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 telson13 on Nov 10, 2016 22:36:57 GMT -5
Brandon Moss could be a good add, good power vs RHP and Young could DH vs lefties. I like this idea as well. He had a great first half but really struggled his last 100 PAs that hurt his final line. I think we end up with a DH (that essentially platoons with Young)that can play 1B as well to give Hanley plenty of time at DH when needed. Maybe a Pedro Alvarez could be and option and I wish Matt Joyce had 1B experience bc he's hit RHs pretty good. I'm a third on Moss. Huge power, actually gets some walks so the crummy BAs don't hurt so much. Came up through the system. Probably fairly cheap. Not so big on Alvarez. I still like Beltran a lot, too. Risky but with upside. I'm convinced that Benintendi makes more than a small dent in the offensive deficit. We're not finding an Ortiz this year. Give up nothing in prospects/draft picks, sign no-comp FA platoon guys, and focus on the bullpen. Moncada, Travis, and even Devers aren't that far away. With better pitching (which they already have with Pomeranz and a healthy Rodriguez), their run differential will stay about the same.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 10, 2016 23:05:19 GMT -5
I like this idea as well. He had a great first half but really struggled his last 100 PAs that hurt his final line. I think we end up with a DH (that essentially platoons with Young)that can play 1B as well to give Hanley plenty of time at DH when needed. Maybe a Pedro Alvarez could be and option and I wish Matt Joyce had 1B experience bc he's hit RHs pretty good. I'm a third on Moss. Huge power, actually gets some walks so the crummy BAs don't hurt so much. Came up through the system. Probably fairly cheap. Not so big on Alvarez. I still like Beltran a lot, too. Risky but with upside. I'm convinced that Benintendi makes more than a small dent in the offensive deficit. We're not finding an Ortiz this year. Give up nothing in prospects/draft picks, sign no-comp FA platoon guys, and focus on the bullpen. Moncada, Travis, and even Devers aren't that far away. With better pitching (which they already have with Pomeranz and a healthy Rodriguez), their run differential will stay about the same. The bolded seems to be no small part of the Brandon Moss attraction. So yeah, it makes sense that followers of SoxProspects.com would gain a special connection to the players they followed coming up through the minor leaguers. We all have our players that we like. But he has a two year line of .226/.302/.443, good for a 0.3 bWAR. The sum of his contributions at this point are that he can homer against a right-handers - a group he had a 30% strikeout rate against this year. Like I've said about a couple other guys, if team's still carried a five-person bench then I'd be cool with him as a depth signing. But he's not good enough to start and doesn't offer the positional flexibility you need from a backup. I wouldn't give him anything more than a minor-league deal.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 11, 2016 1:28:25 GMT -5
I'm a third on Moss. Huge power, actually gets some walks so the crummy BAs don't hurt so much. Came up through the system. Probably fairly cheap. Not so big on Alvarez. I still like Beltran a lot, too. Risky but with upside. I'm convinced that Benintendi makes more than a small dent in the offensive deficit. We're not finding an Ortiz this year. Give up nothing in prospects/draft picks, sign no-comp FA platoon guys, and focus on the bullpen. Moncada, Travis, and even Devers aren't that far away. With better pitching (which they already have with Pomeranz and a healthy Rodriguez), their run differential will stay about the same. The bolded seems to be no small part of the Brandon Moss attraction. So yeah, it makes sense that followers of SoxProspects.com would gain a special connection to the players they followed coming up through the minor leaguers. We all have our players that we like. But he has a two year line of .226/.302/.443, good for a 0.3 bWAR. The sum of his contributions at this point are that he can homer against a right-handers - a group he had a 30% strikeout rate against this year. Like I've said about a couple other guys, if team's still carried a five-person bench then I'd be cool with him as a depth signing. But he's not good enough to start and doesn't offer the positional flexibility you need from a backup. I wouldn't give him anything more than a minor-league deal. Well, fangraphs has him at over 2/year with the A's, and 1.4 last year, sandwiching a down year in 2015 at 0.5. I don't see him as s starter; if they don't start Holt, I think they can get away with the five-man bench. I see him more as a part-time DH/part-time 1b/of option. I think somebody will pay him to play in MLB, so a minor league deal probably won't happen. If Hanley plays 1b, their options for DH bats expand. If Hanley's primarily a DH (where he's been consistently a better hitter in his career, in a limited sample), I think they need at least an average defensive 1b. I'm also unsure the about Shaw/Panda at 3b and potentially 1b. If Panda is the 3b, Shaw needs a platoon partner at first. That also shrinks the bench, which already has Holt, Young, and one of those two. They'd probably be able to stash Hernandez in AAA, so then the question becomes, how many platoons can they afford to carry with their bullpen? As constituted? If they add a true 8th inning arm?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 11, 2016 12:59:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 11, 2016 15:29:41 GMT -5
Not a bad idea, but I really think the problem is a lot of our hitters are very streaky. It's a huge problem when a star is in a major slump. As the manager most likely isn't going to bench him. Maybe batting Bogaerts at DH for some games helps, maybe not. I don't see it helping Bradley or a player like Shaw.
