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.
Baseball Winter Meetings coverage
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 89
|
Post by brisox on Dec 10, 2015 10:25:58 GMT -5
I am in the camp that thinks he will go after one before the trade deadline.....with Swihart being the centerpiece. Maybe if they feel they really have to and the prices come down. But I think he likes the starters that follow Price. It's easier to go into the expecting o eof those guys to step as the #2, than as as the ace. Porcello's bounce back, Rodriguez' continued growth, a partial season of Buccholz all can be that guy. Buch often pitches like a #1 when healthy. You are 100% correct. This is exactly how he sees it. there was a deal for a #2 in place but it has been put in the back burner because the team wants to trade other starters first
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 10, 2015 10:51:16 GMT -5
3YRS 57M still to go on contract I was referring to Cafardo. That's a lot of money for a sports writer. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 10, 2015 11:10:42 GMT -5
Anyone know anything about our rule 5 drafts RHP Jonny Polanco (STL) & RHP Angelo Leclerc (TX)?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,119
|
Post by nomar on Dec 10, 2015 11:24:23 GMT -5
Anyone know anything about our rule 5 drafts RHP Jonny Polanco (STL) & RHP Angelo Leclerc (TX)? Relief pitching prayers.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 10, 2015 11:25:00 GMT -5
You must laugh at pretty much every contract every pitcher has signed lately.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 10, 2015 11:27:37 GMT -5
You must laugh at pretty much every contract every pitcher has signed lately. I'm not a mod, but please learn how to let things go. This is not a good thread for discussing that contract. Just like Nomar's post and move on rather than failing to let the subject die. Sorry, this happens all the time and I've had it built up for too long. There are lots of posts I disagree with - I don't have to make each point if that point has been discussed 100 times earlier. That's the beauty of the written word!
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 10, 2015 11:36:58 GMT -5
You must laugh at pretty much every contract every pitcher has signed lately. I'm not a mod, but please learn how to let things go. This is not a good thread for discussing that contract. Just like Nomar's post and move on rather than failing to let the subject die. Sorry, this happens all the time and I've had it built up for too long. There are lots of posts I disagree with - I don't have to make each point if that point has been discussed 100 times earlier. That's the beauty of the written word! I certainly agree with this and would like to encourage it. That said, if you really really want to have the same argument all over again, we're not going to stop you.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 10, 2015 12:21:22 GMT -5
There is a virtual place for those arguments if they get really heated.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 10, 2015 13:53:33 GMT -5
Will dombrowski regret his decision to not go after a #2 starter this offseason? Other than that omission, he has had a great offseason thus far. A few things here... My own feeling is that the Sox' pitchers took a bit of criticism that was due in large part to terrible defense. Sandoval's lapses, Ramirez' catastrophic outfield play, the fluid situation in rightfield, the loss of Vazquez and then Hannigan, and Napoli's regression all cost them games. That's going to be different this season. I don't think it's an accident that Porcello and Kelly looked so good at the end of the year with that revamped outfield. If you read Speier's recent email, you'll see it has nothing at all to do with omission. In order to get another starter Dombrowski would have had to gut the starting team, hurting both the offense and the defense. He surveyed the market and that's what he found. Why take one step forward to take two steps back? There are also nine possible starters. It's not as if the trading season ends with the winter meetings. There'll be lots of time for more moves later on if they can't find a combo that clicks. He also mentioned the value of having that depth, given the uncertainty about Buccholz. Making moves just to make moves smacks of desperation. He had a really good hand to start with and he's played it very well so far. Exactly. Buchholz has the ability to be the #2 starter but we know his issues. Rodriguez could blossom into a #2 starter this year. Even Kelly might have that ability. But the problem is how well can you rely on it? You can't, so yeah, it would be great to go into the season with the confidence that you have a #2 the way the Sox now have confidence they have an ace. But we're seeing how costly relievers are in deals these days, and we're seeing how astronomical the starting pitcher trade market is. I'm glad that DDo knew to stop with the Kimbrel trade as far as trading away young talent. The last thing the Sox need to be doing is losing guys like Moncada, Devers, Benintendi, or Espinoza. And the Sox shouldn't be robbing Peter to pay Paul in regards to the major league roster dealing guys like Swihart or Bradley who are needed on this year's team and probably going forward. And we can see now that to get that young cost controlled ace, the