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?
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Nov 5, 2015 21:25:52 GMT -5
I refuse to believe we'd accept the risk of starting Castillo and JBJ without acquiring someone like Rasmus to spell them. Way too much bust potential between those two. More likely I think Castillo gets dealt and we sign Gordon/Cespedes/Heyward/Upton. His upside isn't too high but he's a startable CF signed long term. Not sure how I feel about losing a mid 1 rounder though if it was Gordon (Upton we prob won't have interest in). JBJ is interesting too. He's more valuable than Castillo and for all we know we could be selling high if we trade him now. If he actually hits, that wouldn't be the case. ...and the floor for JB seems to be above-average starter. You personally might be worried that whatever JBJ did last winter to make him the best hitter in all of the minors before posting a 121 wRC+ in 255 MLB PA might disappear (the overall numbers, BTW, being consistent with his career other than 2014), leaving us with the 2014 JBJ, but it would be insane to make a personnel move based on that possibility. I think all rational evidence is that trading JBJ now would be selling low. Steamer is projecting him for a 97 wRC+, and it's going to be hard for opposing GMs to not feel that that's right (just as many folks on this board seem to feel that it's right), because they've seen him struggle. But that would be his second-worst professional season, by a mile. Davenport Age-Adjusted Translations, TAv (where 97 wRC+ is about .255): .304 .274 (average of these first two years: .290) .204 .293 (.289 in MLB) Hmm, one thing not like the others. And we know what happened to turn the .204 into the .293 and have a pretty good idea what turned the .290 into the .204. This is clearly a case where the expectation should be based more on the median than the mean. First half, 2013 - 59 Second half, 2013 - 96 First half, 2014 - 76 Second half, 2014 - -8 First half , 2015 - 32 August, 2015, 210!!!!! September, 2015 - 100 Hmm, one thing not REALLY not like any of the others. These are JBJ's ML OPS-plus numbers in the periods listed. He's had one big month in the ML - August 2015 - and that one was jacked up by a . 451 BABIP. Read that BABIP number again and let it sink in for a minute or two. Also, consider that his K rate that month was 26.4 percent, not all that different from his career rate of 28.2 percent. It's entirely reasonable to be highly skeptical that JBJ has turned the corner offensively, though we all hope like crazy that he has. You'll counter that I didn't list his good minor league numbers and you're right. Common sense says we should put a lot more weight on his Show performance than minor league performance - fancy Davenport translations razzle-dazzle notwithstanding. Also, a question: Now JBJ's floor is above-average starting player? If I recall correctly, you originally had his floor as 4.5 WAR - HOF level or close to it, if sustained over a career - and then dropped it to 4 WAR. Now it's down to above average starter? Steamer projects him for 2.4 WAR, which means he doesn't have to miss the projection by much to be a less than above average starter. Heck, as squishy as defensive WAR numbers are, just a little chance variation in his dWAR could push him below 2 WAR overall.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 5, 2015 22:35:00 GMT -5
...and the floor for JB seems to be above-average starter. You personally might be worried that whatever JBJ did last winter to make him the best hitter in all of the minors before posting a 121 wRC+ in 255 MLB PA might disappear (the overall numbers, BTW, being consistent with his career other than 2014), leaving us with the 2014 JBJ, but it would be insane to make a personnel move based on that possibility. I think all rational evidence is that trading JBJ now would be selling low. Steamer is projecting him for a 97 wRC+, and it's going to be hard for opposing GMs to not feel that that's right (just as many folks on this board seem to feel that it's right), because they've seen him struggle. But that would be his second-worst professional season, by a mile. Davenport Age-Adjusted Translations, TAv (where 97 wRC+ is about .255): .304 .274 (average of these first two years: .290) .204 .293 (.289 in MLB) Hmm, one thing not like the others. And we know what happened to turn the .204 into the .293 and have a pretty good idea what turned the .290 into the .204. This is clearly a case where the expectation should be based more on the median than the mean. First half, 2013 - 59 Second half, 2013 - 96 First half, 2014 - 76 Second half, 2014 - -8 First half , 2015 - 32 August, 2015, 210!!!!! September, 2015 - 100 Hmm, one thing not REALLY not like any of the others. These are JBJ's ML OPS-plus numbers in the periods listed. He's had one big month in the ML - August 2015 - and that one was jacked up by a . 451 BABIP. Read that BABIP number again and let it sink in for a minute or two. Also, consider that his K rate that month was 26.4 percent, not all that different from his career rate of 28.2 percent. It's entirely reasonable to be highly skeptical that JBJ has turned the corner offensively, though we all hope like crazy that he has. You'll counter that I didn't list his good minor league numbers and you're right. Common sense says we should put a lot more weight on his Show performance than minor league performance - fancy Davenport translations razzle-dazzle notwithstanding. Also, a question: Now JBJ's floor is above-average starting player? If I recall correctly, you originally had his floor as 4.5 WAR - HOF level or close to it, if sustained over a career - and then dropped it to 4 WAR. Now it's down to above average starter?Steamer projects him for 2.4 WAR, which means he doesn't have to miss the projection by much to be a less than above average starter. Heck, as squishy as defensive WAR numbers are, just a little chance variation in his dWAR could push him below 2 WAR overall. He has 0 WAR over the past 4 weeks, so I think the downgrade is justifiable.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 6, 2015 9:07:39 GMT -5
