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.
How do you improve the Red Sox
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jun 17, 2016 19:59:32 GMT -5
We're going have to trade some of them eventually. Too many potential major leaguers for the spots we'll have. Choose wisely, Dave. Personally, I would take 3 or more years control of above average/elite MLB-proven performance now for players in positions of need (LF/SP/RP/C) in exchange for packages involing 6 years control of potentially above average/elite players. The 3+ year of control gives the MLB team time/opportunity to replenish the farm, especially with so much of the current potentially elite talent being at the lower levels. Make no mistake, I love the potential of these prospects, but it's just that - potential. The primary goal is to win at the MLB level. I am not saying to deal off all of the Top 4, but if the return is above average/elite MLB players who are not half-year rentals, I'm all for it. I love prospects even more than most but if the return is as you state then in most cases you have to do it. Maz, I should be dismissed for even bringing him up, the other day was saying that he would not trade Benintendi or Moncada for anything less than a stud with 3 years left before FA. That's extreme because most smaller market team will not trade such players with that many year left before FA however they will trade players with a few months left of this season and the entire next season which is what Theo used to focus on all the time, which is a great strategy as that is the peak value of most arbitration eligible players.(End of run on sentence) While I would prefer 3 years the 1+ years is far more realistic in terms of expectations and the ability to make such a deal happen. That said I do not want to part with more than 1 of our top four prospects and you cannot count Devers as his slow start this season would be selling low so that leaves us with Benintendi, Moncada and Espinoza. I'm not dealing any of these 3 without a stud coming back. We still have several valuable pieces to trade off from Swihart to Hernandez to Besabe to Dubon. Johnson, Owens and Travis are others who are injured yet still hold value as main/secondary pieces in a big trade. |
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jun 17, 2016 20:02:12 GMT -5
One of the things I've wondered about is will the Sox make the smaller less splashy moves with Dombrowski as GM. We know he knows how to make decisive big moves, whether you agree with him or not, but I wonder if he'll really be a tinker around the edges kind of guy, like Theo was. Theo was always trying to upgrade the roster, including the #24 or #25 spot, etc. Arcia would be one of those types of moves. Let's see if he goes bargain hunting. My sense (or more likely hope) is that Dom will be pretty hesitant to trade the big 4. I don't believe he had that type of talent in Detroit's system in any given year. It was easy to trade prospects if they aren't top shelf guys. Trades are so fickle. You can easily be trading the next Betts or Bogaerts for the next Shelby Miller. No you can't. The Sox have not had players of this calibre in some time, |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 17, 2016 22:47:30 GMT -5
My sense (or more likely hope) is that Dom will be pretty hesitant to trade the big 4. I don't believe he had that type of talent in Detroit's system in any given year. It was easy to trade prospects if they aren't top shelf guys. Trades are so fickle. You can easily be trading the next Betts or Bogaerts for the next Shelby Miller. No you can't. The Sox have not had players of this calibre in some time, That was his point: it's easy to make a mistake with prospects of this caliber, and err by making an impulsive trade for a veteran. I agree that there's likely little benefit to trading one of those guys right now. If you're going to trade great prospects (which I prefer they not), at least do it in the offseason and get a full year's benefit of the player you're acquiring, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Jun 18, 2016 1:11:01 GMT -5
I don't think they'll trade any of the big four guys.
But I fully expect some combination of Kopech/Lakins/Chavis/Dubon/Stank to get moved.
I don't think they make a move for a top flight guy. If not for the current injuries (Swihart/Hannigan/Travis) I'd say they would be moving one of their catchers and probably Travis. So many of their trade pieces have been taken out of action that it has hamstrung them. I don't think they'll sacrifice one of the main guys for this season "just because it's Ortiz's last year."
If they want to overspend a bit, then fine, I think they should. But don't sacrifice any of four legit potential superstars when they're so rare, and even rarer with the newish draft and IFA restrictions.
