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 jdb on Mar 28, 2016 21:25:03 GMT -5
I'm in the minority but I don't think Shields is cooked and for a 5th starter would be pretty good. His BB rate and HR rate were well above career averages and I don't thinks it's a given that will continue. He lost a mph on his FB but it's still the same as his early Tampa years.
I think the front office and staff think Shaw is the better play and realize an unhappy Panda on the bench isn't going to sit well. With their salaries I wouldnt hesitate to throw in a Marrero/Hernandez/ Johnson type.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 28, 2016 21:57:28 GMT -5
Agreed! Don't under-estimate how much Preller wants to move "Big Game" Shields. The Padres need a 3rd baseman, and they don't want to pay Shields for another 3 years. I could see a straight-up. So this is what you should ask: who would you rather have? I'd take Shields any day over Mr. 17%. This is why we would have to add a prospect, but at that point it is probably not worth it. The best course of action might be to see if sandavol can increase his value, have to remember he's only 29, and has always been fat. Sandavol isn't just fat he's really really fat and those people age faster then someone that's not fat. I could see his bat bouncing back, but I just don't see his D ever being good enough to play 3rd base again. Even if his bat bounce back if he can't play 3rd he is going to have very little value at first or DH because his bat isn't that good. I think it's very telling that after only spring training Sox are trying to move Sandoval. They have seen enough and think Shaw is clearly the better player at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 28, 2016 22:06:59 GMT -5
I mean, Shields' down year was still just under 2 bWAR. Sandoval's bad year was almost -1 bWAR and now he's in danger of losing his job to Travis Shaw. Sandoval only makes $4M or so less than Shields. I don't get why the Padres would make a deal with these two as the principals. What am I missing here? Sure, they're both coming off bad years, but they're "both coming off bad years" in the way that a guy with a stubbed toe and a guy who has been decapitated have both been "injured". Harsh, very harsh. I'd like to offer an off-the-cuff explanation for why Shields may have stubbed his toe. Something interesting happened up and down the West Coast last year. The marine layer appears to have been nowhere near as prominent as it has been. Here's the record of HR's per game for the parks along the West Coast (click to enlarge): The least surprising thing about this is the Bay Area (Giants, Athletics), where there's not much change. San Francisco Bay generates a lot of that fog, and that may be the reason. The other parks do seem to have been affected. Specifically, San Diego saw a 60% jump from the previous year. Even more eye-opening, Seattle was behind only six teams and their parks: Astros, Blue Jays, Orioles, Yankees, Rockies, and Brewers. The ballparks where those teams play are all notorious aerodromes, and last year Safeco joined them! Last year was the driest one we've experienced in the dozens we've been here. Here's real empirical data to back that up, crowd-sourced courtesy of the MLB bats. Remember, you saw it here first.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,015
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 28, 2016 23:59:08 GMT -5
His record at Fenway would worry me. He wouldn't be facing top rated Red Sox lineups every visit. Which is why you always compare a pitcher's record in a ballpark with his record against that team in his own park. Shields has given up a 3.40 ERA against us at home, 5.42 in Fenway. There's no rational analysis, even with optimistic mustard applied, where Shields pitching half his games in Fenway is an upgrade to your choice of Joe Kelly, Steven Wright, Henry Owens, Brian Johnson, or Roenis Elias.
|
|
|
Post by a2sox on Mar 29, 2016 0:02:16 GMT -5
Interesting idea, and totally possible that it contributed to his "stubbed toe". The marine layer does most of its damage because of its cooler air (as opposed to its moisture). Looks like he got lit up for HRs in May, right around the peak of the usual marine layer presence (though, some of those HRs came on the road). Would be interesting to compare HR totals with marine layer presence at Petco, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 29, 2016 1:17:24 GMT -5
Yeah, this was a quick and dirty one. After he got lit up in Petco, and Cruz smacked 17 of his homers up here in Seattle which is a very tough park for right-handers, I got curious and knocked this out. It does beg for a follow up.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2016 2:20:50 GMT -5
He wouldn't be facing top rated Red Sox lineups every visit. Which is why you always compare a pitcher's record in a ballpark with his record against that team in his own park. Shields has given up a 3.40 ERA against us at home, 5.42 in Fenway. There's no rational analysis, even with optimistic mustard applied, where Shields pitching half his games in Fenway is an upgrade to your choice of Joe Kelly, Steven Wright, Henry Owens, Brian Johnson, or Roenis Elias. Those numbers mean almost nothing without knowing amount of games and innings pitched at home and at Fenway. Even then I'm assuming the total innings will be low and thus a few bad games could really skew the results. Sure I can see why someone would be worried, but to act like those numbers predict that James Shield can't be an upgrade is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 29, 2016 3:09:52 GMT -5
I would be willing to trade, say, Sandoval and Marco Hernandez for Shields. Not because I want Shields pitching at Fenway - I definitely don't want that - but because he is a more fungible asset, and I would try to flip him ASAP. There's always someone who needs a starting pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Mar 29, 2016 6:06:22 GMT -5