First half, 2013 - 59 Second half, 2013 - 96 First half, 2014 - 76 Second half, 2014 - -8 First half , 2015 - 32 August, 2015, 210!!!!! September, 2015 - 100 A month like august can't be ignored, and he did show significant improvement in the minors, but we're still talking about a guy who's been awful against MLB pitching except for one month. I like JBJ and I want to give him every chance next year, but let's be clear, his floor is that he turns back into a pumpkin.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 6, 2015 9:53:01 GMT -5
With that being said, would/should he be traded on a relatively high note, or has JBJ figured it out. If he has figured it out, that would make him into high WAR player, plus we'd have to sign a Rasmus or trade for Reddick. I would roll the dice with him, as with his track record on the high minors & a good month in 2015, I believe he has something there. They say, like in pitchers, once you have it, even for a short time, you have it. Could easily be an Iglesias situation.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 6, 2015 9:55:20 GMT -5
The harder I look at this team, the more I think it is in deep trouble. 2/3 OF positions, 2 corner IFs, C are all large question marks; and the pitching . . . And the defense is pretty shaky (except for probably the OF) - Fangraphs just did their AL "Gold Gloves" (just an average of the 3 defensive metrics) and the only Red Sox to finish top 3 at any position was . . . Wade Miley. Pedroia is in permanent decline, I fear, and Xander likely just had his peak defensive season; the team was 14th in DE in the AL last year.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 6, 2015 10:03:05 GMT -5
Iglesias is not the comp you want if you're optimistic - 1.6 fWAR in 2015
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Nov 6, 2015 10:11:50 GMT -5
The harder I look at this team, the more I think it is in deep trouble. 2/3 OF positions, 2 corner IFs, C are all large question marks; and the pitching . . . And the defense is pretty shaky (except for probably the OF) - Fangraphs just did their AL "Gold Gloves" (just an average of the 3 defensive metrics) and the only Red Sox to finish top 3 at any position was . . . Wade Miley. Pedroia is in permanent decline, I fear, and Xander likely just had his peak defensive season; the team was 14th in DE in the AL last year. Step away from the ledge. How is the C position a question mark when we have Hanigan, Swihart and Christian Vazquez? OF is also set, not to mention that we have Benintendi and Margot both close to knocking on the door soon. The OF doesn't really worry me at all, I have full confidence that it will be resolved with internal options. I'll give you the corner IF positions, mainly because Panda and Hanley are two complete unknowns at this point. They could either show up and have monster seasons, or produce like last year. However, Shaw showed he's a good option at 1B and we'll most likely do something. I don't expect both Pablo and Hanley to be back next year. If anything, I'm actually encouraged by the season Pedroia just had. His ISO spiked from .098 to .150 which is exactly what I wanted to see, his thumb woes look to be in the past and the power is still there. Dude hit .291/.356/.441, if that's decline I'll take what he's having please. The pitching sucked for the better part of the year, but are we just going to ignore how good Porcello looked after he came back from the DL? Are we going to ignore how Kelly looked at the end of the season before being shut down? Are we going to ignore just how good E-Rod looked in his rookie year? Buchholz will always be 50/50 but if healthy, and that's a giant if, he has proven that he's capable of having a solid season. Owens continued to get swings and misses at the major league level, showing that there's some actual truth to his deception. Even Rich Hill came out of nowhere and showed us something. Our pitching staff has a lot of depth, all we need is that ONE TOP OF THE ROTATION arm that will allow everyone else to slot in where they are probably meant to. You expect Xander to peak when he's what, 23 years old? I say he's only beginning to show what's he's capable of. This guy went from people doubting him sticking at SS to being arguably the best defensive SS last season. Also, when the power comes, watch out because this guy is about to go beast mode.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 6, 2015 10:53:47 GMT -5
