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.
8/14-8/16 Red Sox vs. Mariners Series Thread
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 14, 2015 20:42:55 GMT -5
JBJ may just have hoisted himself over the Mendoza line, hopefully not to return anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Aug 14, 2015 20:43:02 GMT -5
Plus Brockstar can play CF. No questioning the value of Holt's versatility. But offensively, I think of him as sort of a latter-day Lou Merloni. He can do some useful things offensively, but play him too much and eventually he will be overexposed.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 14, 2015 20:46:24 GMT -5
Plus Brockstar can play CF. No questioning the value of Holt's versatility. But offensively, I think of him as sort of a latter-day Lou Merloni. He can do some useful things offensively, but play him too much and eventually he will be overexposed. I didn't mention anything about giving him any time out there — just that he can play CF if needed.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 14, 2015 20:52:00 GMT -5
Plus Brockstar can play CF. No questioning the value of Holt's versatility. But offensively, I think of him as sort of a latter-day Lou Merloni. He can do some useful things offensively, but play him too much and eventually he will be overexposed. If you put Holt at 3B for a year you'd probably get 1.5 to 2.0 WAR and it would cost you league minimum. That has value. Championship teams don't have to be above average everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Aug 14, 2015 20:54:18 GMT -5
Well, if there's ever a time to put Breslow out there .....
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Aug 14, 2015 21:24:57 GMT -5
And today he gives up nothing
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 14, 2015 21:27:14 GMT -5
Is it too early to wonder if Travis Shaw could be, if no more, a valuable utility player and bat off the bench? If he can play 1B, 3B, and LF passably well, he becomes a very valuable commodity. With Betts, JBJ, and Castillo all on the roster, even if one of them is hurt or needs a day off the other two can handle CF and RF at least reasonably well, so a 4th OF, for right now, only needs to play LF. No? Sent from my SM-G920P using proboards
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,415
|
Post by ianrs on Aug 14, 2015 21:28:10 GMT -5
Well I have to say, this game has more than made up for the Marlins series already.
Man, when this team clicks, its a beautiful thing to see. Nice to see lots of the young pieces really contributing on both sides of the ball.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Aug 14, 2015 21:28:30 GMT -5
Is it too early to wonder if Travis Shaw could be, if no more, a valuable utility player and bat off the bench? If he can play 1B, 3B, and LF passably well, he becomes a very valuable commodity. With Betts, JBJ, and Castillo all on the roster, even if one of them is hurt or needs a day off the other two can handle CF and RF at least reasonably well, so a 4th OF, for right now, only needs to play LF. we need to play shaw every day so long as he hits for average and power until opposing pitchers figure him out.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Aug 14, 2015 21:41:01 GMT -5
Anyone who says JBJ looks the same this year as he did last...is a flat out liar.
Regardless of his earlier struggles, the swing and approach at the plate has been 100% different from Day 1 this year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 14, 2015 21:43:19 GMT -5
Guarantee you they win one game, and it's Saturday. I think it'll be game 1.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Aug 14, 2015 21:54:18 GMT -5
I can't trust Shaw because of his lack of success in Pawtucket, but damn he has looked great. Easy plus raw to the pull side, solid approach, and a normal amount of swing and miss.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 14, 2015 21:58:54 GMT -5
What would JBJ's OPS have to be in order to make him worthy of a reguar spot in the line-up?
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Aug 14, 2015 22:13:41 GMT -5
700 works for me. But the lineup now is a lot better than last month.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 14, 2015 22:14:29 GMT -5
Is it too early to wonder if Travis Shaw could be, if no more, a valuable utility player and bat off the bench? If he can play 1B, 3B, and LF passably well, he becomes a very valuable commodity. With Betts, JBJ, and Castillo all on the roster, even if one of them is hurt or needs a day off the other two can handle CF and RF at least reasonably well, so a 4th OF, for right now, only needs to play LF. No? Sent from my SM-G920P using proboards Sort or a newer version of Nava that can play 3b instead of RF, only has more power than Nava did? Think that's a valuable commodity.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 14, 2015 22:29:45 GMT -5
Shaw had a long adjustment period at Portland too, so his overall numbers at Pawtucket aren't such a worry to me. He made adjustments and improved while he was there. Nava isn't a bad comparison, value-wise. Shaw isn't going to be a megastar but he's pretty good and he'll be cheap for awhile.
