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?
costpet
Veteran
Posts: 1,159
Member is Online
|
Post by costpet on Dec 12, 2015 9:48:51 GMT -5
Just wondering. Does anybody know how good Shaw's defense is at 3rd base? Average? Better than average? Would he platoon with Pablo? Pablo can't hit righties anymore, so it makes sense. Or, if they trade Pablo, could Shaw handle 3rd by himself?
Inquiring minds want to know.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Dec 12, 2015 10:23:13 GMT -5
Just wondering. Does anybody know how good Shaw's defense is at 3rd base? Average? Better than average? Would he platoon with Pablo? Pablo can't hit righties anymore, so it makes sense. Or, if they trade Pablo, could Shaw handle 3rd by himself? Inquiring minds want to know. Not so much that Pablo can't hit righties. it was actually not even the lefties that gave him the issues. It's that he somehow forgot how to bat RH. He has given up switch hitting and is now strictly a LH hitter.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 12, 2015 10:23:15 GMT -5
I know people have little to no confidence, myself included, in John Farrell and his ability to manage a bullpen, but his options the last couple years have been brutal. And in 2013, he did a good enough job in the playoffs to win it. He made adjustments both on the field and in the bullpen that helped them win. So maybe we should give him some benefit of the doubt. He's not about to get super unorthodox but perhaps he will do a good job nonetheless. This article was fairly interesting, nothing earth shattering but it did talk about how Carson Smith is an ideal guy to use in the earlier game situations where you need to get out of a jam. For instance, 5th inning of a close game, runners on base for the opposition. Instead of bringing in a guy like Ogando or whoever, you can bring in Smith who has a high K and GB rate, ideal for that situation. Then you still have 3 great options for the last few innings. Hopefully, that's the stuff we see rather than 7th inning guy etc. Koji isn't ideal for that role due to his age and how they probably need to treat him warming up. But Smith is perfect. www.overthemonster.com/2015/12/10/9883218/carson-smith-can-be-an-effective-fireman
|
|
|
Post by xanderdu on Dec 12, 2015 11:24:22 GMT -5
Porcello is very much a 2 guy. He's produced as such and projects as such. Forget how he started last season, and instead look at who he was after he returned. I'd like a #2 also, but not if it requires gutting the team, or the future; and that's what it requires Yes. It's worth pointing out that they had him throwing way too many 4-seamers; after he returned, he went back to his old pitch mix, and, of all the wacky things, also returned to being as good as he used to be. They have three guys who are very credible candidates to start a game 2: a healthy Buchholz (OK, credible at the talent level), Porcello, and an Eduardo Rodriguez who is throwing his sinker and cutter in addition to the three pitches that made him an elite prospect, and exciting but inconsistent rookie. Do we have any info on whether this was a result of Nieves coaching, or just Porcello changing because of the new contract influence? Everything I've read thus far points to the little voice inside Porcello head telling him he needed to strike guys out and be the ace, as the reason for his high number of 4 seamers. I was a huge fan of our obtaining, and extending him, and think he'll be fine going foward. I think he derives the greatest benefit of Price heading up the staff.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 12, 2015 11:49:43 GMT -5
Overall, I'm in total agreement with you (and others) regarding Porcello in that I think he's going to be just fine here in Boston over the long term. Look at two recent big acquistions moving from another team in Beckett and Lackey. They both struggled mightly in their first seasons in Boston, and when you look at the second half of each pitcher in those season's (2006, 2010 and 2015, respectively), Porcello's was the best of all three of them.
That said, I don't think that Porcello is as good of a pitcher as either Beckett or Lackey, unfortunately. To me Porcello is likely to be a very good number 3 pitcher, with the upside of becoming a number 2 as he matures - it's so easy to forget he's only going to be 27 this year.
We have done a lot to fix the team this season, and unlike last year where I think we went into the season with a guy whom I thought would be a number 2 (Porcello) a number 4 (Miley) and then a bunch of number 5 starters; this year I think we are going in to the season with an Ace (Price), two guys that are presently number 3s, but both with good or great upside (Porcello and Rodriguez, respectively) and then a bunch of number 5 starters.
