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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 23:21:03 GMT -5
What I'll never understand is why the Sox felt the need to break open the cookie jar this LAST offseason, when NEXT offseason offered the likes of Price, Cueto, Greinke and so many other strong starting pitchers. With the financial flexibility they used to have, the Sox could have had the pick of the litter.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 1, 2015 23:37:03 GMT -5
What I'll never understand is why the Sox felt the need to break open the cookie jar this LAST offseason, when NEXT offseason offered the likes of Price, Cueto, Greinke and so many other strong starting pitchers. With the financial flexibility they used to have, the Sox could have had the pick of the litter. They still might. They could always sell low on Porcello to a team with a spacious park and a good infield defense, trade Koji to a contender, like Seattle, and a number of different things to make room financially. They couldn't be in any more financial jail then when they moved away from Gonzalez, Crawford and Beckett. With that said, they'd still never sign Cueto or Price for the amount of years they'd want. People think Boston was the wrong market for Crawford? I could only imagine the disaster of bringing in Greinke.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 2, 2015 6:47:35 GMT -5
What I'll never understand is why the Sox felt the need to break open the cookie jar this LAST offseason, when NEXT offseason offered the likes of Price, Cueto, Greinke and so many other strong starting pitchers. With the financial flexibility they used to have, the Sox could have had the pick of the litter. Have you looked at this year's free agent crop of position players? It's one of the weaker ones in recent history, with no starting-caliber third basemen. It does have some corner outfield bats (Heyward, J. Upton, Cespedes), but I don't think they were planning on signing Hanley until he sort of fell in their lap, and if you thought he would be an average defender in LF, I'd certain prefer him at his price to those guys at their projected prices. Besides, they do have a decent bit of financial flexibility next year-- between Napoli, Victorino, Masterson, Breslow, and the end of the payments to the Dodgers, they have roughly $45m coming off the books, not a lot of salary increases (just Porcello's extension kicking in and a few arb cases for role players), and only a couple holes to fill (either LF or 1B (depending on Hanley's position), maybe SP).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2015 6:58:59 GMT -5
The problem with just standing pat is that if we finish last again the whole organization is probably going to get cleaned out. At the very least Farrel and Cherington will probably be gone. But on the same token I am not sure if there is one major trade that will save us. There probably going to have to at least attempt to deal for Hamels. The problem is a good number of the guys the Phillies want are on our big league roster. The best move might be to focus on 2016. But the Red Sox are under a lot of pressure to not have yet another losing season. And by standing pat Cherington probably costs himself his job. I don't envy his position. But at the same time his staff has made some bad moves and has failed to develop enough of our minor league talent to contribute like they did during the Theo years. There is a major organization problem there that can't be ignored anymore. The last superstar prospect that successfully developed into a major league is Anthony Rizzo, and he was traded before he even made it to the big leagues. Either are overrated our prospects or they aren't being developed right. Or they are 22.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 2, 2015 7:53:37 GMT -5
I don't see how people can think that Hanley, panda, porcello are traceable commodities. They are 2 months into their deals. How often has that ever happened?
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jun 2, 2015 8:19:24 GMT -5
This might sound ridiculous to many: There's nothing to fix!
Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, I think that's common believe, will continue to improve. Porcello, Buchholz, to a lesser degree Miley are or are going to be between slightly above (Buch, Porcello) or around league average. ERod, hopefully, but not unrealisticly, will give us a promising rookie season, maybe even more. One of Wright or Johnson or maybe both will give us at least slightly less then league average production.
Let's focus on "the problems" then: Hanley might not be the able to help us very much in the field. But he's not going to get worse, maybe with more time he'll improve a bit. His bat, I think that's reasonable, will get over his bad streak from may and get back to the April level. Maybe less HRs but more doubles. Panda will hopefully improve a bit against LH-pitching. Aside from that he seems to be what was paid for. Nap already has stabilized from a very bad start to the season and one or two of his hot streaks will lead to the numbers jmei wrote. The right field: One of Rusney (to soon to write him off, crazy so many people are freaking out after 1-2 bad weeks while before he was a saviour), JBJ or even Craig/Victorino should be able to give us league average production (I tend to say at least).
That leaves Papi and the bullpenn: Papi might or might not be falling from a cliff. It wouldn't be the first time he makes those who doubt him look foolish, but let's say this time he doesn't: That's what everyone of us was going to accept given his contributions for the team. So, please, let us do this then. The bullpenn should stabilize after Barnes grows comfortable and Breslow is gone. Might not be the best, but I can envision them getting into a hot streak once the starting pitching won't give them as much pressure as in the first two month.
