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.
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 17, 2016 21:11:14 GMT -5
I'm talking about outrighting him off the 40 man roster and clearing waivers. If he choses to become a free agent. So be it. He wouldn't become a free agent. He'd be paid every dime and count against the cap. He wouldn't have to report to AAA. If Pablo got DFA'd, he could either accept a minor league assignment or become a free agent after 10 days when he cleared waivers because of the service time. If no one in baseball wanted Pablo for even 2-5 million per season for the next 4 years, then that's what the Sox should do for the betterment of this team. Pablo isn't a good baseball player anymore.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,775
|
Post by gerry on Mar 18, 2016 2:28:55 GMT -5
He wouldn't become a free agent. He'd be paid every dime and count against the cap. He wouldn't have to report to AAA. If Pablo got DFA'd, he could either accept a minor league assignment or become a free agent after 10 days when he cleared waivers because of the service time. If no one in baseball wanted Pablo for even 2-5 million per season for the next 4 years, then that's what the Sox should do for the betterment of this team. Pablo isn't a good baseball player anymore. You didn't answer the question I asked. Who, besides Farrell and Sandoval, are on your hit list? Very curious.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 18, 2016 5:12:55 GMT -5
If Pablo got DFA'd, he could either accept a minor league assignment or become a free agent after 10 days when he cleared waivers because of the service time. If no one in baseball wanted Pablo for even 2-5 million per season for the next 4 years, then that's what the Sox should do for the betterment of this team. Pablo isn't a good baseball player anymore. You didn't answer the question I asked. Who, besides Farrell and Sandoval, are on your hit list? Very curious. Hahaha I don't have a hit list but I do think the team would be better off without those two on the team. I like everyone on the team besides them. I also don't like Kelly as a starter but I don't want to get back into that discussion.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Mar 18, 2016 6:05:38 GMT -5
I'm with this guy. I mean, imagine if we had DFA'd John Lackey after his first year here how much better off we would have been.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Mar 18, 2016 8:43:48 GMT -5
I'm with this guy. I mean, imagine if we had DFA'd John Lackey after his first year here how much better off we would have been. Its like breaking up with a girl because she might dump you eventually.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2016 9:46:20 GMT -5
I'm with this guy. I mean, imagine if we had DFA'd John Lackey after his first year here how much better off we would have been. Its like breaking up with a girl because she might dump you eventually. Eh, I don't think I'd go for that explanation since she was a terrible girlfriend for the last year and isn't showing signs of improvement yet. But I'm not arguing that's what should be done right now.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 18, 2016 14:54:36 GMT -5
I'm with this guy. I mean, imagine if we had DFA'd John Lackey after his first year here how much better off we would have been. John Lackey is literally the worst example you could bring up. He lost a ton of bad weight and was coming off of a major arm injury and no one knew what he was capable of in 2013. We know exactly what Pablo and Farrell brings. One will cost you games in the field and the other will cost you games from the dugout. If anything, the Pablo situation is similar to Crawford. A hyper sensitive guy who is being paid 20 times worth of his value, who isn't bringing anything to the team. Not only that but the Sox had a better in house option in Nava at the time in 2012/2013, just like the Sox have a better option in Shaw in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2016 15:11:09 GMT -5
I'm with this guy. I mean, imagine if we had DFA'd John Lackey after his first year here how much better off we would have been. John Lackey is literally the worst example you could bring up. He lost a ton of bad weight and was coming off of a major arm injury and no one knew what he was capable of in 2013. We know exactly what Pablo and Farrell brings. One will cost you games in the field and the other will cost you games from the dugout. If anything, the Pablo situation is similar to Crawford. A hyper sensitive guy who is being paid 20 times worth of his value, who isn't bringing anything to the team. Not only that but the Sox had a better in house option in Nava at the time in 2012/2013, just like the Sox have a better option in Shaw in 2016. Maybe Sandoval needs TJS like Crawford and Lackey.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 18, 2016 16:25:36 GMT -5
