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.
2013 Non-Sox MLB Discussion
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 12, 2013 21:05:53 GMT -5
Rizzo signs 7 year extension with the Cubs for $41M More smart moves from the Cubs. Whoever's running that team must really know what they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on May 13, 2013 9:53:48 GMT -5
Rizzo signs 7 year extension with the Cubs for $41M More smart moves from the Cubs. Whoever's running that team must really know what they're doing. Yeah, what kind of idiot would trade a player like Rizzo?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 13, 2013 12:43:41 GMT -5
I love Terry Francona and all, but maybe Carlos Santana should bat higher than sixth in that Cleveland lineup. He's the best hitter on the team, and has been arguably the best in the league this year, yet he's had only five games where he's hit in the top four in the order.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 13, 2013 14:57:42 GMT -5
Great story in The Washington Post about Bryce Harper's swing, with some really nice graphics: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/sports/bryce-harper-swing-of-beauty/#I remember GQ of all magazines having a really interesting story about player's swings perhaps 4 years ago. It was fascinating and featured results based on studying footage of All Star/HOF players through the ages (at least the ages covered by motion capture) that showed, no matter how they started or finished the swing, most had the same swing mechanics through the contact point of their respective swings. The Harper article aligns him with someone decidedly different from most other MLB hitters, however. ADDED: Just to be clear, I would trade any 4 Red Sox prospects for Harper and prob any 5. Not that the Nats would take Bogaerts, Weber, De La Rosa, Ranaudo, and/or Barnes for him.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 13, 2013 15:46:03 GMT -5
More smart moves from the Cubs. Whoever's running that team must really know what they're doing. Yeah, what kind of idiot would trade a player like Rizzo? Totally different decision. Anthony Rizzo in 2010 was not the same player as Anthony Rizzo 2013, and the Red Sox in 2010 were not the same organization as the Cubs in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 13, 2013 16:38:43 GMT -5
I have a hard time giving Theo too much credit for this. They are in a full rebuild and offering Rizzo a long term team friendly contract is an obvious move for them. It's rebuilding 101 really, to not extend that offer would be negligent. It's the right thing to do, but nothing to fap over.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on May 13, 2013 20:03:12 GMT -5
More smart moves from the Cubs. Whoever's running that team must really know what they're doing. Yeah, what kind of idiot would trade a player like Rizzo? Agreed, have no idea what the Padres were thinking. Rizzo for a reliever? Now they're trying to strech Cashner into a starter, and the results have been descent thus far.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 13, 2013 20:34:35 GMT -5
I have a hard time giving Theo too much credit for this. They are in a full rebuild and offering Rizzo a long term team friendly contract is an obvious move for them. It's rebuilding 101 really, to not extend that offer would be negligent. It's the right thing to do, but nothing to fap over. I could be way off with this, but it seems like pre-arb contracts like this are still fairly rare.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 15, 2013 10:07:10 GMT -5
I miss him. I'm sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2013 15:08:49 GMT -5
Yeah, what kind of idiot would trade a player like Rizzo? Totally different decision. Anthony Rizzo in 2010 was not the same player as Anthony Rizzo 2013, and the Red Sox in 2010 were not the same organization as the Cubs in 2013. As usual fenway you make a very cogent point. You can't evaluate a trade based on the results. You evaluate it based upon what was known or could have been known at the time. In this case, I think the Red Sox underestimated the effect of Gonzalez's shoulder injury. Obviously you trade a player like Anthony Rizzo in a heart beat if you are thinking you are getting the player who had a .400+ W/OBA in 2009. But Gonzalez isn't that player anymore and has said as much. If he's not a superstar, then the package they gave up gives you pause. The Red Sox and many fans, myself included, thought the shoulder injury was nothing more than a minor blip in the road and that Gonzalez would have the surgery and go back to being a monster. It didn't happen. There is a difference between a mistake and a trade that just doesn't work out because of bad luck or unknowable circumstances. I believe this is more of a case of the former.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 15, 2013 17:01:16 GMT -5
To me It's less about Gonzalez and more about where Rizzo was in his development. Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time, it was by no means assured that he'd develop into the player he is today.