The harder I look at this team, the more I think it is in deep trouble. 2/3 OF positions, 2 corner IFs, C are all large question marks; and the pitching . . . And the defense is pretty shaky (except for probably the OF) - Fangraphs just did their AL "Gold Gloves" (just an average of the 3 defensive metrics) and the only Red Sox to finish top 3 at any position was . . . Wade Miley. Pedroia is in permanent decline, I fear, and Xander likely just had his peak defensive season; the team was 14th in DE in the AL last year. Step away from the ledge. How is the C position a question mark when we have Hanigan, Swihart and Christian Vazquez? OF is also set, not to mention that we have Benintendi and Margot both close to knocking on the door soon. The OF doesn't really worry me at all, I have full confidence that it will be resolved with internal options. I'll give you the corner IF positions, mainly because Panda and Hanley are two complete unknowns at this point. They could either show up and have monster seasons, or produce like last year. However, Shaw showed he's a good option at 1B and we'll most likely do something. I don't expect both Pablo and Hanley to be back next year. If anything, I'm actually encouraged by the season Pedroia just had. His ISO spiked from .098 to .150 which is exactly what I wanted to see, his thumb woes look to be in the past and the power is still there. Dude hit .291/.356/.441, if that's decline I'll take what he's having please. The pitching sucked for the better part of the year, but are we just going to ignore how good Porcello looked after he came back from the DL? Are we going to ignore how Kelly looked at the end of the season before being shut down? Are we going to ignore just how good E-Rod looked in his rookie year? Buchholz will always be 50/50 but if healthy, and that's a giant if, he has proven that he's capable of having a solid season. Owens continued to get swings and misses at the major league level, showing that there's some actual truth to his deception. Even Rich Hill came out of nowhere and showed us something. Our pitching staff has a lot of depth, all we need is that ONE TOP OF THE ROTATION arm that will allow everyone else to slot in where they are probably meant to. You expect Xander to peak when he's what, 23 years old? I say he's only beginning to show what's he's capable of. This guy went from people doubting him sticking at SS to being arguably the best defensive SS last season. Also, when the power comes, watch out because this guy is about to go beast mode. To be fair, LF caused most of the defensive woes early in the season along with Pablo, Napoli even had a less than stellar 1st half defensively. #1 AND #2 starting catchers go down in the 1st month. Rich Hill is gone as a FA. I believe that top of the rotation arm will either cripple our financial capabilities or our farm system, go for a 2, not a 2 or 3, a solid 2.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 6, 2015 10:59:46 GMT -5
Take off the rose-colored glasses. "to being arguably the best defensive SS last season"
Yeah, like it's arguable that the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2015 11:10:11 GMT -5
Take off the rose-colored glasses. "to being arguably the best defensive SS last season" Yeah, like it's arguable that the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese How much did Hanley contribute to the 14th in DE last season? What would they have been with JBJ in the OF instead of Hanley all season? The main trouble they're in is that Hanley is still on the team. That's not impossible to overcome. Pay him to stay home and they might be a better team without replacing him. Worst case scenario is that he's as bad as he was last year in the field. His leash will be a lot shorter because they're not going to throw away another season waiting on him to get better. And if that's the case, they have Shaw who is at least average in the field if not a little better.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 6, 2015 11:35:49 GMT -5
Take off the rose-colored glasses. "to being arguably the best defensive SS last season" Yeah, like it's arguable that the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese How much did Hanley contribute to the 14th in DE last season? What would they have been with JBJ in the OF instead of Hanley all season? The main trouble they're in is that Hanley is still on the team. That's not impossible to overcome. Pay him to stay home and they might be a better team without replacing him. Worst case scenario is that he's as bad as he was last year in the field. His leash will be a lot shorter because they're not going to throw away another season waiting on him to get better. And if that's the case, they have Shaw who is at least average in the field if not a little better. If Hanley is in Fenway South in Feb, I don't think he will even have a leash. It will prob only take about a weeks worth of games (not drills) in ST to see if can play 1st....If he can or can't, it will show up quickly......It's not like in LF where getting a quick jump on a ball, or tracking a ball correctly, throws to the IF, ect can be judged differently. If we're paying most of his salary anyway, give him the shot (though I think it will be a train wreck). Heck, Ortiz may blow a knee out in the offseason & we'll need a FT DH.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 6, 2015 12:37:46 GMT -5
I know some folks here really hate opt-outs but I think offering Hayward 7 years with an opt out after 4 makes a lot of sense. He gets another crack at even bigger money and in 4 years and Sox can let him walk as he reaches his declining years. It may be a good negotiating tool in this particular instance because of his age, and with the enticement of the wage inflation that MLB has been experiencing for the last few years. Obviously this requires a trade of Castillo or Bradley but both are pretty nice guys as #2s in a package deal for a 1/2 starter if they are presented as CFs.