Pedey will be Pedey.
I know it looks bad. But it still can only get better, maybe even much better then we expected. Look at the recent hot-streak the Giants had/are having. While we are in reach things can look much better in a hurry.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2015 8:45:32 GMT -5
I don't see how people can think that Hanley, panda, porcello are traceable commodities. They are 2 months into their deals. How often has that ever happened? Never, because no team would ever give up on guys like that this soon.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 2, 2015 8:46:35 GMT -5
I mean the Red Sox traded Bronson Arroyo before the ink was dry on his long-term deal, but that was a different situation.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 2, 2015 9:48:38 GMT -5
[/b] Sorry, I will not sanction this. They can have Owens, Johnson, and any other pitcher in the system but Rodriguez is in Mookie, Swihart territory. Everyone else in the system is "touchable," unless of course we're going into true (less that 2% probability) creative territory - Trout, Harper, Gray, and like that. Then of course everyone is on the table. But the latter ain't happening - though I would point out in a recent Keith Law chat he commented on a Grey for Mookie deal, implying it's the kind of real, non-talk radio type deal a GM like Beane might actually discuss, but I think his conclusion was that Boston would likely say no because ultimately of pitcher health unpredictability.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jun 2, 2015 10:16:13 GMT -5
I absolutely LOVE Alex Spier's articles. Today's is a can't miss on Hanley futility in the outfield. Great graph:
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 2, 2015 11:03:57 GMT -5
This might sound ridiculous to many: There's nothing to fix! This is basically how I feel... as far as the team is concerned. I don't see a problem with quality or chemistry within the team. I hate to keep beating a dead horse but I feel very strongly about this. I would make one major change, and you know what that is. I not only see a problem with quality at the management level, but more importantly, I see a big problem with chemistry between management and the team. JF is stone-faced, unemotional politician, and not what this team needs at this point in time. Ban me from the boards, crucify me, I don't care...
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jun 2, 2015 11:09:20 GMT -5
This might sound ridiculous to many: There's nothing to fix! Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, I think that's common believe, will continue to improve. Porcello, Buchholz, to a lesser degree Miley are or are going to be between slightly above (Buch, Porcello) or around league average. ERod, hopefully, but not unrealisticly, will give us a promising rookie season, maybe even more. One of Wright or Johnson or maybe both will give us at least slightly less then league average production. Let's focus on "the problems" then: Hanley might not be the able to help us very much in the field. But he's not going to get worse, maybe with more time he'll improve a bit. His bat, I think that's reasonable, will get over his bad streak from may and get back to the April level. Maybe less HRs but more doubles. Panda will hopefully improve a bit against LH-pitching. Aside from that he seems to be what was paid for. Nap already has stabilized from a very bad start to the season and one or two of his hot streaks will lead to the numbers jmei wrote. The right field: One of Rusney (to soon to write him off, crazy so many people are freaking out after 1-2 bad weeks while before he was a saviour), JBJ or even Craig/Victorino should be able to give us league average production (I tend to say at least). That leaves Papi and the bullpenn: Papi might or might not be falling from a cliff. It wouldn't be the first time he makes those who doubt him look foolish, but let's say this time he doesn't: That's what everyone of us was going to accept given his contributions for the team. So, please, let us do this then. The bullpenn should stabilize after Barnes grows comfortable and Breslow is gone. Might not be the best, but I can envision them getting into a hot streak once the starting pitching won't give them as much pressure as in the first two month. Pedey will be Pedey. I know it looks bad. But it still can only get better, maybe even much better then we expected. Look at the recent hot-streak the Giants had/are having. While we are in reach things can look much better in a hurry. I can't go along with your optimistic outlook for Hanley to improve over time. He's had all of Spring Training and two months of the season to adapt to a new position and the results are horrendous. The team cannot continue to tolerate that circus in left field. He should move to 1B or DH ASAP. Sure, he never played that position before either. But, he is an infielder by trade, though not a golden glover. First base requires less athleticism, a trait which he seems to lack. It's a bit complicated, I know, because of the presence of Papi and Napoli. That's the challenge for Ben and John.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 2, 2015 11:12:58 GMT -5
I would make one major change, and you know what that is. I not only see a problem with quality at the management level, but more importantly, I see a big problem with chemistry between management and the team. JF is stone-faced, unemotional politician, and not what this team needs at this point in time. Please explain and provide an example.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 2, 2015 11:46:26 GMT -5