By the way, the Rizzo deal has team options on his age 30 and 31 seasons for 14.5 million dollars. It's a ridiculously good contract.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 16, 2013 14:57:09 GMT -5
Honestly, the team options sort of move the deal from "good contract for the Cubs" to "borderline agent negligence." A $14.5M option in 2019 just isn't going to be very much, and he now doesn't become a free agent until he's heading into his age-32 season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2013 15:30:14 GMT -5
Old friend David Aaardsma is a now a free agent. Do the Red Sox give him a shot? Would have to open a 40 man spot, but with the Red Sox very creaky bullpen depth I say they sign him, put him on a plane for Minnesota and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on May 16, 2013 21:59:51 GMT -5
More smart moves from the Cubs. Whoever's running that team must really know what they're doing. Yeah, what kind of idiot would trade a player like Rizzo? This was just Theo playing the long game - it alllll makes sense now.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 17, 2013 7:09:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on May 17, 2013 8:21:51 GMT -5
I guess I forgot to use the international sarcasm font.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on May 18, 2013 20:38:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on May 18, 2013 23:18:13 GMT -5
More smart moves from the Cubs. Whoever's running that team must really know what they're doing. Yeah, what kind of idiot would trade a player like Rizzo? Fantastic play, sir.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 19, 2013 8:33:14 GMT -5
Man, I was working too hard last week ... how could I have missed the truly hilarious headline from Yankee-land last weekend, "Chamberlain Scolds Rivera"? Hahaha. Joba, Joba, Joba ... c'mon, man. That's like "Sarah Palin Scolds Nelson Mandela"
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 19, 2013 12:34:48 GMT -5
More smart moves from the Cubs. Whoever's running that team must really know what they're doing. Yeah, what kind of idiot would trade a player like Rizzo? ...and get to scoop him up in his new job?
|
|
|
Post by redsox1534 on May 19, 2013 12:48:59 GMT -5
Honestly the Rizzo deal is a great great deal. Yes locking up great young players on reasonable deals are common. But this was a 7 year deal at 41 mill which is not only really cheap but a long deal usually they arent this long an cheap. With two options that lock him up till hes 32, 33.
Cubs have done some great, great things under the Theo-Hoyer administration. They drafted well in last years draft, Stole Rizzo, actually they did that twice with that contract. They have already turn a awful farm into a good one. Soler may end up a huge steal as hes already killing it in High A. They have Javier Baez and Albert Amora which gives them three of top offensive prospects in baseball to pair with Rizzo an Castro. With a phew other good offensive prospects that people are sleeping on a little right now like Dan Vogelbach and Matt Szcuzr and I didnt even mention Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters, two solid players. Plus a phew good SP prospects like Paul Balckburn, Pierce Johnson and Dillon Maples. Id say this team has a bright future an This draft there set to add another big prospect with the 2nd pick an Im sure theyll add some upside picks later in the draft.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 19, 2013 13:02:55 GMT -5
Honestly the Rizzo deal is a great great deal. Yes locking up great young players on reasonable deals are common. But this was a 7 year deal at 41 mill which is not only really cheap but a long deal usually they arent this long an cheap. With two options that lock him up till hes 32, 33. Cubs have done some great, great things under the Theo-Hoyer administration. They drafted well in last years draft, Stole Rizzo, actually they did that twice with that contract. They have already turn a awful farm into a good one. Soler may end up a huge steal as hes already killing it in High A. They have Javier Baez and Albert Amora which gives them three of top offensive prospects in baseball to pair with Rizzo an Castro. With a phew other good offensive prospects that people are sleeping on a little right now like Dan Vogelbach and Matt Szcuzr and I didnt even mention Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters, two solid players. Plus a phew good SP prospects like Paul Balckburn, Pierce Johnson and Dillon Maples. Id say this team has a bright future an This draft there set to add another big prospect with the 2nd pick an Im sure theyll add some upside picks later in the draft. Theo and Hoyer have the Cubs pointed in the right direction. This time Theo will do it the way he really wants to do it - sans the marketing nonsense and interference, and I think that will be a good thing for the Cubs organization. And man, do I wish the Sox had Rizzo right now. I'm not going to lie and say I was against Agon, but with his shoulder never likely going to be the same, I'd take Rizzo's next seven years over Agon's, especially at that price.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on May 19, 2013 15:41:53 GMT -5