Regarding Bradley... here's the thing. Mookie Betts is already one of the 10 best center fielders in baseball, with a peak profile south of the Trout/McCutchen level but not by much. His bat is still well above average at a corner, but not as muck, and his defensive impact is diminished some. Bradley's upside is probably a first-division starter. So I think it makes the most sense to deal Bradley to one of those other 15-20 or so teams where he'd be an upgrade in center field for something that is a bigger need. Bradley is worth more to a team like the Indians and Giants than he is to the Red Sox, so there really should be some room for teams to make a deal that benefits both sides.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Aug 14, 2015 22:37:32 GMT -5
I remember the long adjustment, but he never got it going in Pawtucket like he did in Portland. He definitely passes the eye test (although the bat speed doesn't look special). Awesome to follow though.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 14, 2015 23:36:19 GMT -5
Shaw had a long adjustment period at Portland too, so his overall numbers at Pawtucket aren't such a worry to me. He made adjustments and improved while he was there. Nava isn't a bad comparison, value-wise. Shaw isn't going to be a megastar but he's pretty good and he'll be cheap for awhile. Regarding Bradley... here's the thing. Mookie Betts is already one of the 10 best center fielders in baseball, with a peak profile south of the Trout/McCutchen level but not by much. His bat is still well above average at a corner, but not as muck, and his defensive impact is diminished some. Bradley's upside is probably a first-division starter. So I think it makes the most sense to deal Bradley to one of those other 15-20 or so teams where he'd be an upgrade in center field for something that is a bigger need. Bradley is worth more to a team like the Indians and Giants than he is to the Red Sox, so there really should be some room for teams to make a deal that benefits both sides. But Bradley's upside as a RF is similar to what Heyward has done over the last couple of years: solid but unspectacular all around offensive player with spectacular defense in RF with range, instincts and a cannon arm. As many on this board would like Heyward for 20m+ a season, I like the idea of holding onto Bradley for the minimum if he continues to look good. I don't understand the idea that we can have both Betts and Bradley playing together or that Bradley MUST be a CFer. I doubt any Yankee fans are complaining about Gardner in LF and Ellsbury in CF. For years the Yankees have shifted the CFer over to the right to let Gardner cover more space and it has worked great. Doing the opposite with Betts and Bradley would be great if Bradley can learn the new angles. (I'm by no means saying Bradley will be as good as the guys above, simply pointing out how good he could be on this team if everything clicks)
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 14, 2015 23:39:11 GMT -5
No questioning the value of Holt's versatility. But offensively, I think of him as sort of a latter-day Lou Merloni. He can do some useful things offensively, but play him too much and eventually he will be overexposed. I didn't mention anything about giving him any time out there — just that he can play CF if needed. This isn't quite fair. Merloni was a fan favorite but wasn't much better than a replacement player without Holt's versatility. Holt looks like a league average player with tremendous versatility. That's a strong asset as a 10th man.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 15, 2015 0:26:24 GMT -5
Shaw had a long adjustment period at Portland too, so his overall numbers at Pawtucket aren't such a worry to me. He made adjustments and improved while he was there. Nava isn't a bad comparison, value-wise. Shaw isn't going to be a megastar but he's pretty good and he'll be cheap for awhile. Regarding Bradley... here's the thing. Mookie Betts is already one of the 10 best center fielders in baseball, with a peak profile south of the Trout/McCutchen level but not by much. His bat is still well above average at a corner, but not as muck, and his defensive impact is diminished some. Bradley's upside is probably a first-division starter. So I think it makes the most sense to deal Bradley to one of those other 15-20 or so teams where he'd be an upgrade in center field for something that is a bigger need. Bradley is worth more to a team like the Indians and Giants than he is to the Red Sox, so there really should be some room for teams to make a deal that benefits both sides. But Bradley's upside as a RF is similar to what Heyward has done over the last couple of years: solid but unspectacular all around offensive player with