There's no rational analysis that James Shields, a 3 WAR pitcher, is better than Joe Kelly or Henry Owens. Right.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2016 7:16:38 GMT -5
I think I'd rather let SD have Sandoval for nothing, with as much money as it took for them to take him.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 29, 2016 8:06:34 GMT -5
I think I'd rather let SD have Sandoval for nothing, with as much money as it took for them to take him. That's a roundabout way of saying you expect him to be below replacement level again (though I guess anti-saber guys can't put it that way ). I doubt he will be quite that bad though. In theory, there is a fair deal to be had where Boston just sends Sandoval and $$$ to SD. But now is not the right time for such a deal, because the Sox can't spend those $$$ right now.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 29, 2016 8:10:21 GMT -5
I would be willing to trade, say, Sandoval and Marco Hernandez for Shields. Not because I want Shields pitching at Fenway - I definitely don't want that - but because he is a more fungible asset, and I would try to flip him ASAP. There's always someone who needs a starting pitcher. That is *exactly* what I was thinking. Shields can be more effectively "stashed" than Sandoval, and he'd be much easier to move in the future, for exactly the reason you noted...particularly after this year as the residual cost gets less-than-prohibitive. I don't think he'd be very good, but it's looking at this point like Sandoval is potentially downright terrible.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2016 8:10:45 GMT -5
I think I'd rather let SD have Sandoval for nothing, with as much money as it took for them to take him. That's a roundabout way of saying you expect him to be below replacement level again (though I guess anti-saber guys can't put it that way ). I doubt he will be quite that bad though. In theory, there is a fair deal to be had where Boston just sends Sandoval and $$$ to SD. But now is not the right time for such a deal, because the Sox can't spend those $$$ right now. It's also a roundabout way of saying that if it's in any way possible to dump him now, do it because they won't be able to dump him in the future without paying him to stay home (and that could get ugly).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2016 8:12:58 GMT -5
I would be willing to trade, say, Sandoval and Marco Hernandez for Shields. Not because I want Shields pitching at Fenway - I definitely don't want that - but because he is a more fungible asset, and I would try to flip him ASAP. There's always someone who needs a starting pitcher. That is *exactly* what I was thinking. Shields can be more effectively "stashed" than Sandoval, and he'd be much easier to move in the future, for exactly the reason you noted...particularly after this year as the residual cost gets less-than-prohibitive. I don't think he'd be very good, but it's looking at this point like Sandoval is potentially downright terrible. I can't imagine that San Diego doesn't know this though. I'd assume that would be built into the price.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 29, 2016 8:20:54 GMT -5
I can't imagine that San Diego doesn't know this though. You realize we are talking about the team that gave us Ryan Hanigan for Will Middlebrooks, right?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 29, 2016 8:42:44 GMT -5
That is *exactly* what I was thinking. Shields can be more effectively "stashed" than Sandoval, and he'd be much easier to move in the future, for exactly the reason you noted...particularly after this year as the residual cost gets less-than-prohibitive. I don't think he'd be very good, but it's looking at this point like Sandoval is potentially downright terrible. I can't imagine that San Diego doesn't know this though. I'd assume that would be built into the price. Oh, of course. But it all depends on the second piece. TBH, my ultimate hope would be someone in the 11-15 range, and they put Shields in the 5 spot. While I normally prefer youth/inexperience assessment from the 5, my pseudo-rational hope is that Shields would pitch well in Fenway in April-May and maybe even early June, before it heats up. Then the Sox flip him in a pre-deadline deal a la Samardzija (obviously not for that type of return) and get at least the prospect back, maybe even more depending on who might be in a race. Looking at last year, it was pretty bizarre for him (maybe the BB and K increase were from getting really nibble-happy from the ball carrying so well?), but his xFIP was still just 3.70. I don't see him being very good in Fenway from mid-June through Sept, but if they moved him before... In his defense, too, SD had some pretty awful defense last year, especially in the OF. If Hanley is as passable as he seems, and Shaw starts at third, the rest of the defense is quite good, especially in the OF. Shields's O- and Z- contact rates were both at the low end career wise (good), and he's relatively tough on RH. So if he kept the ball in the park for a few months he might actually look pretty attractive to a team in need. Hell, if Ian Kennedy can get 5/70 and Leake 5/90 or whatever it was, someone would prob take a flier on 2.5/55 (with buyout) or so on Shields, especially if his K rate is high still, and most of the rest of his numbers look solid. No guarantees, but straightaway RF and RC in Fenway are cavernous, and I'd think they'd play even more so in April-May-early June.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,838
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Mar 29, 2016 9:12:27 GMT -5
It is like some of you never saw Shields pitch! He is very competitive and usually has very good command of his complete arsenal. He possesses one of the better change-ups, decent velocity on his fastball (93+), and a decent breaking ball. And even more importantly, which not all of you are giving him enough credit, great dependability. Yes, for him he had a bad year last year.
Let me ask you this, who would you like to go to battle with......Panda or Shields? Who would like in the club house....Panda or Shields?