Ryan Sweeney, former Sox slugger, is hitting cleanup for the Cubs today. 2 for 2 with a homer, double, and walk.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 19, 2013 15:58:29 GMT -5
Honestly the Rizzo deal is a great great deal. Yes locking up great young players on reasonable deals are common. But this was a 7 year deal at 41 mill which is not only really cheap but a long deal usually they arent this long an cheap. With two options that lock him up till hes 32, 33. Cubs have done some great, great things under the Theo-Hoyer administration. They drafted well in last years draft, Stole Rizzo, actually they did that twice with that contract. They have already turn a awful farm into a good one. Soler may end up a huge steal as hes already killing it in High A. They have Javier Baez and Albert Amora which gives them three of top offensive prospects in baseball to pair with Rizzo an Castro. With a phew other good offensive prospects that people are sleeping on a little right now like Dan Vogelbach and Matt Szcuzr and I didnt even mention Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters, two solid players. Plus a phew good SP prospects like Paul Balckburn, Pierce Johnson and Dillon Maples. Id say this team has a bright future an This draft there set to add another big prospect with the 2nd pick an Im sure theyll add some upside picks later in the draft. Theo and Hoyer have the Cubs pointed in the right direction. This time Theo will do it the way he really wants to do it - sans the marketing nonsense and interference, and I think that will be a good thing for the Cubs organization. And man, do I wish the Sox had Rizzo right now. I'm not going to lie and say I was against Agon, but with his shoulder never likely going to be the same, I'd take Rizzo's next seven years over Agon's, especially at that price. Gonzalez didn't work out here but he's the reason the Red Sox were able to get rid of two albatross contracts and actually build a competent roster again. Even with hindsight I'd still do the original Rizzo/Kelly/Fuentes for Agon swap. Webster is more valuable than Kelly and getting rid of Beckett and Crawford's contracts (plus adding Rubby) was so huge. The Red Sox got a ton of value out of Rizzo (and then Agon).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 19, 2013 21:12:48 GMT -5
Theo and Hoyer have the Cubs pointed in the right direction. This time Theo will do it the way he really wants to do it - sans the marketing nonsense and interference, and I think that will be a good thing for the Cubs organization. And man, do I wish the Sox had Rizzo right now. I'm not going to lie and say I was against Agon, but with his shoulder never likely going to be the same, I'd take Rizzo's next seven years over Agon's, especially at that price. Gonzalez didn't work out here but he's the reason the Red Sox were able to get rid of two albatross contracts and actually build a competent roster again. Even with hindsight I'd still do the original Rizzo/Kelly/Fuentes for Agon swap. Webster is more valuable than Kelly and getting rid of Beckett and Crawford's contracts (plus adding Rubby) was so huge. The Red Sox got a ton of value out of Rizzo (and then Agon). If you take it as a series of interlocking moves, then yes, I can certainly see it your way. Taken at face value, Rizzo is the best real value of Gonzalez/Kelly/Fuentes/Rizzo. Of course, I had no idea it would turn out that way at the time. I liked Rizzo, but my reasoning was - what's the best he could be - AGon? As it turned out, AGon was great until the All-Star game HR derby sapped whatever strength he had left in his shoulder. Like I said, I'll take Rizzo's future over AGon, especially for the difference in contractual $. But I do get your point of view and agree with the crux of it. While I agree that Webster will wind up more valuable than Kelly, I don't necessarily think that Webster will wind up more valuable than Rizzo, but the remainder of your point stands. Not that the deal had anything to do with the signing of Crawford, but yes, having AGon allowed for the Sox to get rid of a short-term problem in Beckett and a very long-term problem in Crawford and there is a ton of value in that.
|
|
|