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.
2016 Red Sox Spring Training News/Discussion
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 27, 2016 9:50:40 GMT -5
Sean McAdam @sean_McAdam 1h1 hour ago Farrell officially rules Vazquez out for Opening Day, says hope is for Sandoval to see game action Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Mar 27, 2016 9:55:49 GMT -5
Sean McAdam @sean_McAdam 1h1 hour ago Farrell officially rules Vazquez out for Opening Day, says hope is for Sandoval to see game action Tuesday. Vazquez shouldn't be starting any day if even if he's completely healthy. We have a great young catcher who is a future batting champion. Vazquez is one of the most overrated commodities I can remember in a long time. A good defensive catcher, who can't hit. A dime a dozen.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 27, 2016 9:57:54 GMT -5
I smell bait.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 27, 2016 14:02:55 GMT -5
So you're ready to give up one of Benintendi, Moncada, Espinoza, or Devers plus major league talent/major league ready talent for one of Carasco or Salazar? I wouldn't. Sure the Sox *could* get Salazar without giving up Betts but it isn't worth the King's ransom. Right now I am not trading for a starter. But if we need one to contend for a title at deadline, yes I would trade some prospects and young players to get him. I don't think you can say it would have to be one of our top 4 prospects though. Help me out here, you don't want to trade one of our top 4 prospects, but you would trade Betts? No I was the one tampering expectations to get a Salazar. Maybe they could get Carasco depending on how Cleveland views JBJ and if the Sox are willing to give him up. I'm not trading anyone either. I'm extending Betts. Future face of the franchise.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 27, 2016 14:04:58 GMT -5
Sean McAdam @sean_McAdam 1h1 hour ago Farrell officially rules Vazquez out for Opening Day, says hope is for Sandoval to see game action Tuesday. Vazquez shouldn't be starting any day if even if he's completely healthy. We have a great young catcher who is a future batting champion. Vazquez is one of the most overrated commodities I can remember in a long time. A good defensive catcher, who can't hit. A dime a dozen. Haha this post is awesome. I don't think Swihart is future batting champion. I kind of heard you like to stretch out your opinion like me sometimes too.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2016 14:06:29 GMT -5
Vazquez shouldn't be starting any day if even if he's completely healthy. We have a great young catcher who is a future batting champion. Vazquez is one of the most overrated commodities I can remember in a long time. A good defensive catcher, who can't hit. A dime a dozen. Haha this post is awesome. I don't think Swihart is future batting champion. I kind of heard you like to stretch out your opinion like me sometimes too. The difference is that he's joking and doesn't get into 50 post arguments about it.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Mar 27, 2016 14:24:37 GMT -5
Say wut! “@jonheyman: Scout on red sox prospect Sam travis: ”the next Paul goldschmidt“” Wow this hype is bad juju I disagree, we should be calling that scout's GM today, using that to our advantage. "Oh you wanna get your hands on the next Paul Goldschmidt, we could really use a young, controlled pitcher."
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 27, 2016 20:05:15 GMT -5
It's not that crazy to think of Sam Travis that way. You just have to think his raw power turns into a lot more homeruns. The guy flat out hits everywhere he has played!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,015
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 27, 2016 21:00:08 GMT -5
Say wut! “@jonheyman: Scout on red sox prospect Sam travis: ”the next Paul goldschmidt“” #top 100 prospect The good new is that if you want to compare them with one another, their birthdays are two weeks apart. So there's no confound there. Travis didn't turn 18 until after he was drafted out of HS, while Goldschmidt was a year older. So this age-21 comparison is between Goldschmidt in advanced rookie ball, and Travis splitting a year precisely between high-A and AA. So that's three full levels of difference. And in fact, there was 2.8 years of difference in age relative to league. PA K% UBB% HRC BABIP XB% 331 .224 .109 .083 .390 .385 558 .138 .104 .021 .344 .270 Goldschmidt hit the ball so much harder it's almost comical, but Travis striking out 38% less against pitchers three levels better is not to be sneezed at. And given how strongly BB% is dependent on SA, that Travis had the same rate, against pitchers with much better control, despite being a hugely less dangerous hitter, is probably just as impressive. Clay Davenport had Goldschmidt at a .289 EqA when adjusted for level and age, and Sam Travis at (I swear I did not know this until I typed the last phrase) .288. Now, Goldschmidt then put up a .291 in high-A and was putting up a .331 when he got called up the next year. He was .298 in MLB that year and .299 his first full year, and has since gone .326, .326, .343. I think scouts are in agreement that Travis has a chance to be a more impressive MLB hitter than his numbers so far suggest, what with their very modest HR rates. Davenport likes those numbers already, though; the .288 would have ranked him 16th among starting 1B last year. IOW, it thinks he's a first-division starter if he improves more than expected. Which is what we're hearing from scouts. I certainly think a case can be made that a guy who projects to be an average to well-above average starter and who is going into his AAA season is a better prospect than Johnson or Kopech.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 27, 2016 22:45:59 GMT -5