I'm talking about outrighting him off the 40 man roster and clearing waivers. If he choses to become a free agent. So be it. So, you are personally offended by John Farrell and want to fire him now for batting XB 4th, and you are personally offended by Panda's weight issues and want the Sox to dump him and about $80M (that's a whole lot of subtraction) without giving an historically good 3B a chance to pull it together with the rest of the guys during ST!?!?! What should the FO do with the other potentially high upside question marks on the team: Barnes, Bradley, Buchholz, Castillo, Hembree, Johnson, Owens, Kelly, Koji, Layne, Murphy, Porcello, Shaw, Tazawa, Wright, Young, Vasquez. Do they all himhave to go? How do the Sox replace them? This is our team you are talking about. I only support the laundry if I like the players, and I like these players. I, personally, am excited to go with the flow with a team with so much potential and depth, and even question marks. I am so happy for Hanley's apparent rebound, and that of Kelly, Koji, Vasquez, am hoping for patience with Pablo, etc., and am getting tired of a steady diet of vitriolic posts. This is a kids game played, in part, for our enjoyment. Enjoy! I feel the same way. As comforting as it is to go into a season with a "loaded" team (see, 2011), those don't always pan out (see also, 2011). And teams with a lot of question marks but some upside (2003, 2004, 2013) can be more fun to watch as they gel. I love the youth on this team, wondering if JBJ and Shaw are for real, the return of Vazquez and the rise of Swihart, not to mention the new killer Bs. And the Price/Kimbrel/Smith additions (seriously...has any team ever upgraded their pitching this much in an offseason?), Papi's last year (and hoping he goes out on top), Hanley's new digs at first...so many great storylines. It could be a tragedy, a comedy (of errors?), a tale of redemption and perseverance, a yarn of unmatched brilliance and domination, and all of the above or something altogether different. But I'm predicting that, at the very least, it will be compelling, so I'm content to hop in the passenger's seat and see where the drive takes me.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 18, 2016 17:05:30 GMT -5
John Lackey is literally the worst example you could bring up. He lost a ton of bad weight and was coming off of a major arm injury and no one knew what he was capable of in 2013. We know exactly what Pablo and Farrell brings. One will cost you games in the field and the other will cost you games from the dugout. If anything, the Pablo situation is similar to Crawford. A hyper sensitive guy who is being paid 20 times worth of his value, who isn't bringing anything to the team. Not only that but the Sox had a better in house option in Nava at the time in 2012/2013, just like the Sox have a better option in Shaw in 2016. Maybe Sandoval needs TJS like Crawford and Lackey. Weight reduction surgery sounds more like it. Although he probably would gain it back in a week.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 18, 2016 22:48:24 GMT -5
Maybe Sandoval needs TJS like Crawford and Lackey. Weight reduction surgery sounds more like it. Although he probably would gain it back in a week. Well, most surgeons will want their patient to undergo psy eval, weight counseling, and good-faith weight reduction (which also improves surgical conditions) beforehand. It's a pretty unpleasant life after, too, with dumping syndrome (not what it sounds like) and such. I think we either love him pudgy or don't love him at all. I, for one, am rooting for the guy. Maybe it's against all hope, but, well, there it is...
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 18, 2016 22:52:53 GMT -5
And, yeah, a lot of people regain the weight anyway.
I don't care if he looks like a latter-day George Scott,, or Matt Stairs, as long as he hits taters like them. Though I'd prefer more Scott and less Stairs in the field.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 19, 2016 1:38:34 GMT -5
And, yeah, a lot of people regain the weight anyway. I don't care if he looks like a latter-day George Scott,, or Matt Stairs, as long as he hits taters like them. Though I'd prefer more Scott and less Stairs in the field. Ohh I don't really care what he looks like either unless what he looks like is affecting his play. He looks like a guy that is extremely overweight and it has affected his baserunning ability and his defense. All of those things didn't happen until he came to Boston. Sure he might not of been road runner or a gold glover in San Francisco, but he wasn't as atrocious as he is now. His play is erroding before our very eyes and our only hopes is that his track record keeps his career in tact if the Sox do indeed start him. It's a very bad way to approach a situation for the Sox. I remember a time when the Sox had one of the highest paid closers in baseball at the time yet they still brought in Papelbon to close out the first save situation of the season. Track record should of pointed to Foulke but Francona at the time saw that the best choice was Papelbon and didn't look back, regardless of payroll commitments. In fact the track record pointed so much towards Foulke than Papelbon. Pap didn't even have one save before the start of the 2005 season I belive. The Sox need to go back to that line of thinking when it comes to Pablo versus Shaw. Especially when Shaw actually has at least some sort of track record of good performance and a glimmer of hope versus the never ending decline of a overpaid overweight ballplayer who looks like he's playing for his contract and doesn't look like a guy who cares about losing his job.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 19, 2016 1:50:06 GMT -5
How many errors are we up to with Sandoval this spring? At least 4 or 5. This isn't even counting the balls he can't even get to because he has zero range.