ADDED: And lest we forget, Dombrowski loves stars, and loves Frank Wren.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Nov 6, 2015 12:50:50 GMT -5
I know some folks here really hate opt-outs but I think offering Hayward 7 years with an opt out after 4 makes a lot of sense. He gets another crack at even bigger money and in 4 years and Sox can let him walk as he reaches his declining years. This has never made a ton of sense. Either he's worth more money than we're paying him ("even bigger money") for those last years or we're letting him go for his decline, not both. And since it's a player option the team expects to come out on the losing end.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2015 13:01:02 GMT -5
I know some folks here really hate opt-outs but I think offering Hayward 7 years with an opt out after 4 makes a lot of sense. He gets another crack at even bigger money and in 4 years and Sox can let him walk as he reaches his declining years. This has never made a ton of sense. Either he's worth more money than we're paying him ("even bigger money") for those last years or we're letting him go for his decline, not both. And since it's a player option the team expects to come out on the losing end. We've gone through this quite a few times. Guidas seems to think that the player would be more likely to sign if he's given an opt-out. That is the one and only advantage that a team would have in offering one. All of the other implications in offering an opt-out is a negative for the team and a positive for the player. I happen to think it's a terrible precedent, like the Phillies handing out $10-15 million buyouts for every contract that has an option at the end.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 6, 2015 13:41:14 GMT -5
If we have to trade either Castillo or JBJ for pitching I think Dom could look to get a subsidized Eithier from LA. Also I can't help but notice Matt Kemps contract is similar to Sandaval and Hanleys. I don't think he would be nearly the defensive liability outside of spacious Petco.
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Nov 6, 2015 14:25:13 GMT -5
If we have to trade either Castillo or JBJ for pitching I think Dom could look to get a subsidized Eithier from LA. Also I can't help but notice Matt Kemps contract is similar to Sandaval and Hanleys. I don't think he would be nearly the defensive liability outside of spacious Petco. If we lose an outfielder in a trade, I agree that Ethier would be a perfect fit for the Red Sox. Only signed for two more years, and I bet you could talk the Dodgers into taking Allen Craig if you included some lower level prospects. LA could actually use another RH bat off the bench, and I imagine they would take Craig if it meant relieving their logjam in the outfield.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2015 14:37:45 GMT -5
If we have to trade either Castillo or JBJ for pitching I think Dom could look to get a subsidized Eithier from LA. Also I can't help but notice Matt Kemps contract is similar to Sandaval and Hanleys. I don't think he would be nearly the defensive liability outside of spacious Petco. If we lose an outfielder in a trade, I agree that Ethier would be a perfect fit for the Red Sox. Only signed for two more years, and I bet you could talk the Dodgers into taking Allen Craig if you included some lower level prospects. LA could actually use another RH bat off the bench, and I imagine they would take Craig if it meant relieving their logjam in the outfield. I think the 'maybe Allen Craig' questions have been answered. He should retire or go play in Japan, but won't because he'd be leaving a lot of money on the table. So far he has -1.8 fWAR for the Red Sox and a wRC+ of 20. They should seriously just buy him out.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 6, 2015 15:26:20 GMT -5
If we lose an outfielder in a trade, I agree that Ethier would be a perfect fit for the Red Sox. Only signed for two more years, and I bet you could talk the Dodgers into taking Allen Craig if you included some lower level prospects. LA could actually use another RH bat off the bench, and I imagine they would take Craig if it meant relieving their logjam in the outfield. I think the 'maybe Allen Craig' questions have been answered. He should retire or go play in Japan, but won't because he'd be leaving a lot of money on the table. So far he has -1.8 fWAR for the Red Sox and a wRC+ of 20. They should seriously just buy him out. I wouldn't, let him play the string out in the minors, maybe in the DSL. Maybe HE will come forward & accept a smaller buyout.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 6, 2015 15:30:42 GMT -5
This has never made a ton of sense. Either he's worth more money than we're paying him ("even bigger money") for those last years or we're letting him go for his decline, not both. And since it's a player option the team expects to come out on the losing end. We've gone through this quite a few times. Guidas seems to think that the player would be more likely to sign if he's given an opt-out. That is the one and only advantage that a team would have in offering one. All of the other implications in offering an opt-out is a negative for the team and a positive for the player. I happen to think it's a terrible precedent, like the Phillies handing out $10-15 million buyouts for every contract that has an option at the end. And just to be clear - I would be all in for Heyward on 7 years, esp if it helps us in a trade for a young, top line pitcher with more than 2 years of control. And yes, I get the Phillies analogy but in the case of star players who are young when they sign and seem to be predicated on top dollar (and hence outliers among star free agents), such as Sabathia, ARod, Greinke, the chance to make even more money has an allure. In the case of the first two in that short list, the bad move was to re-sign them once they opt out. But, OK - I won't go back here again.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2015 16:35:06 GMT -5
