|
Post by manfred on Feb 24, 2021 23:03:09 GMT -5
Was really just referring to guys who are described as playing multiple positions — great — with the caveat that they can’t hit — er, not great! I just wonder at what point that means you kinda suck from many spots on the diamond. It’s just funny to me because we never say of a great hitter that he can play subpar D at multiple positions. Hell, I bet you could stick JDM at 1b, and all three OF positions. Would he suck? You bet! But he’d hit! Just cracks me up that there are no hit/utility D guys but not raking/multiple bad D-position guys. Not a huge point. If a guy is a bad defender but has a bat good enough to be worth a spot in the lineup, why would you move him around? You find the defensive position they're least bad at/they do the least harm at, and leave them there. There's very little utility in playing bad defense, so there's rarely a reason to have them play multiple positions. That said, it doesn't mean bat-first players who get time at multiple positions don't exist - in relatively recent Red Sox history, Eric Hinske and Cody Ross come to mind; Kris Bryant and Kyle Schwarber seem to be following this path now, etc. If Dalbec's 3b defense continues to decline but his bat plays up he could be in this conversation soon, too. Same with Chavis, if he hits. Whether Fowler would have any place in the Sox org is another question entirely, but in general no reason not to add defensive depth if they think they might need it. I *know* — I said I wasn’t being serious. But we’ve all seen utility guys who can’t hit water from a boat get jobs because they are decent defenders around the diamond. Not gold glove, but good. I just always think it is funny when “versatile” doesn’t include “can hit.” “Hey, Joe, you’ll be playing LF and going 0-4 today instead of SS and 0-4, ok?” “Hey, whatever it takes to help the team, skip! Unless, that is, it is hitting.”
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Mar 1, 2021 22:15:22 GMT -5
If a guy is a bad defender but has a bat good enough to be worth a spot in the lineup, why would you move him around? You find the defensive position they're least bad at/they do the least harm at, and leave them there. There's very little utility in playing bad defense, so there's rarely a reason to have them play multiple positions. That said, it doesn't mean bat-first players who get time at multiple positions don't exist - in relatively recent Red Sox history, Eric Hinske and Cody Ross come to mind; Kris Bryant and Kyle Schwarber seem to be following this path now, etc. If Dalbec's 3b defense continues to decline but his bat plays up he could be in this conversation soon, too. Same with Chavis, if he hits. Whether Fowler would have any place in the Sox org is another question entirely, but in general no reason not to add defensive depth if they think they might need it. I *know* — I said I wasn’t being serious. But we’ve all seen utility guys who can’t hit water from a boat get jobs because they are decent defenders around the diamond. Not gold glove, but good. I just always think it is funny when “versatile” doesn’t include “can hit.” “Hey, Joe, you’ll be playing LF and going 0-4 today instead of SS and 0-4, ok?” “Hey, whatever it takes to help the team, skip! Unless, that is, it is hitting.” Going 0-4 is better than giving up 3 unearned runs, because your defense is so bad and loosing 5-3 when you would have won 3-2. That demoralizes a team.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,948
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 4, 2021 20:36:08 GMT -5
This story from 3 weeks ago suggests the Rays have simply too many pitchers, enough for a roster of 28 or 30, not 26, and suggests that they could get around it by, basically, having several guys periodically get what Celtics fans would call the Hellenic flu. Could the Red Sox do that? "The Rays appear to be serious about carrying up to 15 pitchers. Many of those pitchers have come to be viewed as short-inning guys [...which] does raise the question of how one navigates through a 162-game season with the 26-person roster mandated by the rules when that roster is so heavily tilted toward the mound. The obvious answer is by creative application of those rules. The most creative method would be by taking liberal advantage of the fact that those rules allow a team to designate a player for the 10-day ‘injured list’ without having to prove that a diagnosable injury has actually occurred. Such explanations as ‘soreness’ or ‘fatigue’ are not uncommon. Is it the Rays’ plan to periodically and conveniently discover ‘soreness’ or ‘fatigue’ in the arms of [various pitchers] in order to squeeze a 28 or 30-player roster down to 26?" calltothepen.com/2021/02/16/tampa-bay-rays-and-bending-the-roster-rules/
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 18, 2021 12:17:37 GMT -5
The tweet is wrong because Santana got one too (I think my source had a pre-3/7 list), but two guys have opt-outs:
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Mar 25, 2021 17:15:36 GMT -5
Sox signed pitcher Daniel Santana
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 26, 2021 0:12:14 GMT -5
Sox signed pitcher Daniel Santana This was a while back and I'm beginning to think this was a clerical error. Milb.com put him in AAA, but he's a DSL-level guy.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 13,395
|
Post by cdj on Mar 26, 2021 7:05:27 GMT -5
Strategy: corner the market on Daniel Santana’s until you field a team full of them and make it difficult for the other team to relay scouting info about certain players
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 30, 2021 8:15:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 30, 2021 8:17:26 GMT -5
As far as I can tell, he wasn't in spring training, so you'd have to think it'll be May before he's an option.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 30, 2021 9:47:28 GMT -5
As far as I can tell, he wasn't in spring training, so you'd have to think it'll be May before he's an option. Ordinary numbers except for a virtually perfect 2017. He had 20 scoreless major league innings. That's a lot of innings to wind up with a 0 ERA. He K/BB ratio was a perfectly respectable 18/6 that year.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 30, 2021 20:36:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Mar 30, 2021 20:59:57 GMT -5
Good depth sign. Was very good as of 2018, okay 2019, terrible 2020 but SSS (20IP). Only 33. Like it a lot.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 13,395
|
Post by cdj on Mar 30, 2021 22:07:13 GMT -5
Yeah can’t hurt as the last man in the pen or as depth, glad to have him in the fold
|
|