spectacular defense in RF with range, instincts and a cannon arm. As many on this board would like Heyward for 20m+ a season, I like the idea of holding onto Bradley for the minimum if he continues to look good. I don't understand the idea that we can have both Betts and Bradley playing together or that Bradley MUST be a CFer. I doubt any Yankee fans are complaining about Gardner in LF and Ellsbury in CF. For years the Yankees have shifted the CFer over to the right to let Gardner cover more space and it has worked great. Doing the opposite with Betts and Bradley would be great if Bradley can learn the new angles. (I'm by no means saying Bradley will be as good as the guys above, simply pointing out how good he could be on this team if everything clicks) His upside is only similar to Heyward's if you think he can hit something like .265/.350/.425. I'm really, really skeptical of that. I'm not saying that Bradley must be a centerfielder. I'm saying that because of his defense his value is very clearly maximized there, so he's worth more to another team than he is to the Red Sox. Basically, they should be able to get more in a trade than Bradley is worth as a right fielder from someone who wants him to play center. If that deal isn't available, don't trade him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 15, 2015 0:42:07 GMT -5
Shaw had a long adjustment period at Portland too, so his overall numbers at Pawtucket aren't such a worry to me. He made adjustments and improved while he was there. Nava isn't a bad comparison, value-wise. Shaw isn't going to be a megastar but he's pretty good and he'll be cheap for awhile. Regarding Bradley... here's the thing. Mookie Betts is already one of the 10 best center fielders in baseball, with a peak profile south of the Trout/McCutchen level but not by much. His bat is still well above average at a corner, but not as muck, and his defensive impact is diminished some. Bradley's upside is probably a first-division starter. So I think it makes the most sense to deal Bradley to one of those other 15-20 or so teams where he'd be an upgrade in center field for something that is a bigger need. Bradley is worth more to a team like the Indians and Giants than he is to the Red Sox, so there really should be some room for teams to make a deal that benefits both sides. This would have been true 10 years ago, but not any longer. You now lose very little value when you move a guy from CF to a corner. Let's start with LF, Bett's likeliest long-term destination if we install JBJ in CF. Last time I checked, LF had become the position with the fewest percentage of innings played by guys who could be identified as regulars -- an even lower percentage than catcher.
LF is indeed much easier to play than CF; last time I studied it, the average CF playing LF improved by 12 R/150. (This may no longer be true; as teams value defense more, LF defense has improved. We're about to see the other side of that coin.) By the laws of the defensive spectrum, LF must therefore hit better. And indeed, from 2000 to 2010, LF had a .268 TAv / EqA, while CF had .260. But starting in 2011, LF offense fell below CF offense, which takes the entire concept of the defensive spectrum and mocks it openly to its face (you may substitute a more colorful phrase if you wish). From 2011 through 2014, CF offense went up to .268, while LF offense fell to .265. This year, LF offense, at .261, is not only behind CF at .266, but has fallen below 3B offense at .264. I mean, really, since when? Anybody not named Hanley can play LF; it's very, very easy, and much easier than 3B. Consider the angst about Cecchini needing to move there. Yet MLB LF, this year, are being outhit by the 3B. What about RF and CF, which used to have a 6 R/150 defensive difference? From 2000 to 2011, RF averaged .273 and CF .260. From 2012-2014, CF is up 11 points to .271, and RF is down 3 to .270. This year, RF is .269, just .003 higher than CF. If the 2015 numbers stay the same, then 2012-2015 will be a wash between CF and RF, each at .270. That's just as startling as the change at LF. There's only one reasonable conclusion to draw from all this: there are simply not enough good outfielders to go around, and the shortage is specifically with traditional corner OFers. CF is unusually strong and deep, but there's a dramatic drop off after that, so that by the time you get to LF, many teams don't have anyone they can use as a regular. And more and more teams are playing CF at multiple positions; in theory they would be somewhat better off with a more traditional OF where the corners had X less defense and X + something more offense, but those guys are a diminishing breed.Right now, it sure looks like JBJ is our second best outfielder. You can't just say, trade him to a team that doesn't have a good CF, and pick up a comparable traditional corner OF who is surplus, because those guys barely exist any longer. (The guy I always have in mind to join our OF, Heyward, is really a CF playing in RF.) Any minimal value you would lose in moving Betts to a corner is not worth worrying about. In today's game, it may not really exist.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 15, 2015 1:38:09 GMT -5