I would still very much like to see the team pursue a number 2 starter, or another very solid number 3 starter whether via trade or free agency.
In my opinion, a number 5 starter simply means someone at the end of your rotation with a lot of questions. So I'm considering Buchholz a number 5 not based on his tons of talent, but based on the fact that over his last 5 seasons he has alternated between very good and below replacement level, and this season will be in his "downward trend" so I'm anticipating an ERA from him above 4.50. Then you look at guys like Kelly, Owens, Wright etc, all of whom have question marks that are even greater than Buchholz.
I would love to see a movement where we are able to shed some contracts of the players with the greatest uncertainty (Sandoval, Buchholz, Ramirez would be my order of preference) and bring in another starter to ensure more of a line up of Ace, three number 3 pitchers - at worst, and then leaving the 5th (and 6th) slots for Kelly, Owens, Wright, Johnson, Elias, etc to battle over.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 12, 2015 14:41:15 GMT -5
Umm...what? Is this Marlins official "smoking the reefer?" Can I suggest another explanation of that Gammons quotation, keeping in mind his clipped and elliptical way of writing? Could the source have said something like, "they have so many great young players and prospects like A, B, C, D, and E, that I thought that we had a situation in which something might work out" [in which we would get some of them]? That has to be the case. You can argue that Betts alone would be an overpay. No way the Marlins wouldn't take EROD and Betts in two seconds flat.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 12, 2015 14:50:18 GMT -5
Can I suggest another explanation of that Gammons quotation, keeping in mind his clipped and elliptical way of writing? Could the source have said something like, "they have so many great young players and prospects like A, B, C, D, and E, that I thought that we had a situation in which something might work out" [in which we would get some of them]? Could be, but given the responses of the DBacks (who preferred to be ripped off by the Braves instead) or the Dodgers, I think was Gammons reported was reasonably accurate. After all, if you're the Marlins, why would you trade Fernandez if you really didn't have to. You'd have to be overwhelmed to do so, so the Marlins were entertaining and demanding overwhelming offers, as well they should. In time, when the Marlins really do need to trade Fernandez, those offers from them won't be as demanding and the return for Fernandez will increase naturally, based on natural competition from trade partners, rather than ridiculous demands from the Marlins. You get that Betts is basically the position player equal of Fernandez don't you? Best bwar for Betts is 6.00, Fernandez is 6.3, both are 23. Betts has more team control, no past major injury and cost less. If I was the Red Sox I wouldn't trade Betts straight up for Hernandez. So a good deal for Marlins would be EROD and Betts, that's a clear overpay in my book. Now saying you want a young catcher that is one of best at D in the game, one of the best prospects in the game(heck maybe the best) and another pitcher is crazy talk. I don't think the Marlins would even dare to ask for that much. Being overwhelmed is one thing, getting what could turn out to be the biggest haul in trade history is another.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Dec 12, 2015 15:15:39 GMT -5
Overall, I'm in total agreement with you (and others) regarding Porcello in that I think he's going to be just fine here in Boston over the long term. Look at two recent big acquistions moving from another team in Beckett and Lackey. They both struggled mightly in their first seasons in Boston, and when you look at the second half of each pitcher in those season's (2006, 2010 and 2015, respectively), Porcello's was the best of all three of them. That said, I don't think that Porcello is as good of a pitcher as either Beckett or Lackey, unfortunately. To me Porcello is likely to be a very good number 3 pitcher, with the upside of becoming a number 2 as he matures - it's so easy to forget he's only going to be 27 this year. We have done a lot to fix the team this season, and unlike last year where I think we went into the season with a guy whom I thought would be a number 2 (Porcello) a number 4 (Miley) and then a bunch of number 5 starters; this year I think we are going in to the season with an Ace (Price), two guys that are presently number 3s, but both with good or great upside (Porcello and Rodriguez, respectively) and then a bunch of number 5 starters. I would still very much