Sox probably would have had to part with Eddie Rodriguez plus others, Mookie Betts, or Xander Bogaerts. At some point come July the Sox might still need a #2 if nobody has stepped forward. The Sox can check the trade market then and it wouldn't have to be for a cost controlled starter. Even if it's a rental, they could deal for him without giving up way too much hopefully. That's one of the reasons why, if Cliff Lee is somebody who could be healthy come July, I'd be interested in him as a possible short-term solution, but of course, he's risky too at this point. If Otani is indeed posted after this upcoming season, I'd love to see the Sox go all in on him. Of course, that's a big if - as he might not be posted for quite awhile. Really the best thing the Sox can do is cross their fingers and hope one of Rodriguez, Buchholz, or even Kelly take that step forward this year (or in Clay's case stay healthy enough to pitch like that when the Sox need him to pitch like that - namely September and October), then re-evaluate on 7/31. They don't have to do something desperate.....although I'm getting itchy - after all Dombrowski has been sitting around his hotel room, feet up on his easy chair doing nothing, and it's been about 10 minutes since the Sox got a premier starter, a premier reliever, and an up and coming elite setup man....I need a new toy. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 10, 2015 14:04:06 GMT -5
There is a virtual place for those arguments if they get really heated. This made me take a look at that subforum. Didn't know there was such a thing; made for excellent reading while having a sandwich, lol. Apologies for being off topic, please carry on.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 10, 2015 14:09:44 GMT -5
A lot of Jason Heyward rumors involving the Cubs. If that were to go down, Theo would have additional interesting moves to make.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Dec 10, 2015 14:59:52 GMT -5
He (Theo) already does. Gotta believe Baez will be on the move (previously reported that he might be on his way to TB for Cobb). With CHC in search of a CF, does Heyward play there (meaning his addition just fills a need but doesn't, necessarily, make Soler available).
This is win/win for them. Either they get him or they up the ante for STL (I guess JH could go to LAA).
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 10, 2015 17:24:25 GMT -5
He (Theo) already does. Gotta believe Baez will be on the move (previously reported that he might be on his way to TB for Cobb). With CHC in search of a CF, does Heyward play there (meaning his addition just fills a need but doesn't, necessarily, make Soler available). This is win/win for them. Either they get him or they up the ante for STL (I guess JH could go to LAA). If they get Heyward, are the Cubs planning on putting him in center or are they then moving Soler? Or (and this would have ramifications for the Sox) would they be willing to move Schwarber? JBJ + Swihart for Schwarber?
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 10, 2015 18:11:49 GMT -5
He (Theo) already does. Gotta believe Baez will be on the move (previously reported that he might be on his way to TB for Cobb). With CHC in search of a CF, does Heyward play there (meaning his addition just fills a need but doesn't, necessarily, make Soler available). This is win/win for them. Either they get him or they up the ante for STL (I guess JH could go to LAA). If they get Heyward, are the Cubs planning on putting him in center or are they then moving Soler? Or (and this would have ramifications for the Sox) would they be willing to move Schwarber? JBJ + Swihart for Schwarber? Or someone for Carrasco.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,119
|
Post by nomar on Dec 10, 2015 18:29:54 GMT -5
If they get Heyward, are the Cubs planning on putting him in center or are they then moving Soler? Or (and this would have ramifications for the Sox) would they be willing to move Schwarber? JBJ + Swihart for Schwarber? Or someone for Carrasco. Yeah that's what I'm afraid of. They could end up with Heyward and Carrasco without removing anyone but Soler and Baez from their core.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 11, 2015 9:31:47 GMT -5
If they get Heyward, are the Cubs planning on putting him in center or are they then moving Soler? Or (and this would have ramifications for the Sox) would they be willing to move Schwarber? JBJ + Swihart for Schwarber?Or someone for Carrasco. Seems steep from our end. I don't think I'd trade Swihart alone for Schwarber.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,119
|
Post by nomar on Dec 11, 2015 9:33:24 GMT -5
Seems steep from our end. I don't think I'd trade Swihart alone for Schwarber. I would. Swihart hasn't proven himself on defense and has trouble pulling the ball vs RHP which could limit him offensively. Schwarber plays a bit of catcher, but hes probably probably a 3 WAR bat at minimum even with the lost value defensively playing 1B.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Dec 11, 2015 10:05:23 GMT -5
People are somehow underrating Clay Buchholz. Everywhere there is Sox talk (on the radio, on this forum) I see people saying he "can be the #2 pitcher if healthy". I don't think that's accurate. He is absolutely one of the 15 best starters in the American League when healthy (2013 and 2015). Is that a #2 pitcher?