I mean the decision to go to Shaw is so obvious just by how each player is looking in the spring and I'm not just pointing to results. I mean actual performance, like the eye test. Shaw is also a guy that isn't chasing breaking balls two feet away from the strike zone.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 19, 2016 20:58:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 19, 2016 23:27:44 GMT -5
Hopefully he sticks to his word
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Mar 20, 2016 8:18:48 GMT -5
Now we're talking! This does not sound like the old John Farrell. Maybe DD has generated a new mantra.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 20, 2016 9:06:23 GMT -5
This is something that has been de-emphasized in recent years. Glad to see he got the memo.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 20, 2016 10:52:08 GMT -5
...John Lackey is literally the worst example you could bring up. He lost a ton of bad weight and was coming off of a major arm injury and no one knew what he was capable of in 2013. ... Sorry, but I knew exactly who he was and said so at the time. Others on the board did the same. Projection is very difficult. Past performance has to be included as part of that. There's an aging curve - for hitters and for pitchers - but it isn't hard and fast. All that human stuff comes into play. I think the team will give both Sandoval and Hanley a chance to redeem themselves after last year. But the Sox have options, and they'll probably have more as the season moves on. If they can't perform, they won't get the time on the field. But they will be given the benefit of the doubt to start with. It's not just about what they're owed either. They have track records that can't be ignored. Add: Just read through the rest of the thread. Farrell is also on the clock. Dombrowski would have had to have had blinders on not to notice how the team picked up their performance once they brought up the young guys. That happened just as he showed up. I'm sure it didn't escape him who was managing either. As for who calls the shots, Henry made that clear when he named a President of Baseball Ops. This doesn't have to be calls to the dugout from the FO either. They probably have regular meetings where the approach can be made crystal clear.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 20, 2016 12:26:51 GMT -5
...John Lackey is literally the worst example you could bring up. He lost a ton of bad weight and was coming off of a major arm injury and no one knew what he was capable of in 2013. ... Sorry, but I knew exactly who he was and said so at the time. Others on the board did the same. Projection is very difficult. Past performance has to be included as part of that. There's an aging curve - for hitters and for pitchers - but it isn't hard and fast. All that human stuff comes into play. I think the team will give both Sandoval and Hanley a chance to redeem themselves after last year. But the Sox have options, and they'll probably have more as the season moves on. If they can't perform, they won't get the time on the field. But they will be given the benefit of the doubt to start with. It's not just about what they're owed either. They have track records that can't be ignored. Add: Just read through the rest of the thread. Farrell is also on the clock. Dombrowski would have had to have had blinders on not to notice how the team picked up their performance once they brought up the young guys. That happened just as he showed up. I'm sure it didn't escape him who was managing either. As for who calls the shots, Henry made that clear when he named a President of Baseball Ops. This doesn't have to be calls to the dugout from the FO either. They probably have regular meetings where the approach can be made crystal clear. Did you say the same thing after Jarrod Parker's first Tommy John surgery? It is a complete unknown what a pitcher will do after Tommy John surgery. Just like we don't know what will happen with Brandon Workman this year and next year. Pablo has a track record but he's doing everything wrong to maintain that track record. That is very much clear.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 20, 2016 12:35:34 GMT -5
No one is talking about Parker, why are you? Don't throw straw men at me or we've got nothing to discuss. You made a general statement about Lackey and I gave you the specifics. Put the broad brush away, please.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2016 14:34:00 GMT -5
Sorry, but I knew exactly who he was and said so at the time. Others on the board did the same. Projection is very difficult. Past performance has to be included as part of that. There's an aging curve - for hitters and for pitchers - but it isn't hard and fast. All that human stuff comes into play. I think the team will give both Sandoval and Hanley a chance to redeem themselves after last year. But the Sox have options, and they'll probably have more as the season moves on. If they can't perform, they won't get the time on the field. But they will be given the benefit of the doubt to start with. It's not just about what they're owed either. They have track records that can't be ignored. Add: Just read through the rest of the thread. Farrell is also on the clock. Dombrowski would have had to have had blinders on not to notice how the team picked up their performance once they brought up the young guys. That happened just as he showed up. I'm sure it didn't escape him who was managing either. As for who calls the shots, Henry made that clear when he named a President of Baseball Ops. This doesn't have to be calls to the dugout from the FO either. They probably have regular meetings where the approach can be made crystal clear. Did you say the same thing after Jarrod Parker's first Tommy John surgery? It is a complete unknown what a pitcher will do after Tommy John surgery. Just like we don't know what will happen with Brandon Workman this year and next year. Pablo has a track record but he's doing everything wrong to maintain that track record. That is very much clear. Eh, UCL repair for professional baseball players has about an 80% success rate. Once a pitcher demonstrates a return to normal velocity, that goes up to about 90-95%. Some wash