like to see the team pursue a number 2 starter, or another very solid number 3 starter whether via trade or free agency. In my opinion, a number 5 starter simply means someone at the end of your rotation with a lot of questions. So I'm considering Buchholz a number 5 not based on his tons of talent, but based on the fact that over his last 5 seasons he has alternated between very good and below replacement level, and this season will be in his "downward trend" so I'm anticipating an ERA from him above 4.50. Then you look at guys like Kelly, Owens, Wright etc, all of whom have question marks that are even greater than Buchholz. I would love to see a movement where we are able to shed some contracts of the players with the greatest uncertainty (Sandoval, Buchholz, Ramirez would be my order of preference) and bring in another starter to ensure more of a line up of Ace, three number 3 pitchers - at worst, and then leaving the 5th (and 6th) slots for Kelly, Owens, Wright, Johnson, Elias, etc to battle over. I agree with most of what you said here, but I do think Buchholz is better than a #5, however I fully understand the reasons you don't put him higher. Porcello and Rodriguez definitely have the ability to be a solid #2, but they still need to improve and pitch better more consistently to be a #2. I like them both.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 12, 2015 15:52:16 GMT -5
So UMass you're saying Vasquez, Moncada and say Owens for Fernandez is crazy talk?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2015 16:18:00 GMT -5
Could be, but given the responses of the DBacks (who preferred to be ripped off by the Braves instead) or the Dodgers, I think was Gammons reported was reasonably accurate. After all, if you're the Marlins, why would you trade Fernandez if you really didn't have to. You'd have to be overwhelmed to do so, so the Marlins were entertaining and demanding overwhelming offers, as well they should. In time, when the Marlins really do need to trade Fernandez, those offers from them won't be as demanding and the return for Fernandez will increase naturally, based on natural competition from trade partners, rather than ridiculous demands from the Marlins. You get that Betts is basically the position player equal of Fernandez don't you? Best bwar for Betts is 6.00, Fernandez is 6.3, both are 23. Betts has more team control, no past major injury and cost less. If I was the Red Sox I wouldn't trade Betts straight up for Hernandez. So a good deal for Marlins would be EROD and Betts, that's a clear overpay in my book. Now saying you want a young catcher that is one of best at D in the game, one of the best prospects in the game(heck maybe the best) and another pitcher is crazy talk. I don't think the Marlins would even dare to ask for that much. Being overwhelmed is one thing, getting what could turn out to be the biggest haul in trade history is another. Who are you asking and why are you asking the question. I doubt there are many of us here who would deal Betts straight up for Fernandez let alone everything else the Marlins were demanding.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 12, 2015 16:58:01 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I think Buchholz TALENT is ace calibre. He has some of the best stuff I've ever seen from a Sox pitcher, and I fully admit that when he is on and healthy, he is exceptionally valuable. That said, he has a very clear track record over the past 5 seasons: very good, but injured (2011); below average (2012); elite, but injured (2013); atrocious (2014); elite, but injured (2015), so assuming the pattern holds, this year he should fall somewhere between below average and terrible.
Now, I don't think this is for some absurd reason like "he can't pitch in even numbered years"; I think this is because for whatever reason it takes him longer than other pitchers to recover his form from injury, and there is a pattern of 5 seasons worth of data showing that it's more likely than not he will not be a valuable pitcher this season. Is the upside there - of course - but that is why I consider him a number 5 - and it's based on his track record over the past 5 seasons.
If we had more certainty from the numbers 2, 3 and 4 slots in the rotation, I'd be perfectly on board with using Buchholz in the rotation because of his upside. However, as much as I like Porcello and Rodriguez (and I think most of us do) you'd be a fool to say that they don't each have significant levels of variance that could reasonably be expected in their performance. Honestly, I don't trust Joe Kelly at all, and anyone else that would be in the 4 slot from those presently on the roster have a litany of questions as well.