K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB 8.50 1.83 0.48 .329 70.4 % 48.3 % 5.9 % 9.19 1.92 0.69 .290 78.6 % 40.4 % 7.8 %
Those are lines from last year. One of those guys is Clay, and one is the pitcher we just gave $217M to.
Look, I'm not going to deny that there's a lot of risk with Buchholz. He could still be hurt and suck, or he could get hurt again. But if he's healthy we've got a 1A and a 1B.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Dec 11, 2015 10:18:18 GMT -5
People are somehow underrating Clay Buchholz. Everywhere there is Sox talk (on the radio, on this forum) I see people saying he "can be the #2 pitcher if healthy". I don't think that's accurate. He is absolutely one of the 15 best starters in the American League when healthy (2013 and 2015). Is that a #2 pitcher? K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB 8.50 1.83 0.48 .329 70.4 % 48.3 % 5.9 % 9.19 1.92 0.69 .290 78.6 % 40.4 % 7.8 % Those are lines from last year. One of those guys is Clay, and one is the pitcher we just gave $217M to. Look, I'm not going to deny that there's a lot of risk with Buchholz. He could still be hurt and suck, or he could get hurt again. But if he's healthy we've got a 1A and a 1B. Forgot a couple columns GS IP 18 113.1 32 220.1
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 11, 2015 10:18:38 GMT -5
Seems steep from our end. I don't think I'd trade Swihart alone for Schwarber. I would. Swihart hasn't proven himself on defense and has trouble pulling the ball vs RHP which could limit him offensively. Schwarber plays a bit of catcher, but hes probably probably a 3 WAR bat at minimum even with the lost value defensively playing 1B. I don't disagree with his value. Unless we can move Hanley, he does not fit our roster. We are pigeonholed at 1B with him & Shaw backing up. I'd prefer Swihart @ catcher fulltime & I don't think we could have both Swihart AND Schwarber & get enough ab's for both. DH covered & he won't crack our OF.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Dec 11, 2015 10:21:08 GMT -5
People are somehow underrating Clay Buchholz. Everywhere there is Sox talk (on the radio, on this forum) I see people saying he "can be the #2 pitcher if healthy". I don't think that's accurate. He is absolutely one of the 15 best starters in the American League when healthy (2013 and 2015). Is that a #2 pitcher? K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB 8.50 1.83 0.48 .329 70.4 % 48.3 % 5.9 % 9.19 1.92 0.69 .290 78.6 % 40.4 % 7.8 % Those are lines from last year. One of those guys is Clay, and one is the pitcher we just gave $217M to. Look, I'm not going to deny that there's a lot of risk with Buchholz. He could still be hurt and suck, or he could get hurt again. But if he's healthy we've got a 1A and a 1B. Forgot a couple columns GS IP 18 113.1 32 220.1 dictionary.reference.com/browse/healthy
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 11, 2015 10:39:34 GMT -5
It's a pretty major distinction. The idea that Buchholz isn't able to sustain his health when he's pitching well has merit. The last time he had both a 100 ERA+ and 120 innings was 2010. Buchholz has a five-year bWAR of 8.2, which compares poorly with Porcello (8.7), Shelby Miller (9.1 over four years), Mike Leake (9.4), Jake Peavy (11.2?!), Jason Vargas (8.6)... Talking about Buchholz is weird - because he'd never put together his health and excellence at the same time, there seems to be this potential attached to him. But he's 31 now, and it's time accept the pitcher that he is - a starter who provides mid-rotation overall value in a different way than most other mid-rotation starters do. And sure, maybe he will, one day, be both healthy and effective. That would be aweomse! But a team can't put a roster together thinking maybe this will be the year.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 11, 2015 10:42:04 GMT -5
To clarify... Peter is offense and Paul is pitching.