Please don't make a silly point about us having to come up with a significant prospect to soothe poor-old Preller to consider the trade. Panda is 29 (maybe going on 39), and Shields is 34. Add some money? Possibly...but remember Preller REALLY wants to move James.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 29, 2016 9:26:42 GMT -5
There's no rational analysis that James Shields, a 3 WAR pitcher, is better than Joe Kelly or Henry Owens. Right. Yeah, right now Shields seems like roughly the same caliber of Jake Peavy when we traded for him. He's not particularly good anymore but he's a good bet to eat innings and everyone seems to like him. 3 years and $65M (incl. buyout) for that sounds much preferable to 4 years and $78M (incl. buyout) for Sandoval, especially given the age of the team.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Mar 29, 2016 9:32:01 GMT -5
I think I'd rather let SD have Sandoval for nothing, with as much money as it took for them to take him. Are you really so confident that his replacement is on this team? Or are you so down on him? I feel that he is at least a 1-WAR player, and that both Holt and Shaw have a chance to be exposed dramatically with every-day playing. I'm not sure I even have a strong feeling which has more upside. Sandoval is the only one with a history of lighting it up at any level, so I'm inclined to lean towards him (which doesn't mean I expect him to be better than 2 WAR this year).
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Mar 29, 2016 9:36:43 GMT -5
It is like some of you never saw Shields pitch! He is very competitive and usually has very good command of his complete arsenal. He possesses one of the better change-ups, decent velocity on his fastball (93+), and a decent breaking ball. And even more importantly, which not all of you are giving him enough credit, great dependability. Yes, for him he had a bad year last year. Let me ask you this, who would you like to go to battle with......Panda or Shields? Who would like in the club house....Panda or Shields? Please don't make a silly point about us having to come up with a significant prospect to soothe poor-old Preller to consider the trade. Panda is 29 (maybe going on 39), and Shields is 34. Add some money? Possibly...but remember Preller REALLY wants to move James. ....of course we REALLY want to move Panda......Someone above mentioned sending Marco Hernandez as a sweetener,,,,,Jeeez I hope not. I think that guy is going to surprise people this year. Panda may be proof that age is more than just a number re performance....in his case in the opposite direction.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Mar 29, 2016 9:47:42 GMT -5
Posted this in the Spring Training Game Day Thread. Meant to post it here -
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,015
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 29, 2016 9:51:52 GMT -5
Which is why you always compare a pitcher's record in a ballpark with his record against that team in his own park. Shields has given up a 3.40 ERA against us at home, 5.42 in Fenway. There's no rational analysis, even with optimistic mustard applied, where Shields pitching half his games in Fenway is an upgrade to your choice of Joe Kelly, Steven Wright, Henry Owens, Brian Johnson, or Roenis Elias. Those numbers mean almost nothing without knowing amount of games and innings pitched at home and at Fenway. Even then I'm assuming the total innings will be low and thus a few bad games could really skew the results. Sure I can see why someone would be worried, but to act like those numbers predict that James Shield can't be an upgrade is crazy. It was 13 GS in each place. Fewer innings at Fenway because they didn't let him pitch as many. The point of those stats is that they provide evidence for the same belief as derived by looking at every one of Shield's hit locations with hit/fx data and applying Fenway park adjustments to those specific locations (this from former Mariners analyst Tony Blenginio at FanGraphs). Shields gives up more fly balls to center and left than almost anyone, and Fenway is crazy, off-the-scale extreme for turning outs in those places into hits. The sample sizes are plenty big enough to confirm the expectation derived from the low-level data.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 29, 2016 9:56:13 GMT -5
Sandoval for Logan Allen straight up Posted this in the Spring Training Game Day Thread. Meant to post it here - That is interesting. If that is how they feel they should be trying to trade him.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Mar 29, 2016 9:57:30 GMT -5
Due to the amount of injuries to SP over a season I'd do this in a heartbeat.
What happens to Castillo now?
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Mar 29, 2016 9:58:04 GMT -5
Are you really so confident that his replacement is on this team? Or are you so down on him? I feel that he is at least a 1-WAR player, and that both Holt and Shaw have a chance to be exposed dramatically with every-day playing. I'm not sure I even have a strong feeling which has more upside. Sandoval is the only one with a history of lighting it up at any level, so I'm inclined to lean towards him (which doesn't mean I expect him to be better than 2 WAR this year). Last year, Sandoval both collapsed at the plate and collapsed in the field. I'm not that big on the defensive metrics and WAR by extension but you're projecting a 3 WAR increase in his performance. The collapse in the field was physiological, and nothing's changed. Its a safe bet that he's going to struggle in the field again. That leaves us betting on a bounce-back at the dish to get him halfway there. Given that Sandoval has some hallmarks of an early peaker at the plate (heavy and relies on O-contact)... I have a hard time seeing Sandoval being difficult to replace with some combination of Shaw, Holt, Marrero, or Hernandez. EDIT: Congratulations to Brock on what I believe will be his first opening day start!
|
|
|