That is why, I would love to get another very dependable starter that you can fairly certainly project to be of number 3 level quality to have in this rotation. In my mind, ideally, you find a way to move Sandoval to fit in this salary at a reasonable point, but I understand that Clay Buchholz - even with his questions - is immensely more valuable than I think Pablo Sandoval will be, so it's likely you'd be stuck with Sandoval and moving Buchholz for reasonable value.
I think most reasonable people would project one of two things from Buchholz this season, awfulness or elite pitching for 15 or fewer starts. With a rotation that has question marks up and down outside of Price (and again, I REALLY like Porcello and Rodriguez), I don't think the team is built to withstand either version of Buchholz UNLESS Price continues to be an ace (likely) and both Porcello and Rodriguez pitch very well. As an example, if we could have traded Joe Kelly instead of Wade Miley - I'd be fine keeping Buchholz, but we couldn't / didn't so you need another dependable starter.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 12, 2015 17:40:07 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I think Buchholz TALENT is ace calibre. He has some of the best stuff I've ever seen from a Sox pitcher, and I fully admit that when he is on and healthy, he is exceptionally valuable. That said, he has a very clear track record over the past 5 seasons: very good, but injured (2011); below average (2012); elite, but injured (2013); atrocious (2014); elite, but injured (2015), so assuming the pattern holds, this year he should fall somewhere between below average and terrible. Now, I don't think this is for some absurd reason like "he can't pitch in even numbered years"; I think this is because for whatever reason it takes him longer than other pitchers to recover his form from injury, and there is a pattern of 5 seasons worth of data showing that it's more likely than not he will not be a valuable pitcher this season. Is the upside there - of course - but that is why I consider him a number 5 - and it's based on his track record over the past 5 seasons. If we had more certainty from the numbers 2, 3 and 4 slots in the rotation, I'd be perfectly on board with using Buchholz in the rotation because of his upside. However, as much as I like Porcello and Rodriguez (and I think most of us do) you'd be a fool to say that they don't each have significant levels of variance that could reasonably be expected in their performance. Honestly, I don't trust Joe Kelly at all, and anyone else that would be in the 4 slot from those presently on the roster have a litany of questions as well. That is why, I would love to get another very dependable starter that you can fairly certainly project to be of number 3 level quality to have in this rotation. In my mind, ideally, you find a way to move Sandoval to fit in this salary at a reasonable point, but I understand that Clay Buchholz - even with his questions - is immensely more valuable than I think Pablo Sandoval will be, so it's likely you'd be stuck with Sandoval and moving Buchholz for reasonable value. I think most reasonable people would project one of two things from Buchholz this season, awfulness or elite pitching for 15 or fewer starts. With a rotation that has question marks up and down outside of Price (and again, I REALLY like Porcello and Rodriguez), I don't think the team is built to withstand either version of Buchholz UNLESS Price continues to be an ace (likely) and both Porcello and Rodriguez pitch very well. As an example, if we could have traded Joe Kelly instead of Wade Miley - I'd be fine keeping Buchholz, but we couldn't / didn't so you need another dependable starter.
Well said. I was always in the Lester camp over Clay. You explained why better than I ever could.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 14, 2015 11:10:27 GMT -5
You can argue the same issues with most major league teams. after the #1, there are many question marks. I think though with our depth, we can withstand problems better than most. Many teams have these issues 1-5 or 2-5. After their #5 there is a steep drop. At least we have 8 or 9 guys who can step in & have pitched some quality innings in the bigs. I know you can't win with 5 or 6 #5's toiling in your rotation. With that said, I just can't see that a couple of guys can't step up to fill #2 & #3 accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 8:19:39 GMT -5
If the cost of pitching is what it appears to be on the trade market, then you avoid it at this time. I am not sure there is a free agent worth getting at this point even if his price drops. Maybe Kazmir, an argument can be made for but he's left handed thus less than ideal.
Fister, an argument could be made for but I think he's hardly a guaranteed number 2/3 type so why bother?
Its not that a number 2 wouldn't be welcome or a positive addition; it's the cost to acquire vs the degree it's needed isn't there at the moment. It is where DD should be looking to improve, if something reasonable becomes available.