|
|
|
Post by yazman67 on Nov 12, 2016 8:18:08 GMT -5
Bring back Napoli at 2 years and Hanley and he can take turns resting their bodies at DH. He had a great power year, loves the city, is a great clubhouse guy and fits right back in the team and lineup! He will also be much cheaper than EE.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Nov 12, 2016 8:58:35 GMT -5
Love what Napoli did in 13, but a very streaky hitter year to year. Would want more of a sure thing. I'm all in on Beltran.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Nov 12, 2016 10:53:09 GMT -5
Count me in as in favor of going out and signing Matt Holliday (his option was declined).
He quite clearly can no longer play the field and also just had a down season at the age of 36, so he should be cheap. However beneath his disappointing surface stats, you still have a guy last season with an 8.2% BB Rate, only a 16.7 Rate, an ISO over .200a & 20 homer runs in slightly over 420 plate appearances.
Signing him should be cheap enough that it does not interfere with what needs to be focus #1 (Extend Betts & Xander) and he also does not cost a pick.
I would offer him 2/34 or 1/18.
(Stremaer projects him to have a WRC+ of 121 and a WAR of 1.7 next year- But honestly when it comes to DH, I could care less about WAR totals.)
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 12, 2016 14:57:01 GMT -5
Count me in as in favor of going out and signing Matt Holliday (his option was declined). He quite clearly can no longer play the field and also just had a down season at the age of 36, so he should be cheap. However beneath his disappointing surface stats, you still have a guy last season with an 8.2% BB Rate, only a 16.7 Rate, an ISO over .200a & 20 homer runs in slightly over 420 plate appearances. Signing him should be cheap enough that it does not interfere with what needs to be focus #1 (Extend Betts & Xander) and he also does not cost a pick. I would offer him 2/34 or 1/18. (Stremaer projects him to have a WRC+ of 121 and a WAR of 1.7 next year- But honestly when it comes to DH, I could care less about WAR totals.) I'm not necessarily opposed to Holliday as an affordable, short-term option who definitely has enough left in the tank to be a productive DH, but your suggested contracts are far too lucrative. I'd go $15M/1year, or $26M/2years tops.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 12, 2016 15:38:04 GMT -5
I really like the idea of Holliday. If he bounces back, his elite on base skills will be a nice fit for Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 12, 2016 17:48:31 GMT -5
Holliday's someone I'd love throwing a fairly expensive vesting option on. I think there's real bounceback potential there, and I'd be willing to pay for it in 2018 on the chance it ends up happening. something like $12 million for 2017 vesting for $20 million in 2018 if he reaches 500 PA or something. If that BABIP drop is skill erosion then he's a borderline second-division starter. If it was a blip, he's quite good - the power and patience are still there.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 12, 2016 18:04:56 GMT -5
Agree 100%, which is why I'd advocate Beltran (OF depth/half-time DH) or Moss (DH vs RH/occasional play in the field). They don't need (and I don't think they should want) a full-time DH. Get a half-time platoon guy who has pop and use Hanley vs LH, or other guys on "rest" days. I'm sure I've said it way too much already, but Benintendi is going to represent a significant improvement in the LF offensive output. Unless they completely botch the DH position, the drop-off in scoring will be a mild to moderate. And the improved pitching should more than make up for that. Save the DH for rest, breaking in guys like Moncada/Travis, and Hanley. Those $ are much better spent (or even not spent) elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 12, 2016 18:07:52 GMT -5
Holliday's someone I'd love throwing a fairly expensive vesting option on. I think there's real bounceback potential there, and I'd be willing to pay for it in 2018 on the chance it ends up happening. something like $12 million for 2017 vesting for $20 million in 2018 if he reaches 500 PA or something. If that BABIP drop is skill erosion then he's a borderline second-division starter. If it was a blip, he's quite good - the power and patience are still there. That's an interesting approach, and a good one. I'd think playing in Fenway, with the DH, on a good offensive team, would sell itself as a career-extender. The big vesting option doesn't hurt, either.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 12, 2016 18:09:36 GMT -5