His upside is only similar to Heyward's if you think he can hit something like .265/.350/.425. I'm really, really skeptical of that. I'm not saying that Bradley must be a center-fielder. I'm saying that because of his defense his value is very clearly maximized there, so he's worth more to another team than he is to the Red Sox. Basically, they should be able to get more in a trade than Bradley is worth as a right fielder from someone who wants him to play center. If that deal isn't available, don't trade him. That line is just about exactly what I'm thinking if everything is clicking - and I don't think anyone can blame you for being skeptical at this point. Also, Heyward's line isn't even his 'upside' so he's potentially a much more valuable player than JBJ's upside self when not accounting for salary. I think where you and I differ is that I think that an outside team is more inclined to look at a player's past than to forecast his future accurately based on scouting and recent improvements (the Red Sox should be aware of these things better than anyone else). So I'm not optimistic that JBJ's return in a trade will be worth his value to the Red Sox, even if there is a perfect RFer out there with a little more bat and a little less glove. And if his bat goes back to being Mendoza-esque, he's still a mighty fine 4th/5th OF on the cheap. What RFer would you be looking at in a trade/FA?
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Aug 15, 2015 2:02:29 GMT -5
Betts/JBJ/Castillo would be my ideal OF ASAP with the decision on which guy plays center secondary.
Shaw may be playing his way on to the 2016 opening day roster at 1B, which is truly surprising. With the emergence of JBJ, or at least the signs of life, I'm really aboard the get Hanley to 1B train, with days at DH, etc.
I'd hate to see JBJ traded unless it was part of a package to get a stud back, if only because I take such entertainment of his defense (though Mookie has started to make some of "those" plays too).
I just don't know what you do if you have Hanley, JBJ, Mookie, and Castillo, and you aren't willing to play Hanley at 1B
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 15, 2015 5:48:53 GMT -5
Betts/JBJ/Castillo would be my ideal OF ASAP with the decision on which guy plays center secondary. Shaw may be playing his way on to the 2016 opening day roster at 1B, which is truly surprising. With the emergence of JBJ, or at least the signs of life, I'm really aboard the get Hanley to 1B train, with days at DH, etc. I'd hate to see JBJ traded unless it was part of a package to get a stud back, if only because I take such entertainment of his defense (though Mookie has started to make some of "those" plays too). I just don't know what you do if you have Hanley, JBJ, Mookie, and Castillo, and you aren't willing to play Hanley at 1B Of course, the Red Sox should go with an outfield of Bradley, Betts, Castillo if they can. I think that outfield can give the Red Sox 9 WAR -- with 5 of those WAR coming from Betts. Replacing Bradley or Castillo with a stud buys you maybe an additional 3 WAR. In contrast, the Red Sox have a number of 0 WAR pitchers in the rotation. Any additional payroll -- and the Red Sox don't have much wiggle room -- should go into acquiring a top of the rotation starter. That's where the bang for the buck is.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 15, 2015 7:38:16 GMT -5
I just don't know what you do if you have Hanley, JBJ, Mookie, and Castillo, and you aren't willing to play Hanley at 1B I think that's a totally viable four-man outfield and indeed is my preferred outfield configuration next year. Between Hanley's injury history and his sliding over to DH and Castillo's seeming penchant to get nicked up, there should be plenty of playing time for everyone. When everyone is healthy, you can platoon Bradley and Castillo in RF, which would maximize their offensive value, and use Bradley as a defensive replacement/pinch-runner. If Hanley is out of the LF mix next year, I'd be a little worried about the outfield depth. You're not giving yourself a lot of protection in case one of Bradley or Castillo hits poorly or gets injured, which means you at the very least need to sign a fourth outfielder-type (since there isn't really one in the system) and may even want a starting-caliber guy.
|
|
|