In the mean time, the roster has guys who could be that guy in Porcello and Rodriguez. So there's always during the year trades. But let's just say those guys pitch well but in a vacuum are more 3 types than the 2 we would want but the offense is great and the bullpen is great. In that's circumstance, you can probably still win a WS with an Ace and a couple solid not spectacular starters.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2015 10:56:01 GMT -5
NC and RJP, I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I think there are more questions right now than people are willing to really consider. We all (I think) agree that Price is going to be a very good pitcher in Boston suring up the top of the rotation and the same thing can be said for our bull pen which should assuredly be a strength with Kimbrel, Koji, Smith and Tazawa as the big names at the back end.
Beyond that, however, there are certainly question marks with 2/3 of our outfield (admittedly bolstered againt under-performance of one of them with Chris Young) and with 1/2 of our infield. I tend to feel very confident with our 1-4 in the line up (Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts and Ortiz), and I feel very good about our catching situation.
That said I'm operating under the assumption of negative value both offensively and defensively at 3b with Sandoval, at least negative value at 1b defensively from Ramirez and a very bad year from Buchholz - which has been his track record coming off injury over the past 5 seasons, so a significant sample size.
While I do like Porcello and Rodriguez a lot (same with Bradley Jr and Castillo), and absolutley want them both in the rotation, I'm in no way going to sit here and say they don't have questions associated with them. We don't really know what the "cost" to acquire another 2/3 starter is on the trade market since none of been moved - but lets agree to assume it's prohibitive. I still think the Sox would be better served to pick up another starter that can reasonably be expected to give you what Porcello will - a 3 baseline with potential for more. I would absolutely kick the tires on both Kazmir and Chen to see what the cost is going to be there, but the name I'd really love to see brought in is Mark Buehrle.
He is certainly near the end of his career entering the season at age 37, BUT over his last 3 seasons in Toronto he has put up on average 32 starts with a 3.78ERA and has for his entire career outpitched his FIP (so we have to assume this is a skill and he hasn't gotten "lucky" for 16 seasons). I think it's very reasonable to use Lackey's deal with Chicago as a baseline based on their same age and very similar numbers - though Buehrle has actually been slightly more durable. Similar to Price and Lackey, he's also shown an ability to pitch in the AL East.
I would LOVE a rotation of Price, Buehrle, Porcello, Rodriguez and then a battle royale for the 5th spot. Based on Buehrle having basically a neutral split (.264/.305/.420/.726 vs LHP; .277/.318/.421/.740 against RHP) and Price dominating against both, I couldn't care less if they threw with their feet, much less that they're left handed. He also doesn't cost a pick. Honestly, I'm just upset we haven't signed him already.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 11:14:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you can look at a 37 year old Buehrle and think he's a three with upside for more. He's a 4 with considerable downside. We already have those.
It's way too early to be writing Sandoval as a negative. He had a bad year and had a bad contract but he's been a solid player and isn't 30 yet. No one is going to try to argue he's not over paid but taking money out of it, he's a pretty nice player to have 6th or lower in your lineup, plus Shaw and Holt are pretty nice players to have as backups.
I agree that Bradley and Castillo are questions. The issue is you can't really upgrade them without significantly increasing pay roll. I don't want them getting into another bad contract for a so so player. However, if Justin Uptons market falls apart and he takes a pillow contract for 1 year with a player option then they'd have to consider that. Highly unlikely.