I'm very excited about Peter this year.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Dec 11, 2015 10:47:54 GMT -5
It's a pretty major distinction. The idea that Buchholz isn't able to sustain his health when he's pitching well has merit. The last time he had both a 100 ERA+ and 120 innings was 2010. Buchholz has a five-year bWAR of 8.2, which compares poorly with Porcello (8.7), Shelby Miller (9.1 over four years), Mike Leake (9.4), Jake Peavy (11.2?!), Jason Vargas (8.6)... Talking about Buchholz is weird - because he'd never put together his health and excellence at the same time, there seems to be this potential attached to him. But he's 31 now, and it's time accept the pitcher that he is - a starter who provides mid-rotation overall value in a different way than most other mid-rotation starters do. And sure, maybe he will, one day, be both healthy and effective. That would be aweomse! But a team can't put a roster together thinking maybe this will be the year. It is a major distinction. And I'm not going to pretend I'm comfortable with him being a key part of the rotation. My point is that a lot of people, in the media especially, are accurately classifying the downside (he doesn't do squat) and inaccurately characterizing the upside. And then wondering why he's still here. As for the little back and forth, if you don't think he's going to be healthy then you can say that outright. Don't completely ignore nuance that has been laid out in a post.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 11, 2015 13:45:18 GMT -5
It's a pretty major distinction. The idea that Buchholz isn't able to sustain his health when he's pitching well has merit. The last time he had both a 100 ERA+ and 120 innings was 2010. Buchholz has a five-year bWAR of 8.2, which compares poorly with Porcello (8.7), Shelby Miller (9.1 over four years), Mike Leake (9.4), Jake Peavy (11.2?!), Jason Vargas (8.6)... Talking about Buchholz is weird - because he'd never put together his health and excellence at the same time, there seems to be this potential attached to him. But he's 31 now, and it's time accept the pitcher that he is - a starter who provides mid-rotation overall value in a different way than most other mid-rotation starters do. And sure, maybe he will, one day, be both healthy and effective. That would be aweomse! But a team can't put a roster together thinking maybe this will be the year. It is a major distinction. And I'm not going to pretend I'm comfortable with him being a key part of the rotation. My point is that a lot of people, in the media especially, are accurately classifying the downside (he doesn't do squat) and inaccurately characterizing the upside. And then wondering why he's still here. As for the little back and forth, if you don't think he's going to be healthy then you can say that outright. Don't completely ignore nuance that has been laid out in a post. With Buchholz, timing is key. When will he get hurt? If he recovers by say late August and is back to himself by the end of Sept, then that's the guy you want for October. I think he is in the part of the cycle where he struggles upon coming back. So perhaps we get bad Clay, and we get aggravated at him, and then he starts pitching light out. If he does that, then he would be in line to get hurt in August which doesn't help. You know it's bad when you're not predicting if the pitcher will miss starts, but rather when he will miss starts and how long will it take him to find himself again. I'll take healthy and confident Clay any day of the week, and especially in October, slotted in behind David Price. I hope that's the guy they get this year or at least toward the end of the season.
|
|
|