out still due to repeat injury or persistent control/command issues. But it's quite predictable. Lackey's performance wasn't particularly unexpected in that light given past performance. You're using a statistical outlier to refute (when he actually supports) a highly predictable outcome...the 20% failure. Jarrod Parker was the one dentist who didn't agree about Crest toothpaste. We don't know what ANY player will do, ever, but we can make predictions based on likelihood. You're trying to divide up shades of grey into pure black-and-white. I don't know exactly how Workman will pitch, but there's about a 60-70% chance it's what he was before (or better), 20-25% chance he's slightly to significantly worse, and 10-15% chance he's done. The positive outcome percentages rise the closer he gets to returning, as negative outcome risks (surgical failure, impaired healing, muscle atrophy/injury, etc.) drop. You're taking a much too unidimensional view. Based on historical data across many players, current scouting, and individual data, we can **estimate** the likelihood of Panda returning to form (or near-form). But you, I, or anyone else can't say with certainty. And your insistence on negative outcomes flies directly in the face of your "nobody knew at the time" argument about Lackey. You seem irrevocably, unwaveringly tied to the negative outcome while denying the entire range of possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 20, 2016 14:40:27 GMT -5
No one is talking about Parker, why are you? Don't throw straw men at me or we've got nothing to discuss. You made a general statement about Lackey and I gave you the specifics. Put the broad brush away, please. It's not a broad brush. Matt Moore is another example of a guy that came back from Tommy John and struggled. No one knew or could even pretend to know how good lackey would of been or if he could of held up. Anything anyone had back then was a complete and utter guess.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 20, 2016 15:12:55 GMT -5
Did you say the same thing after Jarrod Parker's first Tommy John surgery? It is a complete unknown what a pitcher will do after Tommy John surgery. Just like we don't know what will happen with Brandon Workman this year and next year. Pablo has a track record but he's doing everything wrong to maintain that track record. That is very much clear. Eh, UCL repair for professional baseball players has about an 80% success rate. Once a pitcher demonstrates a return to normal velocity, that goes up to about 90-95%. Some wash out still due to repeat injury or persistent control/command issues. But it's quite predictable. Lackey's performance wasn't particularly unexpected in that light given past performance. You're using a statistical outlier to refute (when he actually supports) a highly predictable outcome...the 20% failure. Jarrod Parker was the one dentist who didn't agree about Crest toothpaste.
We don't know what ANY player will do, ever, but we can make predictions based on likelihood. You're trying to divide up shades of grey into pure black-and-white. I don't know exactly how Workman will pitch, but there's about a 60-70% chance it's what he was before (or better), 20-25% chance he's slightly to significantly worse, and 10-15% chance he's done. The positive outcome percentages rise the closer he gets to returning, as negative outcome risks (surgical failure, impaired healing, muscle atrophy/injury, etc.) drop. You're taking a much too unidimensional view. Based on historical data across many players, current scouting, and individual data, we can **estimate** the likelihood of Panda returning to form (or near-form). But you, I, or anyone else can't say with certainty. And your insistence on negative outcomes flies directly in the face of your "nobody knew at the time" argument about Lackey. You seem irrevocably, unwaveringly tied to the negative outcome while denying the entire range of possibilities. That's so completely wrong. It's Trident sugarless gum (for their patients who chew gum). And I'm disappointed to discover there is not a band called Fifth Dentist (perhaps, however, because there's a comedian who calls himself that).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2016 17:22:40 GMT -5
Eh, UCL repair for professional baseball players has about an 80% success rate. Once a pitcher demonstrates a return to normal velocity, that goes up to about 90-95%. Some wash out still due to repeat injury or persistent control/command issues. But it's quite predictable. Lackey's performance wasn't particularly unexpected in that light given past performance. You're using a statistical outlier to refute (when he actually supports) a highly predictable outcome...the 20% failure. Jarrod Parker was the one dentist who didn't agree about Crest toothpaste.
We don't know what ANY player will do, ever, but we can make predictions based on likelihood. You're trying to divide up shades of grey into pure black-and-white. I don't know exactly how Workman will pitch, but there's about a 60-70% chance it's what he was before (or better), 20-25% chance he's slightly to significantly worse, and 10-15% chance he's done. The positive outcome percentages rise the closer he gets to returning, as negative outcome risks (surgical failure, impaired healing, muscle atrophy/injury, etc.) drop. You're taking a much too unidimensional view. Based on historical data across many players, current scouting, and individual data, we can **estimate** the likelihood of Panda returning to form (or near-form). But you, I, or anyone else can't say with certainty. And your insistence on negative outcomes flies directly in the face of your "nobody knew at the time" argument about Lackey. You seem irrevocably, unwaveringly tied to the negative outcome while denying the entire range of possibilities. That's so completely wrong. It's Trident sugarless gum (for their patients who chew gum). And I'm disappointed to discover there is not a band called Fifth Dentist (perhaps, however, because there's a comedian who calls himself that). Ah, so... I was always partial to doublemint and fruit stripe, but sugar-free Trident didn't generally float my boat. Then again, sometimes I feel like a nut, and sometimes...well, frankly, I don't.
|
|
|