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.
2020 Vision: Position Players
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 3, 2019 22:48:14 GMT -5
Eric, which year do you think the Red Sox will try to reset the luxury tax? And how could they ever do it? I'm pretty sure they'll do it this year, because Pablo is off the books (they have to give him $5M buyout, but that was already figured into the AAV). If they re-sign Mookie, they won't be under it for a while.
Based on the spreadsheet at Baseball Prospectus, I have them with about $12M to spend on arb raises and acquisitions. The arb raises shouldn't be that much, but it would leave them with very little room to do anything else.
Replacing JBJ with someone cheaper would not only make it doable, but would allow them to re-sign Holt. A great target would be Alex Verdugo, as the Dodgers have nine regulars for 7 positions. If they like him too much, then have them eat a chunk of A.J. Pollock's contract.
I think they have to trade JBJ -- and he may not bring back much -- and they have to trade Dalbec to replace him.
Edit: another thing you could see them doing is replacing Leon with a minimum-salary guy, which could save you $2M+. Find a blocked catcher who's a defensive whiz and can't hit a lick. IOW, the next Sandy Leon, minus the extremely rare hot streaks.
This is why I hope they don’t waste money on an established bullpen arm. Trade for AA/AAA leaguers, starter conversions, non-tenders, etc. Minor league deals with MLB invite kind of stuff. They need to pinch some pennies. $60M off the books with Porcello ($21M), Panda ($19M), Moreland ($7M), Pearce ($6+M), Núñez ($5M), Thornburg ($1.75M). Mookie probably gets a $5-7M raise, Bogey gets $8M more, Sale gets $16M more. JDM’s deal, I think, drops by $2M (front-loaded). With Eric’s $12M estimate, that’s about $42M, so they have $18M to “play” with. Maybe they can package JBJ with a couple of their better prospects for Jon Gray. That solves their rotation issue replacing Porcello, and saves them $3-4M (assuming $10M arb for JBJ and 6+ for Gray). JBJ slides Dahl to LF, Desmond to...somewhere else. But that’s a quick 2 wins for CO, and much better defense in a park where OF defense is important. Then, as Eric noted...get Inciarte for CF. It’s tough to trade Dalbec because i really think they’re strongly considering trying to use him as their regular 1b, which allows for some savings on Moreland/Pearce. Hell, this might sound crazy but what if they got Billy Hamilton in CF and tried reworking his swing, a la Lin? They’d lose 1-2 WAR (unless Hamilton has a minor renaissance) but save $9M. They’d also get at least something back for JBJ (see: Josh Taylor/Colten Brewer redux; or, a 45 FV OF in AA? To add to the Duran/Wilson lottery?). They can bury Hamilton in the 9 spot. By adding Gray/Hamilton, you’ve probably improved your CF/4-spot WAR total or at worst stayed neutral. And you save $2-3M depending on Hamilton’s and Gray’s deals. Wow, is this ever a pickle.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 3, 2019 23:51:19 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure they'll do it this year, because Pablo is off the books (they have to give him $5M buyout, but that was already figured into the AAV). If they re-sign Mookie, they won't be under it for a while.
Based on the spreadsheet at Baseball Prospectus, I have them with about $12M to spend on arb raises and acquisitions. The arb raises shouldn't be that much, but it would leave them with very little room to do anything else.
Replacing JBJ with someone cheaper would not only make it doable, but would allow them to re-sign Holt. A great target would be Alex Verdugo, as the Dodgers have nine regulars for 7 positions. If they like him too much, then have them eat a chunk of A.J. Pollock's contract.
I think they have to trade JBJ -- and he may not bring back much -- and they have to trade Dalbec to replace him.
Edit: another thing you could see them doing is replacing Leon with a minimum-salary guy, which could save you $2M+. Find a blocked catcher who's a defensive whiz and can't hit a lick. IOW, the next Sandy Leon, minus the extremely rare hot streaks.