I would make one major change, and you know what that is. I not only see a problem with quality at the management level, but more importantly, I see a big problem with chemistry between management and the team. JF is stone-faced, unemotional politician, and not what this team needs at this point in time. Please explain and provide an example. Quality at the management level: That should be self explanatory. Problem with chemistry between management and the team: This is more difficult to explain. I'll try to give a personal experience. I played a lot of baseball in my youth... many years, many leagues within each year. Often with the same teammates. The quality of the teams and the leagues didn't vary much, but the results did. For me, I know I played better fore some coaches than I did for others. In the extreme, it was like night and day. It the worst case, my high school coach made me feel inferior and inadequate, and I played that way, often sitting on the bench. The team was terrible. In the other extreme, on a team with the same quality of players, many of the same players, the coach(ing) was great, we were great, and I was an all star. This was in the 60's, and my dreams ended with the onset of the Vietnam war.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 2, 2015 11:51:15 GMT -5
I would respectfully disagree here. They are, miraculously, only 4 games out and the division appears to be wide open. Given the current playoff format, I think a trade that could help this team should be considered strongly. I wouldn't let go of any of the young guys currently playing on the big league roster, but if I was GM, I would strongly consider trading some of the top prospect depth for help this year to get us into the playoffs. The only ones I would consider would be Moncada or Devers. Though they're "only 4 behind", my philosophy is to get to .500 and then worry about how many games behind you are. This team has really not shown an ability to win consecutive series and have yet to sweep a team this season. At 7 games under .500, this is just getting to the point of sad. Even if they squeak in by some miracle they aren't going to beat anyone. Exactly. Mortgaging the future to waste a bunch of money on an aging, never-to-be-elite-again player or a three month rental, just to do a three-and-out on the *way off* chance that they make the playoffs is a remarkably bad idea to me. The Sox have around a -50 run differential. This isn't a team that's four games under .500 because they lost a couple extra-inning games and have a 2-9 record in one-run games. They've been absolutely, consistently, and roundly humiliated by nearly every team they've played. They show absolutely zero indication of being a playoff-caliber team, and even if they back in, they're most likely not going anywhere. If they go on a 12-2 run, I'll change my tune. But they need SOME sign of life. I mean, Ed Rodriguez gets the call-up, pitches one of their best games of the year, and how fired up are they? Enough to cough up the next two games, and look awful doing it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 2, 2015 11:54:06 GMT -5
The Sox are lucky to only be 7 games under right now. -48 run differential, with the most unearned runs scored in baseball. I'm most worried about ownership panicking at the deadline due to all the failed years surrounding the WS. I don't want any part of a rental "ace" because I don't think it's enough to win it all and I'm afraid just making it to the dance in this pitiful division will be good enough for them. I'm fine with going after pitching at the deadline that helps us in 2016 and beyond, but giving up top prospects for a guy you still have to pay 20+ AAV like Hamels makes ZERO sense. Pony up for a pitcher this off season and abandon the philosophy that you won't pay 30+ yr old pitchers. I don't know. The Hamels contract seems to be like the ones the current regime favors. It would be a shorter term contract and, by the end of this offseason's market pricing, should be prohibitively less than the market value for a pitcher of his caliber. If you believe that the Phillies are willing to kick in some of the salary, then by my rudely incomprehensive computations, he would actually cost less overall and annual in AAV than Rick Porcello He's a really good pitcher. He will get more expsensive as the summer drags on and other teams show interest. I think it is a slippery slope basing post-season expectations on regular season play. Last years world series combatants should, at a minimum, give that stream of consciousness pause. Really good right now, maybe. In two years? Probably not. $44M for two years of 2014 CC Sabathia is not inviting to me at all, especially when it blocks Owens, Johnson, and probably Kopech at that point. Yuck, no thanks.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 2, 2015 11:58:53 GMT -5
If he does well enough, I think it makes a lot of sense to move Napoli come the deadline. And that is whether the team is doing well or not. Moving Napoli just for the sake of being rid of him is not going to be good. The question is going to be, can you get more for him than you would by giving him a QO? If the answer is no, you might as well keep him around as a platoon player (Ramirez DH Napoli 1B vs. LHP, Ortiz DH Ramirez 1B vs. RHP). And that's assuming Ramirez actually turns out to be an average or better defender at 1B. I mean, averaging Steamer and ZiPS, Napoli projects to hit 119 wRC+ the rest of the way and Hanley projects to 125 wRC+. That's a pretty marginal difference. The question is, would he take or turn down the QO? Because if he takes it, that could create an issue next year, especially if he plays poorly.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 2, 2015 12:04:43 GMT -5