My take: getting a guy who can really hit but can't field into your lineup everyday is a much bigger competitive advantage than giving players occasional rest by cycling them through the position. That doesn't mean spending big money on a DH - it means finding someone who has been marginalized because of his fielding. There's not going to be a next David Ortiz, probably ever. But that's where you have to be looking. And if that player isn't out there? Then sure, getting a semi-competent fielder and cycling the DH is an okay alternative. I just don't think that should ever be Plan A.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 12, 2016 18:17:04 GMT -5
My take: getting a guy who can really hit but can't field into your lineup everyday is a much bigger competitive advantage than giving players occasional rest by cycling them through the position. That doesn't mean spending big money on a DH - it means finding someone who has been marginalized because of his fielding. There's not going to be a next David Ortiz, probably ever. But that's where you have to be looking. And if that player isn't out there? Then sure, getting a semi-competent fielder and cycling the DH is an okay alternative. I just don't think that should ever be Plan A. I don't think it has to be one or the other. Signing a DH who is full-time against RHP or LHP and pinch hits the rest of the time would be ideal. 30-50% of the time you rotate the DH and the rest of the time you have a good bat in there.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 13, 2016 0:35:25 GMT -5
My take: getting a guy who can really hit but can't field into your lineup everyday is a much bigger competitive advantage than giving players occasional rest by cycling them through the position. That doesn't mean spending big money on a DH - it means finding someone who has been marginalized because of his fielding. There's not going to be a next David Ortiz, probably ever. But that's where you have to be looking. And if that player isn't out there? Then sure, getting a semi-competent fielder and cycling the DH is an okay alternative. I just don't think that should ever be Plan A. I don't think it has to be one or the other. Signing a DH who is full-time against RHP or LHP and pinch hits the rest of the time would be ideal. 30-50% of the time you rotate the DH and the rest of the time you have a good bat in there. That's what I liked about Holliday: no career platoon split, really. He can still be used in the field. Tiny sample, but he was actually not bad at 1b last year. His IsoP was still very good last year; the BABIP of .256 was a real precipitous drop, seems like a good case for regression back towards .300. Not a ton of versatility, but some, and doesn't hurt you at the plate vs either arm. Good fit for Fenway, and the team's hitting philosophy. No comp pick attached. He was a 3-4 WAR player 3 years ago; I think it's fair to hope he's a bounce-back 2-3 this year, and that'll go a good ways towards replacing Papi's lost offense. If Benintendi hits at all like people think he will (I'm predicting a .300/.360/.460 line), that's most, if not all, of the lost offense right there.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 13, 2016 1:07:42 GMT -5
My take: getting a guy who can really hit but can't field into your lineup everyday is a much bigger competitive advantage than giving players occasional rest by cycling them through the position. That doesn't mean spending big money on a DH - it means finding someone who has been marginalized because of his fielding. There's not going to be a next David Ortiz, probably ever. But that's where you have to be looking. And if that player isn't out there? Then sure, getting a semi-competent fielder and cycling the DH is an okay alternative. I just don't think that should ever be Plan A. I don't think it has to be one or the other. Signing a DH who is full-time against RHP or LHP and pinch hits the rest of the time would be ideal. 30-50% of the time you rotate the DH and the rest of the time you have a good bat in there. A guy who would fit this bill and then some is Hanley Ramirez. You can have him DH vs. RHP and play 1B (where he's not good but is entirely adequate) vs. LHP. He has preposterously good numbers at DH. Is he available?