This is why I hope they don’t waste money on an established bullpen arm. Trade for AA/AAA leaguers, starter conversions, non-tenders, etc. Minor league deals with MLB invite kind of stuff. They need to pinch some pennies. $60M off the books with Porcello ($21M), Panda ($19M), Moreland ($7M), Pearce ($6+M), Núñez ($5M), Thornburg ($1.75M). Mookie probably gets a $5-7M raise, Bogey gets $8M more, Sale gets $16M more. JDM’s deal, I think, drops by $2M (front-loaded). With Eric’s $12M estimate, that’s about $42M, so they have $18M to “play” with. Maybe they can package JBJ with a couple of their better prospects for Jon Gray. That solves their rotation issue replacing Porcello, and saves them $3-4M (assuming $10M arb for JBJ and 6+ for Gray). JBJ slides Dahl to LF, Desmond to...somewhere else. But that’s a quick 2 wins for CO, and much better defense in a park where OF defense is important. Then, as Eric noted...get Inciarte for CF. It’s tough to trade Dalbec because i really think they’re strongly considering trying to use him as their regular 1b, which allows for some savings on Moreland/Pearce. Hell, this might sound crazy but what if they got Billy Hamilton in CF and tried reworking his swing, a la Lin? They’d lose 1-2 WAR (unless Hamilton has a minor renaissance) but save $9M. They’d also get at least something back for JBJ (see: Josh Taylor/Colten Brewer redux; or, a 45 FV OF in AA? To add to the Duran/Wilson lottery?). They can bury Hamilton in the 9 spot. By adding Gray/Hamilton, you’ve probably improved your CF/4-spot WAR total or at worst stayed neutral. And you save $2-3M depending on Hamilton’s and Gray’s deals. Wow, is this ever a pickle. Please no Billy Hamilton as a starter. Please no Billy Hamilton period. He gives you zero at the plate. He's a pinch runner and a 9th inning outfielder.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 4, 2019 7:01:22 GMT -5
Top two arbitration guys are Donaldson and Harper, they got final year raises of 6 and 8 million last year. Neither had close to the season Betts is currently having, heck Donaldson who is much more comparable to Betts bwar wise hardly played. So I don't see how Betts takes a dime less than 8 million, 30 million seems very likely and frankly what he deserves. If you want to resign him you aren't going to battle in arbitration over a few million.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 4, 2019 8:25:19 GMT -5
The bullpen overall hasn't been that bad, yet it's fatal flaw has been that one thing Kimbrel made look easy, getting a simple save. 4th fewest saves in Baseball, second most blown saves. You don't need to spend big money, but you really need to bring in a guy with closer experience that is good at it. As good as Workman has been, do you really want to bet on him being the same guy next year? He's just like Brasier last year, as great as he was, chances of doing that again weren't great.
It's kinda the whole issue with the bullpen when looking at next year. They have done rather well this year. The pool was big enough that overtime they have found enough guys pitching well. Yet the time it took to find the right combination did hurt them. Figuring out who the closer and set up guys were going to be was an issue. I see the same exact issues next year. The guys pitching the best stat wise like Workman, Walden, Taylor etc aren't likely to do so next year. Barnes is still the same guy, dominate in stretches and then some brain farts. Hernandez looks like a LH version of Barnes. You again have plenty of arms and options, yet are we going to struggle again trying to find the right mix of guys? I get that blown saves aren't the best stat to look at, yet 4th fewest saves in all of Baseball is a telling stat. That isn't a good combo.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 4, 2019 8:54:44 GMT -5
If they put Workman in the 9th only to pitch the super easy 3 run saves on clean innings like Kimbrel always did, he'd have way more saves and way less blown saves. Instead, they use him like everyone complained about what Kimbrel was incapable of doing, where he got to face the middle of the order with runners on base constantly no matter what the inning. And now that the Red Sox are doing what everyone wanted to begin with - pitching your best pitcher always in the highest possible leverage regardless of inning, they're complaining about it.