The good new is that if you want to compare them with one another, their birthdays are two weeks apart. So there's no confound there. Travis didn't turn 18 until after he was drafted out of HS, while Goldschmidt was a year older. So this age-21 comparison is between Goldschmidt in advanced rookie ball, and Travis splitting a year precisely between high-A and AA. So that's three full levels of difference. And in fact, there was 2.8 years of difference in age relative to league. PA K% UBB% HRC BABIP XB% 331 .224 .109 .083 .390 .385 558 .138 .104 .021 .344 .270 Goldschmidt hit the ball so much harder it's almost comical, but Travis striking out 38% less against pitchers three levels better is not to be sneezed at. And given how strongly BB% is dependent on SA, that Travis had the same rate, against pitchers with much better control, despite being a hugely less dangerous hitter, is probably just as impressive. Clay Davenport had Goldschmidt at a .289 EqA when adjusted for level and age, and Sam Travis at (I swear I did not know this until I typed the last phrase) .288. Now, Goldschmidt then put up a .291 in high-A and was putting up a .331 when he got called up the next year. He was .298 in MLB that year and .299 his first full year, and has since gone .326, .326, .343. I think scouts are in agreement that Travis has a chance to be a more impressive MLB hitter than his numbers so far suggest, what with their very modest HR rates. Davenport likes those numbers already, though; the .288 would have ranked him 16th among starting 1B last year. IOW, it thinks he's a first-division starter if he improves more than expected. Which is what we're hearing from scouts. I certainly think a case can be made that a guy who projects to be an average to well-above average starter and who is going into his AAA season is a better prospect than Johnson or Kopech. This, the next ”the next Paul goldschmidt“ is just a scout making an exaggerated statement without thinking. also, I certainly think a case can be made that a guy who projects to be an average to well-above average starter and who is going into his AAA season is a better prospect than Johnson or Kopech. falls totally in line with Speier's statement on WEEI that a BA rerank would place him 5th.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 28, 2016 0:57:08 GMT -5
Haha this post is awesome. I don't think Swihart is future batting champion. I kind of heard you like to stretch out your opinion like me sometimes too. The difference is that he's joking and doesn't get into 50 post arguments about it. I know he is. I realize the exaggeration and I'm sorry you're obsessed with everything I write here. Apparently you go out of your way to pick arguments even further. Moving along...
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 28, 2016 1:50:22 GMT -5
The good new is that if you want to compare them with one another, their birthdays are two weeks apart. So there's no confound there. Travis didn't turn 18 until after he was drafted out of HS, while Goldschmidt was a year older. So this age-21 comparison is between Goldschmidt in advanced rookie ball, and Travis splitting a year precisely between high-A and AA. So that's three full levels of difference. And in fact, there was 2.8 years of difference in age relative to league. PA K% UBB% HRC BABIP XB% 331 .224 .109 .083 .390 .385 558 .138 .104 .021 .344 .270 I certainly think a case can be made that a guy who projects to be an average to well-above average starter and who is going into his AAA season is a better prospect than Johnson or Kopech. I have to think Travis is currently #5 in system. I wanted to come on here and make the case Johnson is very close in value with his great numbers for years now. After looking at his stats was very surprised he has never pitched even 150 innings going into his age 25 season. I understand why you keep him as a starter with the great numbers he puts up, but a move to the pen might be make sense.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 28, 2016 7:24:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Mar 28, 2016 7:39:36 GMT -5
That really freaks me out. I'm from Germany, 31 years old and never played baseball in my life. But I've known the advanced metrics for about at least 5 years now. Just because I'm interested in the sport and in the red sox and read as much as I can about it. And there are two guys who love baseball, make enormous amounts of money off of it and are the same age or even younger. How is it possible they're not into this stuff???