More seriously, signing anyone who is limited completely to DH is a terrible idea. That only works if the guy is an offensive monster. Matt Holliday is purely a DH now. Carlos Beltran probably has the skills to play an adequate LF, but he's never played there a game in his life. Steamer projections are out. Let's run with them a bit. 108 Sandoval vs. RHP 120 Chris Young vs. LHP, regressed properly 4 Points worth of wRC+/150 you lose by playing Hanley at 1B full-time (massively regressed) 5 Points worth of 1B defense, ditto. 2/3 * 108 + 1/3 * 120 = 112. That's the actual expected offense from the lineup spot (which is hitting 7th or 9th, BTW). Add 4 + 5 = 121. That's the Steamer projection that you need from a full-time DH to merely match what we've got. Steamer projects Holliday at 121 and Beltran at 104. Encarnacion is 125, but that's probably 127 playing half his games in Fenway. Really, people feel a need to spend big bucks to improve on a virtual 121 wRC+ 1B platoon? 6 points of wRC+ is 0.5 WAR. That's the marginal value you're getting from the too-expensive option that we've all rejected. Pearce projects at 112. He'd be a defensive upgrade, but probably not an overall one. The whip-smart thing to do is sign Eric Thames and see if he can give you 120 wRC+ and another 5 points worth of defense. Putting another 1B who hits LH into the mix is what you want to do, and he's a perfect candidate because the cost is so low and the upside is high. Edit: There's an argument that if you added a full-time DH, you'd play Sandoval at 3B vs. RHP, not Shaw, and that probably lowers that 121 figure a bit. But clearly not enough to change the conclusion that any primary DH (let alone full-time DH) can't be worth his cost.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Nov 13, 2016 1:58:10 GMT -5
Count me in as in favor of going out and signing Matt Holliday (his option was declined). He quite clearly can no longer play the field and also just had a down season at the age of 36, so he should be cheap. However beneath his disappointing surface stats, you still have a guy last season with an 8.2% BB Rate, only a 16.7 Rate, an ISO over .200a & 20 homer runs in slightly over 420 plate appearances. Signing him should be cheap enough that it does not interfere with what needs to be focus #1 (Extend Betts & Xander) and he also does not cost a pick. I would offer him 2/34 or 1/18. (Stremaer projects him to have a WRC+ of 121 and a WAR of 1.7 next year- But honestly when it comes to DH, I could care less about WAR totals.) I'm not necessarily opposed to Holliday as an affordable, short-term option who definitely has enough left in the tank to be a productive DH, but your suggested contracts are far too lucrative. I'd go $15M/1year, or $26M/2years tops. Two things that I can't pretend to understand: 1) The American Electorate 2) The MLB FA market I think Holiday will certainly get more than 1/15, but I have been wrong a lot as of late.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 13, 2016 2:00:29 GMT -5
I don't think it has to be one or the other. Signing a DH who is full-time against RHP or LHP and pinch hits the rest of the time would be ideal. 30-50% of the time you rotate the DH and the rest of the time you have a good bat in there. A guy who would fit this bill and then some is Hanley Ramirez. You can have him DH vs. RHP and play 1B (where he's not good but is entirely adequate) vs. LHP. He has preposterously good numbers at DH. Is he available?
More seriously, signing anyone who is limited completely to DH is a terrible idea. That only works if the guy is an offensive monster. Matt Holliday is purely a DH now. Carlos Beltran probably has the skills to play an adequate LF, but he's never played there a game in his life. Steamer projections are out. Let's run with them a bit. 108 Sandoval vs. RHP 120 Chris Young vs. LHP, regressed properly 4 Points worth of wRC+/150 you lose by playing Hanley at 1B full-time (massively regressed) 5 Points worth of 1B defense, ditto. 2/3 * 108 + 1/3 * 120 = 112. That's the actual expected offense from the lineup spot (which is hitting 7th or 9th, BTW). Add 4 + 5 = 121. That's the Steamer projection that you need from a full-time DH to merely match what we've got. Steamer projects Holliday at 121 and Beltran at 104. Encarnacion is 125, but that's probably 127 playing half his games in Fenway. Really, people feel a need to spend big bucks to improve on a virtual 121 wRC+ 1B platoon? 6 points of wRC+ is 0.5 WAR. That's the marginal value you're getting from the too-expensive option that we've all rejected. Pearce projects at 112. He'd be a defensive upgrade, but probably not an overall one. The whip-smart thing to do is sign Eric Thames and see if he can give you 120 wRC+ and another 5 points worth of defense. Putting another 1B who hits LH into the mix is what you want to do, and he's a perfect candidate because the cost is so low and the upside is high. Edit: There's an argument that if you added a full-time DH, you'd play Sandoval at 3B vs. RHP, not Shaw, and that probably lowers that 121 figure a bit. But clearly not enough to change the conclusion that any primary DH (let alone full-time DH) can't be worth his cost. You do it because he could be a lot better that 121, what if it's 131? What if he goes back to his career levels of 137? I would happily pay 10-12 million for him. If you only get .5 WARs I can live with that. It also helps in case Sandoval can't bounce back. With the Red Sox payroll, a one year deal for a player like Holliday can't be bad. Even if he gives you nothing. Unless you can argue the money can be spent on something better this year, you really aren't making any sense. Something that would give us more WARs. It's not a long term deal! Sure price per war would be high, but like you said he makes us better.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 13, 2016 2:45:07 GMT -5
I don't think it has to be one or the other. Signing a DH who is full-time against RHP or LHP and pinch hits the rest of the time would be ideal. 30-50% of the time you rotate the DH and the rest of the time you have a good bat in there. A guy who would fit this bill and then some is Hanley Ramirez. You can have him DH vs. RHP and play 1B (where he's not good but is entirely adequate) vs. LHP. He has preposterously good numbers at DH. Is he available?