I wonder if any team would be willing to part with a half decent back end starter for a subsidized Castillo. I think he's an overlooked trade piece if he's heavily subsidized
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 18, 2016 3:08:21 GMT -5
If your trading Kopech you better be getting someone good. Same with Chavis and Dubon. Those are guys that could be future top 100 prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 18, 2016 5:36:42 GMT -5
If your trading Kopech you better be getting someone good. Same with Chavis and Dubon. Those are guys that could be future top 100 prospects. Dubon profiles as a utility type and Chavis is succeeding at a level of professional baseball that he should be successful at, A ball. That doesn't make them top 100 prospects. Kopech you can make a great case for though. |
|
|
|
Post by buttclown on Jun 18, 2016 6:51:41 GMT -5
If your trading Kopech you better be getting someone good. Same with Chavis and Dubon. Those are guys that could be future top 100 prospects. Dubon profiles as a utility type and Chavis is succeeding at a level of professional baseball that he should be successful at, A ball. That doesn't make them top 100 prospects. Kopech you can make a great case for though. I'm skeptical any of those three guys can be the centerpiece of any deal which nets us anyone valuable. Kopech is the closest but I'd imagine teams are understandably wary of him |
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jun 18, 2016 7:33:04 GMT -5
Just curious, since another member mentioned moving Hanley if possible; how does a play like we saw the other night when Xander bounced a throw to him and he couldn't scoop it, affect his statistical evaluation? It'd be an interesting real-world example for someone like me, who doesn't know the in depth stuff about advanced metrics. I look at that play and say, damn, it's an error on Xander, but if we had a guy like Napoli in his prime there it's a good chance that the ball is caught, inning over and game still tied. If Nomar with his range had a decent to good fielding firstbasemen he would have likely won a gold glove. Think of how that is, with all the advanced stats certain things such as a bad verse a good fielding firstbaseman clouds the error rate of all the other infielders. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 18, 2016 7:35:50 GMT -5
Dubon profiles as a utility type and Chavis is succeeding at a level of professional baseball that he should be successful at, A ball. That doesn't make them top 100 prospects. Kopech you can make a great case for though. I'm skeptical any of those three guys can be the centerpiece of any deal which nets us anyone valuable. Kopech is the closest but I'd imagine teams are understandably wary of him Well you would be selling low on Kopech, which is a bad idea to begin with. I think you could get a Rich Hill for a package of Michael Chavis, Marco Hernandez, and a couple prospects like that. At the very least they should be able to get a reliever out of a package like that. |
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jun 18, 2016 7:36:54 GMT -5
If your trading Kopech you better be getting someone good. Same with Chavis and Dubon. Those are guys that could be future top 100 prospects. Dubon profiles as a utility type and Chavis is succeeding at a level of professional baseball that he should be successful at, A ball. That doesn't make them top 100 prospects. Kopech you can make a great case for though. Kopech allready is in Baseball Americas top 100, 89 in fact. www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects/#EglFq2OMAzTGWFBS.97 |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 18, 2016 8:08:49 GMT -5
Dubon profiles as a utility type and Chavis is succeeding at a level of professional baseball that he should be successful at, A ball. That doesn't make them top 100 prospects. Kopech you can make a great case for though. Kopech allready is in Baseball Americas top 100, 89 in fact. www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects/#EglFq2OMAzTGWFBS.97Yeah that makes a lot of sense. His fastball is off the charts good. Makes sense to already put him there. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 18, 2016 9:14:12 GMT -5
I'm skeptical any of those three guys can be the centerpiece of any deal which nets us anyone valuable. Kopech is the closest but I'd imagine teams are understandably wary of him Well you would be selling low on Kopech, which is a bad idea to begin with. I think you could get a Rich Hill for a package of Michael Chavis, Marco Hernandez, and a couple prospects like that. At the very least they should be able to get a reliever out of a package like that. Depends upon the prospects but it Chavis and Hernandez are the headlines, you wouldn't get Hill. Other teams can and will top that offer. That might get you a middle reliever perhaps. I'd rather give Janssen a shot first, though, although Varvaro will get first crack. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 18, 2016 9:52:41 GMT -5
If your trading Kopech you better be getting someone good. Same with Chavis and Dubon. Those are guys that could be future top 100 prospects. Dubon profiles as a utility type and Chavis is succeeding at a level of professional baseball that he should be successful at, A ball. That doesn't make them top 100 prospects. Kopech you can make a great case for though. I didn't say Dubon and Chavis were top 100 guys, I said they could be in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 18, 2016 12:18:09 GMT -5
While CY has done a good job as a stopgap in left, I think most would agree that he is best utilized as part of a platoon. The name that comes to mind for me as the LHH is Choo in TX, who is owed 20ish mil/year thru 2020, meanwhile Rua, Desmond, and Mazara have performed admirably in the Texas OF thus far. If the Rangers are willing to accept a couple low tiered prospect/40 man filler (maybe Kelly?) in exchange for Boston paying 70-80% going forward, would either side have a qualm? |
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jun 18, 2016 14:02:34 GMT -5
I wonder if they'll actually take a flier on Arcia.
|
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Jun 18, 2016 15:55:46 GMT -5
With many of the Sox mid-tier trade pieces either hurt (Travis, Johnson, Swihart), sucking (Owens, Castillo), or essential (Shaw, Holt,), I think, for the Sox, the trade deadline is looking more binary. Either there is going to be a mega-blockbuster with the Sox losing a good chunk of the top prospects for a really good player, or the Sox will be pretty quiet at the deadline.