When people say they don't have a lot left to do that doesn't mean that every spot is 100% fool proof.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2015 11:36:54 GMT -5
Buerhle retired as far as I know. And please stop saying the name Doug Fister. He was terrible last year and was throwing 86 mph and got moved to the bullpen. We do not need hopes and prayers in the starting rotation.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 17, 2015 11:57:22 GMT -5
I don't think its a certainty that Bogaerts is the #3 hitter. He's got 20 HR in 1300 PA; that's not an ideal #3 hitter
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,839
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 17, 2015 12:12:50 GMT -5
I don't think its a certainty that Bogaerts is the #3 hitter. He's got 20 HR in 1300 PA; that's not an ideal #3 hitter Watching the adjustments this "kid" made last season, I'm willing to bet he hits, at least, 15 homers this year and maybe increase his doubles to 40+. THAT is a fine #3 hitter, especially if he can still hit close to .300. I would not be surprised thursty if both Xander and Betts hit 20 this season.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 12:23:02 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me to see Hanley 3 and Xander 5, but I think it's a mistake
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 17, 2015 12:36:48 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me to see Hanley 3 and Xander 5, but I think it's a mistake Well, it's possible that Betts, Pedroia and Ortiz are our 3 best hitters (who should, as everyone knows, go 1-2-4), in which case 3 and 5 for Hanley and Xander would be exactly right, but I suspect one of them will be better than Pedroia, in which case that would indeed be a - nearly insignificant - mistake.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 17, 2015 12:41:00 GMT -5
I want the guy who hit .320 last year batting somewhere in our top 3
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2015 12:51:12 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me to see Hanley 3 and Xander 5, but I think it's a mistake Well, it's possible that Betts, Pedroia and Ortiz are our 3 best hitters (who should, as everyone knows, go 1-2-4), in which case 3 and 5 for Hanley and Xander would be exactly right, but I suspect one of them will be better than Pedroia, in which case that would indeed be a - nearly insignificant - mistake. I'm not sure why we debate these things with our current manager. Maybe JBJ will move up to 7th after a month of OPSing .900.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Dec 17, 2015 13:00:19 GMT -5
I would think that Betts, Pedey, Ortiz, Ramirez and Bogaerts in that order to start the year. Unless Ramirez is horrible in spring training or there are injuries.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Dec 17, 2015 13:02:26 GMT -5
NC and RJP, I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I think there are more questions right now than people are willing to really consider. We all (I think) agree that Price is going to be a very good pitcher in Boston suring up the top of the rotation and the same thing can be said for our bull pen which should assuredly be a strength with Kimbrel, Koji, Smith and Tazawa as the big names at the back end. Beyond that, however, there are certainly question marks with 2/3 of our outfield (admittedly bolstered againt under-performance of one of them with Chris Young) and with 1/2 of our infield. I tend to feel very confident with our 1-4 in the line up (Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts and Ortiz), and I feel very good about our catching situation. That said I'm operating under the assumption of negative value both offensively and defensively at 3b with Sandoval, at least negative value at 1b defensively from Ramirez and a very bad year from Buchholz - which has been his track record coming off injury over the past 5 seasons, so a significant sample size. While I do like Porcello and Rodriguez a lot (same with Bradley Jr and Castillo), and absolutley want them both in the rotation, I'm in no way going to sit here and say they don't have questions associated with them. We don't really know what the "cost" to acquire another 2/3 starter is on the trade market since none of been moved - but lets agree to assume it's prohibitive. I still think the Sox would be better served to pick up another starter that can reasonably be expected to give you what Porcello will - a 3 baseline with potential for more. I would absolutely kick the tires on both Kazmir and Chen to see what the cost is going to be there, but the name I'd really love to see brought in is Mark Buehrle. He is certainly near the end of his career entering the season at age 37, BUT over his last 3 seasons in Toronto he has put up on average 32 starts with a 3.78ERA and has for his entire career outpitched his FIP (so we have to assume this is a skill and he hasn't gotten "lucky" for 16 seasons). I think it's very reasonable to use Lackey's deal with Chicago as a baseline based on their same age and very similar numbers - though Buehrle has actually been slightly more durable. Similar to Price and Lackey, he's also shown an ability to pitch in the AL East. I would LOVE a rotation of Price, Buehrle, Porcello, Rodriguez and then a battle royale for the 5th spot. Based on Buehrle having basically a neutral split (.264/.305/.420/.726 vs LHP; .277/.318/.421/.740 against RHP) and Price dominating against both, I couldn't care less if they threw with their feet, much less that they're left handed. He also doesn't cost a pick. Honestly, I'm just upset we haven't signed him already. I agree with most everything, except signing Buehrle.
|
|
|