More seriously, signing anyone who is limited completely to DH is a terrible idea. That only works if the guy is an offensive monster. Matt Holliday is purely a DH now. Carlos Beltran probably has the skills to play an adequate LF, but he's never played there a game in his life. Steamer projections are out. Let's run with them a bit. 108 Sandoval vs. RHP 120 Chris Young vs. LHP, regressed properly 4 Points worth of wRC+/150 you lose by playing Hanley at 1B full-time (massively regressed) 5 Points worth of 1B defense, ditto. 2/3 * 108 + 1/3 * 120 = 112. That's the actual expected offense from the lineup spot (which is hitting 7th or 9th, BTW). Add 4 + 5 = 121. That's the Steamer projection that you need from a full-time DH to merely match what we've got. Steamer projects Holliday at 121 and Beltran at 104. Encarnacion is 125, but that's probably 127 playing half his games in Fenway. Really, people feel a need to spend big bucks to improve on a virtual 121 wRC+ 1B platoon? 6 points of wRC+ is 0.5 WAR. That's the marginal value you're getting from the too-expensive option that we've all rejected. Pearce projects at 112. He'd be a defensive upgrade, but probably not an overall one. The whip-smart thing to do is sign Eric Thames and see if he can give you 120 wRC+ and another 5 points worth of defense. Putting another 1B who hits LH into the mix is what you want to do, and he's a perfect candidate because the cost is so low and the upside is high. Edit: There's an argument that if you added a full-time DH, you'd play Sandoval at 3B vs. RHP, not Shaw, and that probably lowers that 121 figure a bit. But clearly not enough to change the conclusion that any primary DH (let alone full-time DH) can't be worth his cost. That's all good in a vacuum, but it leaves Beni, Bradley, Shaw and Holt filling 3 spots against LHP. Below is their wRC+ vs LHP last year (MLB only/SSS of course): 77 (Bradley) 51 (Shaw) 13 (Benintendi) 0 (Holt) I like Thames as a low cost, possibly high upside move, but he would push Shaw down to AAA and a RHH (preferably who can play the IF) would still be needed.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 13, 2016 12:24:35 GMT -5
You also can't assume anything close to perfect platoon usage, especially with Farrell as manager, and there's depth value in having starter-caliber bench players. A one-win upgrade for this roster is probably worth $10-15m, given their place on the win curve.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 13, 2016 12:29:09 GMT -5
By the way, I'm warming up to the idea of Jose Bautista as a buy-low guy. He costs a draft pick, but I think he's a strong offensive bounce-back candidate and may be available for a reasonable price. Not sure his arm is strong enough to play 3B anymore, but that would only be an added bonus.
|
|
|
Post by brianc on Nov 13, 2016 13:54:45 GMT -5
Here is an out there thought on the first baseman side of this discussion. Why not give the older brother, Chris Marrero, a shot if Travis Shaw's bat disappears again as it did this year after May. He had a very good year at AAA Pawtucket with the bat in 2016. His defense at 1B has always been better than Travis Shaw's. There is room already on the 40 man roster. And boy would he be cheap. His line at Pawtucket was .284/.344/.494 with 30 doubles, 3 triples and 23 home runs. His defense - an 8.29 RF/9 and a .990 FPCT basically taking over 1B after Sam Travis went down injured.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 13, 2016 14:30:29 GMT -5
Here is an out there thought on the first baseman side of this discussion. Why not give the older brother, Chris Marrero, a shot if Travis Shaw's bat disappears again as it did this year after May. He had a very good year at AAA Pawtucket with the bat in 2016. His defense at 1B has always been better than Travis Shaw's. There is room already on the 40 man roster. And boy would he be cheap. His line at Pawtucket was .284/.344/.494 with 30 doubles, 3 triples and 23 home runs. His defense - an 8.29 RF/9 and a .990 FPCT basically taking over 1B after Sam Travis went down injured. He already signed a minor league deal with SF. If they were ever thinking of that, he would have been added to the 40-man in September and been called up. I kinda wanted to see if he could do anything, but oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 13, 2016 16:32:32 GMT -5
By the way, I'm warming up to the idea of Jose Bautista as a buy-low guy. He costs a draft pick, but I think he's a strong offensive bounce-back candidate and may be available for a reasonable price. Not sure his arm is strong enough to play 3B anymore, but that would only be an added bonus. If there was no draft choice involved I would be onboard with this.
|
|
|