He should move to 1B or DH ASAP. Sure, he never played that position before either. But, he is an infielder by trade, though not a golden glover. First base requires less athleticism, a trait which he seems to lack. Athleticism is not the issue. Hanley is almost certainly more athletic (in terms of foot speed, first step quickness, etc.) than, say, Daniel Nava or Jonny Gomes. We're not talking about a guy like Adam Dunn who just is too lead-footed to get to enough fly balls. His issues are more with general comfort playing the outfield-- for instance, with routes in the outfield, tracking fly balls, spatial awareness of the wall, hitting the cutoff man, when to try to throw out a guy and when to just hang on to the ball, etc. Unlike athleticism, these are skills that can be improved, though it's an open question whether he has the work ethic and aptitude to improve them quick enough.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 2, 2015 12:11:16 GMT -5
The question is, would he take or turn down the QO? Because if he takes it, that could create an issue next year, especially if he plays poorly. Eh, the idea is, generally speaking, to give him the QO if you think he is going to play well, and not give him the QO is you think he is going to play poorly. What to do if a player you think is going to play well plays poorly instead is a much more general issue... as can be seen in both this and the previous season for the Red Sox. I'm of the mind that firing John Farrell would be a good start to solving this problem.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jun 2, 2015 12:14:20 GMT -5
This might sound ridiculous to many: There's nothing to fix! Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, I think that's common believe, will continue to improve. Porcello, Buchholz, to a lesser degree Miley are or are going to be between slightly above (Buch, Porcello) or around league average. ERod, hopefully, but not unrealisticly, will give us a promising rookie season, maybe even more. One of Wright or Johnson or maybe both will give us at least slightly less then league average production. Let's focus on "the problems" then: Hanley might not be the able to help us very much in the field. But he's not going to get worse, maybe with more time he'll improve a bit. His bat, I think that's reasonable, will get over his bad streak from may and get back to the April level. Maybe less HRs but more doubles. Panda will hopefully improve a bit against LH-pitching. Aside from that he seems to be what was paid for. Nap already has stabilized from a very bad start to the season and one or two of his hot streaks will lead to the numbers jmei wrote. The right field: One of Rusney (to soon to write him off, crazy so many people are freaking out after 1-2 bad weeks while before he was a saviour), JBJ or even Craig/Victorino should be able to give us league average production (I tend to say at least). That leaves Papi and the bullpenn: Papi might or might not be falling from a cliff. It wouldn't be the first time he makes those who doubt him look foolish, but let's say this time he doesn't: That's what everyone of us was going to accept given his contributions for the team. So, please, let us do this then. The bullpenn should stabilize after Barnes grows comfortable and Breslow is gone. Might not be the best, but I can envision them getting into a hot streak once the starting pitching won't give them as much pressure as in the first two month. Pedey will be Pedey. I know it looks bad. But it still can only get better, maybe even much better then we expected. Look at the recent hot-streak the Giants had/are having. While we are in reach things can look much better in a hurry. I can't go along with your optimistic outlook for Hanley to improve over time. He's had all of Spring Training and two months of the season to adapt to a new position and the results are horrendous. The team cannot continue to tolerate that circus in left field. He should move to 1B or DH ASAP. Sure, he never played that position before either. But, he is an infielder by trade, though not a golden glover. First base requires less athleticism, a trait which he seems to lack. It's a bit complicated, I know, because of the presence of Papi and Napoli. That's the challenge for Ben and John. For what it's worth: Speier mentions in his article how long it took for Alex Gordon to become the defender in LF he is today. I don't expect Hanley to get to the same level, but expect him to improve over time. Grantland has a Lindbergh article about how Castellanos of the Tigers needed one whole season to get from one of the worst defenders to league avg. Not saying it is guaranteed but it's at least likely Hanley improves.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 2, 2015 12:20:51 GMT -5