They really should just eliminate the saves stat because it's so dumb and meaningless. The fact that a team could have about 8 blown saves in one game and then win the game tells you how dumb it is.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 4, 2019 9:03:22 GMT -5
If they put Workman in the 9th only to pitch the super easy 3 run saves on clean innings like Kimbrel always did, he'd have way more saves and way less blown saves. Instead, they use him like everyone complained about what Kimbrel was incapable of doing, where he got to face the middle of the order with runners on base constantly no matter what the inning. And now that the Red Sox are doing what everyone wanted to begin with - pitching your best pitcher always in the highest possible leverage regardless of inning, they're complaining about it. They really should just eliminate the saves stat because it's so dumb and meaningless. The fact that a team could have about 8 blown saves in one game and then win the game tells you how dumb it is. Exactly. Save percentage is a function of usage, not skill. Mariano Rivera was 5 for 9 in save opportunities in his first two years. Setup men have bad save percentages because a blown hold is a blown save but a hold isn't a save! Brian Johnson got a damn blown save for giving up a run in the fourth inning last week. I mean, come on! That's entirely meaningless! I don't understand what's so hard for people to grasp about that. People complain about pitcher wins and RBI but, while those stats aren't often useful, they're not as actively misleading as saves and blown saves. Don't use saves and blown saves anymore.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 4, 2019 9:43:32 GMT -5
If they put Workman in the 9th only to pitch the super easy 3 run saves on clean innings like Kimbrel always did, he'd have way more saves and way less blown saves. Instead, they use him like everyone complained about what Kimbrel was incapable of doing, where he got to face the middle of the order with runners on base constantly no matter what the inning. And now that the Red Sox are doing what everyone wanted to begin with - pitching your best pitcher always in the highest possible leverage regardless of inning, they're complaining about it. They really should just eliminate the saves stat because it's so dumb and meaningless. The fact that a team could have about 8 blown saves in one game and then win the game tells you how dumb it is. Exactly. Save percentage is a function of usage, not skill. Mariano Rivera was 5 for 9 in save opportunities in his first two years. Setup men have bad save percentages because a blown hold is a blown save but a hold isn't a save! Brian Johnson got a damn blown save for giving up a run in the fourth inning last week. I mean, come on! That's entirely meaningless! I don't understand what's so hard for people to grasp about that. People complain about pitcher wins and RBI but, while those stats aren't often useful, they're not as actively misleading as saves and blown saves. Don't use saves and blown saves anymore. Yeah but you're probably a stat nerd who uses fancy algorithms... Give me a good old simple stat like the 'save,' which is perfectly intuitive - you give it to the pitcher when he is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his club and he is not the winning pitcher and either he enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning or he enters the game, regardless of the score, with the potential tying run either on base, at bat, or on deck or he pitches for at least three innings, in which latter case the official scorer has some discretion as to whether or not to award a save. I mean, that's just obviously the best stat for judging relievers.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 4, 2019 10:22:59 GMT -5
I think the problem with saves is that it becomes meaningless because it combines blown holds along with blown saves as one combination while not giving credit for holds which is supposed to be a separate category anyways.
I don't want to see blown saves or blown holds, which is really what they are, unless I see the holds that go along with the blown holds and I don't want them mixed in with the kinds of blown saves that are blown in a true closing situation.
Those should be separated out because true blown saves are usually worse than blown holds given that the amount of outs left to counter the runs given up is either limited or gone altogether.
The stat is like RBIs. They tell you what happened in actuality - they held onto the lead (even if they sucked doing so) or they blew the lead (even if they really didn't pitch badly). Just like RBIs tell you if the batter got the baserunner home.
So in that context I don't have an issue with it. It's if you want to use it as an analytical tool, you're in trouble - or pay a player based off of it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2019 10:25:44 GMT -5
If they put Workman in the 9th only to pitch the super easy 3 run saves on clean innings like Kimbrel always did, he'd have way more saves and way less blown saves. Instead, they use him like everyone complained about what Kimbrel was incapable of doing, where he got to face the middle of the order with runners on base constantly no matter what the inning. And now that the Red Sox are doing what everyone wanted to begin with - pitching your best pitcher always in the highest possible leverage regardless of inning, they're complaining about it. They really should just eliminate the saves stat because it's so dumb and meaningless. The fact that a team could have about 8 blown saves in one game and then win the game tells you how dumb it is. Exactly. Save percentage is a function of usage, not skill. Mariano Rivera was 5 for 9 in save opportunities in his first two years. Setup men have bad save percentages because a blown hold is a blown save but a hold isn't a save! Brian Johnson got a damn blown save for giving up a run in the fourth inning last week. I mean, come on! That's entirely meaningless! I don't understand what's so hard for people to grasp about that. People complain about pitcher wins and RBI but, while those stats aren't often useful, they're not as actively misleading as saves and blown saves. Don't use saves and blown saves anymore. A lot of people have put a lot of energy into complaining about this bullpen and they're not going to let it all go to waste just because the bullpen has been objectively good.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 4, 2019 10:26:23 GMT -5