There really are not the usual trade suspects available this year, nobody obvious like Cueto or Lackey in year's past. No way the Sox trade for Hill, and Teheran has some seriously gaudy stats this year, making him very expensive.
I guess they could try for somebody's 3-4 starter, but that would still cost a bunch. The Sox are the kind of team that should be willing to overspend for help, at least if you believe in the win curve model (which I do), but valuations of prospects and established major league assets seem to be a jumble.
In order for there to be a robust trade market, there has to be a general, industry wide consensus on the values of players and types of players (prospects versus established players), and it doesn't seem like that is the case in mlb right now (just a gut feeling).
|
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jun 18, 2016 17:24:23 GMT -5
If Oakland makes gray available, I think dombrowski goes all in on acquiring him.
Short of that , Maybe we go back to the San Diego well and offer up a package of prospects for Pomeranz and their super lefty reliever.
Plan c would be talking to the Brewers about Braun and/or lucroy,
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 18, 2016 19:59:11 GMT -5
Kill joy “@jtomase: Full Count » Source: MLB plans to remind Pedro Martinez that Jose Fernandez tweet is technically tampering t.co/UUq2U64uM5 via @weei” |
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Jun 18, 2016 20:38:40 GMT -5
Kill joy “@jtomase: Full Count » Source: MLB plans to remind Pedro Martinez that Jose Fernandez tweet is technically tampering t.co/UUq2U64uM5 via @weei” Interesting. If he technically represents the Red Sox, should the Sox allow him to be an analyst, providing his opinions or getting into debates on controversial issues while on the MLB Network owned by MLB. |
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Jun 19, 2016 8:23:34 GMT -5
A name I'd like to see the Sox make an agressive play for that I don't hear discussed as much is Jose Quintana from the White Sox. While I think he would still cost a ton, I do think it would be short of the "blockbuster" prices that would be needed to acquire a pitcher like Sale, Fernandez or Gray.
Their system is pretty darn mediocre, somewhere on the edge between the middle and bottom tier of the league and their best prospects are probably Tim Anderson (just called up to the big club) with Carson Fulmer and Spencer Adams. They are a club where I can still see Blake Swihart and Henry Owens being significant portions of a deal. Granted, that would still have to include at least one of the big names, but I can see those two along with Devers and someone like Kopech or Chavis making some sense for them. This would allow the ChiSox to pretty quickly upgrade their system and young talent in the minors. It also allows them to hold on to their ace (Sale) and their best young pitcher (Rodon), and gives them another young pitcher (Owens) to help off-set what they're paying Shields.
For the Red Sox, Quintana is team controlled through 2020, factoring in very reasonable options and he doesn't have the NL to AL conversion to worry about. He has shown a very neutral home and road split through his career, and has had very good success in roughly a season's worth of starts (28) against the AL East. At 27 he slots in VERY well with Price, Porcello and Wright to give the club four starters over the next several years. Granted, giving up Swihart, Devers and Kopech in the same deal would hurt a lot, but I think it keeps Benintendi and Moncada off the table.
Mods - feel free to move if this should be in the trade proposal threads, I didn't see anything allocated toward him in there, and saw some specific names were being discussed in this thread, so I thought it appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 19, 2016 12:11:06 GMT -5
They have been scouting and inquiring about virtually every starter on the market. According to multiple baseball sources, the Sox have not shied away from asking about a few of the most elite names in the game — Jose Fernandez of the Marlins, Gerrit Cole of the Pirates are two such prime talents — even if the teams have no plans of moving that player. This is exactly what the Red Sox did in the offseason, when they spoke with the White Sox about Chris Sale, the Mets about Matt Harvey and the A’s about Sonny Gray. The responses over the winter tended to be along the lines of “Let’s start with the names of Xander Bogaerts and Mookie Betts,” a conversational non-starter if there ever was one. www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2016/06/silverman_names_for_red_sox_to_consider_to_boost_pitching_staff |
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 19, 2016 13:27:45 GMT -5
Big trade!