We've gone through this quite a few times. Guidas seems to think that the player would be more likely to sign if he's given an opt-out. That is the one and only advantage that a team would have in offering one. All of the other implications in offering an opt-out is a negative for the team and a positive for the player. I happen to think it's a terrible precedent, like the Phillies handing out $10-15 million buyouts for every contract that has an option at the end. And just to be clear - I would be all in for Heyward on 7 years, esp if it helps us in a trade for a young, top line pitcher with more than 2 years of control. And yes, I get the Phillies analogy but in the case of star players who are young when they sign and seem to be predicated on top dollar (and hence outliers among star free agents), such as Sabathia, ARod, Greinke, the chance to make even more money has an allure. In the case of the first two in that short list, the bad move was to re-sign them once they opt out. But, OK - I won't go back here again. I wouldn't be shocked to see Heyward get 10 years. A lot of his value is in his defense which will likely decline by the time he's 33, so going for the full career contract right now might be the best move for him. I'd guess 10/250. But then again, there are so many 9 figure free agents this winter that there might not be enough teams with budget/roster room for all of them at full price. Someone will be disappointed. There could be some bargains.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 6, 2015 19:24:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this has already been answered - but if the Red Sox traded Craig + cash (as part of his contract) to a team like the Dodgers, and the Dodgers sent him to the minors to avoid the luxury tax implications, would the Red Sox still take the luxury tax hit from the $$ they sent the Dodgers? My guess is yes - but I've never seen this happen.
(And if the answer is 'yes' then I can't imagine the Red Sox ever trading Craig as I expect them to be above the luxury tax line for the remainder of his contract)
|
|
|
Post by xanderdu on Nov 6, 2015 20:08:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this has already been answered - but if the Red Sox traded Craig + cash (as part of his contract) to a team like the Dodgers, and the Dodgers sent him to the minors to avoid the luxury tax implications, would the Red Sox still take the luxury tax hit from the $$ they sent the Dodgers? My guess is yes - but I've never seen this happen. (And if the answer is 'yes' then I can't imagine the Red Sox ever trading Craig as I expect them to be above the luxury tax line for the remainder of his contract) Craig does not count against the luxury tax since he was DFA'd to AAA. He's just a cost against the team's overall finances, but has no adverse effect on the MLB roster construction. It's likely they will exceed the luxury tax in 2016, but a new CBA has to be negotiated for 2017, and it's widely accepted there will be a significant boost in the tax value. If so, they could overspend in 2016, with relative surety they could safely return below the tax value in 2017.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 7, 2015 13:34:49 GMT -5
The harder I look at this team, the more I think it is in deep trouble. 2/3 OF positions, 2 corner IFs, C are all large question marks; and the pitching . . . And the defense is pretty shaky (except for probably the OF) - Fangraphs just did their AL "Gold Gloves" (just an average of the 3 defensive metrics) and the only Red Sox to finish top 3 at any position was . . . Wade Miley. Pedroia is in permanent decline, I fear, and Xander likely just had his peak defensive season; the team was 14th in DE in the AL last year. I've had this exact debate with my overly pestimistic brother over the years, every team has question marks even the best ones but here's the thing about pestimistic people and "question marks" about a team going forward. Question marks are not a good thing nor a bad thing. They just are what they are unanswered questions. Other than the corner IFs, and OF'er you are not right about the other positional players. As much as I've said the same about Pedroia his defense shouldn't be questioned, he's still very good. Even if Xander had his peak season and I'm not sure what led you to that conclusion, do share, that does not mean his defense won't be good. Superb defensive catcher Vasquez will be back, when is the question.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 7, 2015 13:42:07 GMT -5
MLBTR has its annual 50 FA signings prediction. It suggests the Sox sign Cueto and O'Day. In fact, Cueto to RS was picked by five of the six writers. The selections are not always spot on, but it's fun to follow as FAs are signed.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 7, 2015 21:07:39 GMT -5
|
|
|