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 28, 2016 7:58:27 GMT -5
That really freaks me out. I'm from Germany, 31 years old and never played baseball in my life. But I've known the advanced metrics for about at least 5 years now. Just because I'm interested in the sport and in the red sox and read as much as I can about it. And there are two guys who love baseball, make enormous amounts of money off of it and are the same age or even younger. How is it possible they're not into this stuff??? I guess they don't read anything about baseball or go on message boards for in depth discussions about stats? I don't know. Teams should probably start teaching classes as part of their development because I'd have to imagine that it's more helpful to focus on execution instead of results on a personal level. They're also professional baseball players because of their athletic ability, not their intelligence or scope of academic work.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Mar 28, 2016 8:00:27 GMT -5
That really freaks me out. I'm from Germany, 31 years old and never played baseball in my life. But I've known the advanced metrics for about at least 5 years now. Just because I'm interested in the sport and in the red sox and read as much as I can about it. And there are two guys who love baseball, make enormous amounts of money off of it and are the same age or even younger. How is it possible they're not into this stuff??? I guess they don't read anything about baseball or go on message boards for in depth discussions about stats? I don't know. Teams should probably start teaching classes as part of their development because I'd have to imagine that it's more helpful to focus on execution instead of results on a personal level. They're also professional baseball players because of their athletic ability, not their intelligence or scope of academic work. Sure, that might be it. I guess I just think they love what they're doing. And don't you want to know anything about it then? The ironic thing is: they might even be better by not caring to much about it, if I think about it.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 28, 2016 8:05:07 GMT -5
"But still, most teams do not have the resources to hire an evaluator to fill a role like Bannister's." LOL, yeah, sure.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 28, 2016 8:17:36 GMT -5
"But still, most teams do not have the resources to hire an evaluator to fill a role like Bannister's." LOL, yeah, sure. It's probably more that there are a lack of Brian Bannisters to go around.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 28, 2016 9:08:54 GMT -5
"But still, most teams do not have the resources to hire an evaluator to fill a role like Bannister's." LOL, yeah, sure. It's probably more that there are a lack of Brian Bannisters to go around. LOL, that sentence caught my eye when I read that. Forbes just reported that the Sox are worth 2.3 billion. That's up 200 million in one year including a last place finish, Bannister's contract and even Panda's.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 28, 2016 9:19:21 GMT -5
It's probably more that there are a lack of Brian Bannisters to go around. LOL, that sentence caught my eye when I read that. Forbes just reported that the Sox are worth 2.3 billion. That's up 200 million in one year including a last place finish, Bannister's contract and even Panda's. They never seem to include franchise valuation increases when they talk about making or losing money.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 28, 2016 9:37:34 GMT -5
It could be that their real interest isn't in advanced stats, but in more mundane stuff, such as spin rate. That became available from MLB, and it's very personal, yours and yours alone. That's what Bannister used to change Hill's approach last year. Good discussion about it yesterday. Heard it on MLB radio, but I think it was the audio from TV.
They talked about how Houston used it to tailor the approach all their starters take with hitters.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 28, 2016 13:26:37 GMT -5
The good new is that if you want to compare them with one another, their birthdays are two weeks apart. So there's no confound there. Travis didn't turn 18 until after he was drafted out of HS, while Goldschmidt was a year older. So this age-21 comparison is between Goldschmidt in advanced rookie ball, and Travis splitting a year precisely between high-A and AA. So that's three full levels of difference. And in fact, there was 2.8 years of difference in age relative to league. PA K% UBB% HRC BABIP XB% 331 .224 .109 .083 .390 .385 558 .138 .104 .021 .344 .270 Goldschmidt hit the ball so much harder it's almost comical, but Travis striking out 38% less against pitchers three levels better is not to be sneezed at. And given how strongly BB% is dependent on SA, that Travis had the same rate, against pitchers with much better control, despite being a hugely less dangerous hitter, is probably just as impressive. Clay Davenport had Goldschmidt at a .289 EqA when adjusted for level and age, and Sam Travis at (I swear I did not know this until I typed the last phrase) .288. Now, Goldschmidt then put up a .291 in high-A and was putting up a .331 when he got called up the next year. He was .298 in MLB that year and .299 his first full year, and has since gone .326, .326, .343. I think scouts are in agreement that Travis has a chance to be a more impressive MLB hitter than his numbers so far suggest, what with their very modest HR rates. Davenport likes those numbers already, though; the .288 would have ranked him 16th among starting 1B last year. IOW, it thinks he's a first-division starter if he improves more than expected. Which is what we're hearing from scouts. I certainly think a case can be made that a guy who projects to be an average to well-above average starter and who is going into his AAA season is a better prospect than Johnson or Kopech. I love that the age-21 comparison really does suggest some encouraging signs for Travis. And the power difference doesn't concern me so much because I'm fairly confident Travis would've crushed the ball a lot more frequently against poorly commanded FB and rudimentary breaking stuff. But wow...I'm not ready to anoint him the next Goldschmidt. I've said I could see him putting up some .300/.360/.480 or so lines, but boy...the idea that he could be a perennial .320/.380/.500+ guy? I think that's very unlikely. OTOH, I would *love* to be proven wrong, and as I've said before, I think his hitting approach is exactly what you'd *want* to see in a guy who's a good bet to exceed expectations.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 28, 2016 16:17:11 GMT -5
David Murphy has been released
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 28, 2016 16:21:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 28, 2016 16:21:31 GMT -5
|
|
|