That's fair. I ain't here to get in the way of anyone's confirmation bias.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 4, 2019 11:49:29 GMT -5
Not necessarily advocating for this, but it's probably worth pointing out that if Betts and JBJ are traded that should open up enough money for Gerrit Cole. Not if they're resetting. How many $30 million pitchers do you want on one team? Just one more. Although I’d take Houston’s pitching development guy, Strom, and make him a Associate GM, if I couldn’t get Cole and then go get whomever he identified from other team’s so-so candidates so he can sprinkle his magic dust on them.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 4, 2019 13:04:22 GMT -5
Not if they're resetting. How many $30 million pitchers do you want on one team? Just one more. Although I’d take Houston’s pitching development guy, Strom, and make him a Associate GM, if I couldn’t get Cole and then go get whomever he identified from other team’s so-so candidates so he can sprinkle his magic dust on them. Two words: Brian Bannister.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 4, 2019 13:13:02 GMT -5
Imagine if a starting pitcher got a blown save every single time he allowed a tying run to score? They'd all have dozens of them a year.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 4, 2019 13:20:48 GMT -5
Imagine if a starting pitcher got a blown save every single time he allowed a tying run to score? They'd all have dozens of them a year. On top of that, a starting pitcher "blowing a save" after the seventh inning is actually a more telling sign of managerial ineptitude than a relief pitcher getting dinged with a BS. Like, if it's a 4-3 game in the 7th inning and, just to use a weekly example from the 2017 season, John Farrell brings Rick Porcello back out instead of turning things over to Matt Barnes. If Barnes gives up the run, he (and the team!) get a blown save, while leaving Porcello in would not result in such a statistical demerit, even though going to Barnes would be the right move.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 4, 2019 14:33:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 4, 2019 14:35:26 GMT -5
[Trying not to shout]
It doesn't work, still, because it says more about pitching staff usage, opportunity, and sequencing luck than it does about the ability of a bullpen. It's LESS bad than S/BS% but it's still actively misleading. Let's take two scenarios
3-2 game in the 8th inning. Manager uses three pitchers to get through the eighth inning and the pitcher in the ninth blows the save. S+H/Opp is 75%
3-2 game in the 8th inning. Manager brings the starter back out. He gets one out and loads the bases. Craig Kimbrel comes in, allows a sacrifice fly to tie the game, gets saddled with a blown save, but strands the other two. His team gets the run back in the top of the ninth, is now leading 4-3. Manager brings Kimbrel back out and he pitches a scoreless ninth. S+H/Opp is 0%.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 4, 2019 14:49:06 GMT -5
[Trying not to shout] It doesn't work, still, because it says more about pitching staff usage, opportunity, and sequencing luck than it does about the ability of a bullpen. It's LESS bad than S/BS% but it's still actively misleading. Let's take two scenarios 3-2 game in the 8th inning. Manager uses three pitchers to get through the eighth inning and the pitcher in the ninth blows the save. S+H/Opp is 75% 3-2 game in the 8th inning. Manager brings the starter back out. He gets one out and loads the bases. Reliver comes, allows a sacrifice fly to tie the game, gets saddled with a blown save, but strands the other two. His team gets the run back in the top of the ninth, is now leading 4-3. Manager brings the same pitcher, who is good, back out, and pitches a scoreless ninth. S+H/Opp is 0%. That is true of almost any statistic. We could include 'wins' for relievers but I don't think that would be any less misleading. Every outcome of every pitch/play/at-bat/etc highly depends on luck. This isn't a bad thing - this is what makes it interesting. Without this, nobody would ever watch.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 4, 2019 14:53:10 GMT -5
[Trying not to shout] It doesn't work, still, because it says more about pitching staff usage, opportunity, and sequencing luck than it does about the ability of a bullpen. It's LESS bad than S/BS% but it's still actively misleading. Let's take two scenarios 3-2 game in the 8th inning. Manager uses three pitchers to get through the eighth inning and the pitcher in the ninth blows the save. S+H/Opp is 75% 3-2 game in the 8th inning. Manager brings the starter back out. He gets one out and loads the bases. Reliver comes, allows a sacrifice fly to tie the game, gets saddled with a blown save, but strands the other two. His team gets the run back in the top of the ninth, is now leading 4-3. Manager brings the same pitcher, who is good, back out, and pitches a scoreless ninth. S+H/Opp is 0%. That is true of almost any statistic. We could include 'wins' for relievers but I don't think that would be any less misleading. Every outcome of every pitch/play/at-bat/etc highly depends on luck. This isn't a bad thing - this is what makes it interesting. Without this, nobody would ever watch. Sure, but what does that have to do with the fact that saves aren't an accurate measure of anything? The game has a lot of luck involved. Statistics are a measure of the things that happen in the game. If something isn't an accurate measure of those things (or in this case a misleading measure), the fact that the outcome has luck involved doesn't mean that inaccurate measures are okay.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 4, 2019 15:44:22 GMT -5