|
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jun 20, 2016 21:40:47 GMT -5
Buchholz is not good and he's a head case. He's a perfect example of why you can't build a team looking at statistics (i.e. WAR). My god I don't understand how anyone can watch him pitch for all these years and pay attention and then argue for wanting him in the rotation. Yes a 2 month stretch of great pitching is awesome when you get it but the other 4 months of mostly crap has implications beyond the day he pitches.Owens is not a major league caliber pitcher. Will he be some day? Perhaps but it's a long shot it happens this year. Joe Kelly... I mean you're not going to get rid of him so you let him fill in here and there i guess but falling in love with a guys flashes is dangerous business. This team can't afford to run multiple guys out there over and over who you don't know if they will get thru 2 innings. At least if Porcello struggles in a start he goes 5-6 innings. Jmei, love ya man but yes inconsistency is a bad thing. 1) Buchholz year by year, bad start stretches / good start stretches 2009: [AAA] / 4 / 10 / 22010: 0 / 28 2011: 6 / 8 [inj.] 2012: 9 / 18 / 22013: 0 / 16 [inj.] / 4 2014: 10 / DL / 4 / 4 / 6 / 42015: 7 / 10 [inj.] 2016: 11His good stretches outnumber the bad ones, 104 starts to 59. That you think the ratio of bad to good is 2:1 instead of 3:5 tells us that you're viewing this though a filter. His being at times painful to watch doesn't actually change his results, though, just your perception of them. And of course his good stretches aren't just good, but absolutely elite. The rational thing to expect if he returns to the rotation is what he did in 2014 after his phantom DL stint. His SIERA and xFIP were league-average, but he had a 116 ERA-. That's a perfectly acceptable 5th starter for a contender. And you give him that chance because there's still a possibility you get the elite guy. 2) It's true that an inconsistent starter taxes the bullpen, and that this isn't reflected in WAR. However, inconsistent pitching is good, in general (and that's not reflected in WAR, either). A guy with a 4.50 ERA who allows 3 runs in 6 IP for four straight starts is not as valuable as a guy who allows 2 runs in 7 innings three times, and then allows 6 runs in 3 IP his fifth start for the same ERA. You're going to go roughly 2-2 with the first guy, but head in the direction of 3-1 for the second. That more than offsets the strain on the pen in the lousy start. The evidence for this is quite clear: teams that have a high variance of RA outperform their Pythagorean, while teams that have a low variance underperform. It's quite simple: for a given total of RA, clustering some in a small number of blowouts is better than spreading them around equally. Runs 7 -10 allowed in a game are much less damaging than runs 1-4. If ERA was a clever for 1986 then what is your undefined good start bad start good for Downton Abbey? Also by your own supersimplistic undefined stat can you not see the trend? Are you going out of your way to bury just how bad bad has been? He's been terrible for years. Starting pitching is the teams biggest weakness no matter how you slice and dice it. |
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jun 20, 2016 22:09:06 GMT -5
How do you improve the Red Sox?
#1 Fire Farrell and let Lovullo manage the team.
#2 Refer to #1
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,020
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 20, 2016 23:55:35 GMT -5
1) Buchholz year by year, bad start stretches / good start stretches 2009: [AAA] / 4 / 10 / 22010: 0 / 28 2011: 6 / 8 [inj.] 2012: 9 / 18 / 22013: 0 / 16 [inj.] / 4 2014: 10 / DL / 4 / 4 / 6 / 42015: 7 / 10 [inj.] 2016: 11His good stretches outnumber the bad ones, 104 starts to 59. That you think the ratio of bad to good is 2:1 instead of 3:5 tells us that you're viewing this though a filter. His being at times painful to watch doesn't actually change his results, though, just your perception of them. And of course his good stretches aren't just good, but absolutely elite. The rational thing to expect if he returns to the rotation is what he did in 2014 after his phantom DL stint. His SIERA and xFIP were league-average, but he had a 116 ERA-. That's a perfectly acceptable 5th starter for a contender. And you give him that chance because there's still a possibility you get the elite guy. 2) It's true that an inconsistent starter taxes the bullpen, and that this isn't reflected in WAR. However, inconsistent pitching is good, in general (and that's not reflected in WAR, either). A guy with a 4.50 ERA who allows 3 runs in 6 IP for four straight starts is not as valuable as a guy who allows 2 runs in 7 innings three times, and then allows 6 runs in 3 IP his fifth start for the same ERA. You're going to go roughly 2-2 with the first guy, but head in the direction of 3-1 for the second. That more than offsets the strain on the pen in the lousy start. The evidence for this is quite clear: teams that have a high variance of RA outperform their Pythagorean, while teams that have a low variance underperform. It's quite simple: for a given total of RA, clustering some in a small number of blowouts is better than spreading them around equally. Runs 7 -10 allowed in a game are much less damaging than runs 1-4. If ERA was a clever for 1986 then what is your undefined good start bad start good for Downton Abbey? Also by your own supersimplistic undefined stat can you not see the trend? Are you going out of your way to bury just how bad bad has been? He's been terrible for years. Starting pitching is the teams biggest weakness no matter how you slice and dice it. Was this intended as comic relief? Just to orient you somewhere in the vicinity of reality, in 2015, for example, the 7 bad starts plus 10 good starts combined to make him the 11th most valuable SP in MLB, on a per start basis. In 2011 the 6 bad starts and 8 good starts combined to rank him 20th. That's how insanely more good the good has been, versus how bad the bad has been. I "buried" it because it's the single most obvious thing in this discussion (for natives of planet Earth). |
|
|