He should move to 1B or DH ASAP. Sure, he never played that position before either. But, he is an infielder by trade, though not a golden glover. First base requires less athleticism, a trait which he seems to lack. Athleticism is not the issue. Hanley is almost certainly more athletic (in terms of foot speed, first step quickness, etc.) than, say, Daniel Nava or Jonny Gomes. We're not talking about a guy like Adam Dunn who just is too lead-footed to get to enough fly balls. His issues are more with general comfort playing the outfield-- for instance, with routes in the outfield, tracking fly balls, spatial awareness of the wall, hitting the cutoff man, when to try to throw out a guy and when to just hang on to the ball, etc. Unlike athleticism, these are skills that can be improved, though it's an open question whether he has the work ethic and aptitude to improve them quick enough. I remember a time when Youkilis was moved to LF for a game or more, out of necessity I assume. Afterwards he was asked how he felt about the experience and responded with something like "it was a piece of cake compared to 1B". His response was not received very well by some outfielders, though I believe he was just trying to be humorous.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 2, 2015 12:45:24 GMT -5
Though they're "only 4 behind", my philosophy is to get to .500 and then worry about how many games behind you are. This team has really not shown an ability to win consecutive series and have yet to sweep a team this season. At 7 games under .500, this is just getting to the point of sad. Even if they squeak in by some miracle they aren't going to beat anyone. Exactly. Mortgaging the future to waste a bunch of money on an aging, never-to-be-elite-again player or a three month rental, just to do a three-and-out on the *way off* chance that they make the playoffs is a remarkably bad idea to me. The Sox have around a -50 run differential. This isn't a team that's four games under .500 because they lost a couple extra-inning games and have a 2-9 record in one-run games. They've been absolutely, consistently, and roundly humiliated by nearly every team they've played. They show absolutely zero indication of being a playoff-caliber team, and even if they back in, they're most likely not going anywhere. If they go on a 12-2 run, I'll change my tune. But they need SOME sign of life. I mean, Ed Rodriguez gets the call-up, pitches one of their best games of the year, and how fired up are they? Enough to cough up the next two games, and look awful doing it. Hell, if they went on a 5-5 run in the last 10 games they'd be in first place. So as long as the AL East continues to be the Land of Suck they don't even need to snap off a great streak. In fact, if they actually could go 12-2 and then .500 the rest of the way they could potentially bury everyone. Just amazing to see all this play out.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,888
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jun 2, 2015 12:51:39 GMT -5
Hanley has the ability to be an average outfielder.
I don't think he's put in enough work or gotten enough reps out there. Much too early to give up on him there though IMO.
A JBJ/Castillo platoon in RF could be interesting in due time (I'll maintain JBJ needs seasoning still in the short term).. I also would like to have JBJ up so there is always a plus defender available to replace Hanley late in games.
If JBJ is awful at the plate once he's called up, he can be sent back down. Hopefully one of him or Castillo break out (so to speak) though.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 2, 2015 13:10:54 GMT -5
Quality at the management level: That should be self explanatory. Problem with chemistry between management and the team: This is more difficult to explain. I'll try to give a personal experience. I played a lot of baseball in my youth... many years, many leagues within each year. Often with the same teammates. The quality of the teams and the leagues didn't vary much, but the results did. For me, I know I played better fore some coaches than I did for others. In the extreme, it was like night and day. It the worst case, my high school coach made me feel inferior and inadequate, and I played that way, often sitting on the bench. The team was terrible. In the other extreme, on a team with the same quality of players, many of the same players, the coach(ing) was great, we were great, and I was an all star. This was in the 60's, and my dreams ended with the onset of the Vietnam war. So, in other words, the Red Sox are not winning enough and therefore there is a chemistry problem?
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 2, 2015 13:31:00 GMT -5
Quality at the management level: That should be self explanatory. Problem with chemistry between management and the team: This is more difficult to explain. I'll try to give a personal experience. I played a lot of baseball in my youth... many years, many leagues within each year. Often with the same teammates. The quality of the teams and the leagues didn't vary much, but the results did. For me, I know I played better fore some coaches than I did for others. In the extreme, it was like night and day. It the worst case, my high school coach made me feel inferior and inadequate, and I played that way, often sitting on the bench. The team was terrible. In the other extreme, on a team with the same quality of players, many of the same players, the coach(ing) was great, we were great, and I was an all star. This was in the 60's, and my dreams ended with the onset of the Vietnam war. So, in other words, the Red Sox are not winning enough and therefore there is a chemistry problem? I'm saying a manager's persona can have an effect has on the players' ability to perform to the best of their capability. Compound that with average (at best) in game management, and thus we see the results.
|
|
|