That is true of almost any statistic. We could include 'wins' for relievers but I don't think that would be any less misleading. Every outcome of every pitch/play/at-bat/etc highly depends on luck. This isn't a bad thing - this is what makes it interesting. Without this, nobody would ever watch. Sure, but what does that have to do with the fact that saves aren't an accurate measure of anything? The game has a lot of luck involved. Statistics are a measure of the things that happen in the game. If something isn't an accurate measure of those things (or in this case a misleading measure), the fact that the outcome has luck involved doesn't mean that inaccurate measures are okay. Saves are a 100% accurate measure of instances of the below. The reason saves were invented were to reward relief pitchers for performance outside of W/L record and ERA as Baseball Writer Jerome Holtzman thought the same of these statistics as you think about saves. There's nothing wrong with saves, only issues with interpretation of the value and importance. The game has a lot of luck involved. Statistics are a measure of the things that happen in the game. If something isn't an accurate measure of those things (or in this case a misleading measure), the fact that the outcome has luck involved doesn't mean that inaccurate measures are okay. Not sure why this upsets you so much, but this is a classic straw man
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Sept 4, 2019 16:51:05 GMT -5
Man, this discussion BLOWS, somebody please SAVE me
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2019 17:52:48 GMT -5
Saves are a 100% accurate measure of instances of the below. The reason saves were invented were to reward relief pitchers for performance outside of W/L record and ERA as Baseball Writer Jerome Holtzman thought the same of these statistics as you think about saves. There's nothing wrong with saves, only issues with interpretation of the value and importance.Counterpoint: the definition of a save is the purest gibberish. It's not a stat that's been mis-used. It has no use. It is a measure of nothing. The only reason it even sort of works is because teams manage to the save.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 4, 2019 18:39:11 GMT -5
Top two arbitration guys are Donaldson and Harper, they got final year raises of 6 and 8 million last year. Neither had close to the season Betts is currently having, heck Donaldson who is much more comparable to Betts bwar wise hardly played. So I don't see how Betts takes a dime less than 8 million, 30 million seems very likely and frankly what he deserves. If you want to resign him you aren't going to battle in arbitration over a few million. OK, so my off-the cuff high end was $1M low. What’s your point? Does that change the big picture? Of *course* they’re not going to lowball him, there’s no suggestion otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 4, 2019 18:44:39 GMT -5
Exactly. Save percentage is a function of usage, not skill. Mariano Rivera was 5 for 9 in save opportunities in his first two years. Setup men have bad save percentages because a blown hold is a blown save but a hold isn't a save! Brian Johnson got a damn blown save for giving up a run in the fourth inning last week. I mean, come on! That's entirely meaningless! I don't understand what's so hard for people to grasp about that. People complain about pitcher wins and RBI but, while those stats aren't often useful, they're not as actively misleading as saves and blown saves. Don't use saves and blown saves anymore. Yeah but you're probably a stat nerd who uses fancy algorithms... Give me a good old simple stat like the 'save,' which is perfectly intuitive - you give it to the pitcher when he is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his club and he is not the winning pitcher and either he enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning or he enters the game, regardless of the score, with the potential tying run either on base, at bat, or on deck or he pitches for at least three innings, in which latter case the official scorer has some discretion as to whether or not to award a save. I mean, that's just obviously the best stat for judging relievers. 🤣🤣🤣 Stupid convoluted stats like WPA. Give me saves anytime.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 4, 2019 18:49:46 GMT -5
Man, this discussion BLOWS, somebody please SAVE me HOLD on...I see what you did there.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 5, 2019 1:18:36 GMT -5
This is the reason (latest game. He is among the very best in all of baseball.) you keep Betts regardless if you lose him the following year though I doubt he and JDM can be afforded while remaining under the cap. If Sox can then all they need are three players to come through which isn't an unreasonable expectation.
Sale, Eovaldi and Benintendi. Can anyone say Sale is "done?" Same with Eovaldi. They can't. As for Beni -- we've heard potentially he could lead the league in hitting when he was in minors or his 1st year etc. This year while he is pretty good / good -- I think he can be much more. His power this year very disappointing. He doesn't even look stronger. You get these 3 guys to perform well- they don't need to be great but they can be-- then the Sox are a threat to anyone.
I do think however Pedro has a point though. There may be a team or two who is willing to pay a bit for a superstar for 1 year. For example -put yoursefl in the Dodgers shoes historically. If they don;t win yet again it would be 21 years. It's not like the Dodgers would give up "a lot" but in order to be favored "to win it all" they could give up "enough." If they don't win it all this year will they be favored next year? They have had super farm systems for last several years but haven't won it all. Betts gives them the best offense in all of baseball. -- And this year they have the best pitching.
Though I prefer to keep Betts. See what Sale, Eovaldi and Beni can do.
|
|
|