with 2 strikes too.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 23, 2015 15:39:26 GMT -5
I think you guys may be underestimating just how good a 70 hit tool is. For example, over at BP, they didn't throw a single 70 on any prospect's hit tool in the Top 101: www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25591#tools . And BA gave out two, to Buxton and Seager, and just two 65s, to Correa and Lindor: www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects-tools-2/A 70 hit tool is saying a guy will annually hit over .300 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/ask-ba-why-is-batting-average-still-used-for-the-hit-tool/). 16 guys in MLB hit .300 last year. I'm not quite sure I'd throw a 70 on Betts' hit tool. Maybe 65. His best trait at the plate is probably his skills relating to pitch recognition and plate discipline, rather than his hit tool, in my estimation, which is why I think he's a prototype leadoff man, between that and his speed.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 23, 2015 15:43:00 GMT -5
A 70 hit tool is saying a guy will annually hit over .300 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/ask-ba-why-is-batting-average-still-used-for-the-hit-tool/). 16 guys in MLB hit .300 last year. So if the run environment keeps trending the direction it has been there will eventually be noone in all of MLB who has a 70+ hit tool? And I thought this scale goes to 80? Seems like a pretty silly definition then.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 23, 2015 16:01:32 GMT -5
A 70 hit tool is saying a guy will annually hit over .300 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/ask-ba-why-is-batting-average-still-used-for-the-hit-tool/). 16 guys in MLB hit .300 last year. So what is the definition of a 80 hit tool, and has anyone ever had one? I'm thinking in recent years Ichiro, Mauer, maybe Pujolz? Also does the hit tool take plate approach into account?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 23, 2015 16:03:10 GMT -5
A 70 hit tool is saying a guy will annually hit over .300 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/ask-ba-why-is-batting-average-still-used-for-the-hit-tool/). 16 guys in MLB hit .300 last year. So if the run environment keeps trending the direction it has been there will eventually be noone in all of MLB who has a 70+ hit tool? And I thought this scale goes to 80? Seems like a pretty silly definition then. No, that's how it's defined at present. In 1999, when 55 guys hit .300, then no, that wouldn't be a 70 hit tool - in that era, it would've been something like a .325-.340 hitter. Similarly, the BA prospect handbook pointed out this year that rising velocities meant that the fastball grading scale had to shift a bit to accommodate that change. These things aren't static.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 23, 2015 16:05:02 GMT -5
A 70 hit tool is saying a guy will annually hit over .300 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/ask-ba-why-is-batting-average-still-used-for-the-hit-tool/). 16 guys in MLB hit .300 last year. So what is the definition of a 80 hit tool, and has anyone ever had one? I'm thinking in recent years Ichiro, Mauer, maybe Pujolz? Also does the hit tool take plate approach into account? Those questions are answered if you click the link...
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Mar 23, 2015 17:16:13 GMT -5
Chris is always conservative with these things. It's an easy 70 for me.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Mar 23, 2015 17:37:10 GMT -5
I'd think this would be a case of putting the thumb on the scale to move it towards 70 as the BA article suggests
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 23, 2015 19:33:49 GMT -5
I think he's a 70, too ... he's got the best hit tool I've seen come out of the Sox system since Garciaparra. I could honestly see him winning more than one batting title.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 23, 2015 20:17:04 GMT -5
I have no idea how the numbers for tools are done and don't care. Mookie has quick hands, great hand eye, and great pitch recognition. As good as I've seen in a long time.
Last year when Xander struggled we kept hearing about his age and position change. Mookie was moved to a position he had never played., He's 6 days younger than Xander. Can't wait to see what he does over a full year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 23, 2015 21:07:06 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 23, 2015 21:49:43 GMT -5
Which is to say (barring rainouts) the finale of the Yankees series, Sunday 4/12, the sixth game of the season. However, if they gave Wright a spot start on Saturday 4/11, his next turn would fall on an off day, and they wouldn't need Kelly until 4/21. And we now have reason to believe that starting him on Saturday would save the next day's pitching something like half a run (on average).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 24, 2015 8:43:45 GMT -5
A 70 hit tool is saying a guy will annually hit over .300 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/ask-ba-why-is-batting-average-still-used-for-the-hit-tool/). 16 guys in MLB hit .300 last year. So what is the definition of a 80 hit tool, and has anyone ever had one? I'm thinking in recent years Ichiro, Mauer, maybe Pujolz? Also does the hit tool take plate approach into account? Ted Williams. Mauer is a perfect example of a 70 hitter to me. A player you can expect to hit .300 annually and will contend for the batting title in his best years.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 24, 2015 8:52:13 GMT -5
Of the players I've seen, in addition to Ted, I'd also give 80's to Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn. Pete Rose, George Brett, Rod Carew and Ichiro Suzuki are at least in the conversation as well.
EDIT: Added the Itchy guy.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Mar 24, 2015 8:59:23 GMT -5
Of the players I've seen, in addition to Ted, I'd also give 80's to Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn. Pete Rose, George Brett and Rod Carew were at least in the conversation as well. I would put Gwynn and Williams clearly at 80s. Probably Boggs too. Mauer I'd have as a 75. He's a career .319 hitter and has had seasons of .365, .347, .328, and .327. I think he may have actually had an 80 hit tool, but was hurt by being a catcher and the wear and tear that resulted.
|
|
|