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.
Benintendi traded to KC in 3-way deal w/ NYM
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 13, 2021 14:55:17 GMT -5
What do you mean Benintendi likely would not have been extended? If he had bounced back, its not like we have anyone else kicking down the door for that LF role.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Feb 13, 2021 15:24:45 GMT -5
Super small sample last year but Cordero slashed his K rate big time When he makes contact he impacts the ball....he’s just gotta make contact. Hopefully they end up bringing back JBJ. I feel validated with my post now If you came late to this thread, cdj posted Franchy's highlight reel which is a fun watch, especially to hear Orsillo's homerun call again.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Feb 13, 2021 15:32:24 GMT -5
Super small sample last year but Cordero slashed his K rate big time When he makes contact he impacts the ball....he’s just gotta make contact. Hopefully they end up bringing back JBJ. I feel validated with my post now No reporters put it out there, but I watched the zoom press conference with Bloom and he said, "We feel there's untapped upside there that he’s shown at points, especially last summer." So yeah, people pointed out SSS numbers, but the Sox are interested in them as well.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Feb 13, 2021 15:51:38 GMT -5
Great find by chowda. My favorite line is the author's tongue in cheek prediction that "Franchy Cordero is Bryce Harper, you heard it hear first folks." I'm with the people who don't really understand this trade from the KC point of view, unless they think they are a playoff team in either of the next two years. We have seen a small sample of one of CB's trades in Pivetta at the end of last year. I like the idea of Bloom getting to pick from other teams prospect list. Hopefully after the minor league season starts and we begin to see results from all the trades, we will all feel better about the moves that have been made. Sometimes there is disappointment over holding an asset too long and it becoming worthless (Michael Bowden for Miguel Montero turned down) and like Ian in the podcast, I am surprised AB could return 5 players coming off the season he just had, even with some improvement expected. I immediately thought of the Von Hayes trade just like 04 07 13 18 did but Hayes was playing quite well at the time.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 13, 2021 15:56:51 GMT -5
Great find by chowda. My favorite line is the author's tongue in cheek prediction that "Franchy Cordero is Bryce Harper, you heard it hear first folks." I'm with the people who don't really understand this trade from the KC point of view, unless they think they are a playoff team in either of the next two years. We have seen a small sample of one of CB's trades in Pivetta at the end of last year. I like the idea of Bloom getting to pick from other teams prospect list. Hopefully after the minor league season starts and we begin to see results from all the trades, we will all feel better about the moves that have been made. Sometimes there is disappointment over holding an asset too long and it becoming worthless (Michael Bowden for Miguel Montero turned down) and like Ian in the podcast, I am surprised AB could return 5 players coming off the season he just had, even with some improvement expected. I immediately thought of the Von Hayes trade just like 04 07 13 18 did but Hayes was playing quite well at the time. I get the KC question. But if so many of us are saying “Maybe the Sox know something we don’t about Beni,” why couldn’t that be the case for KC? Maybe they “know” something about Cordero? After all, he’ll be 27 this season. If he gets off to a bad start, you missed your chance to sell high. I mean, objectively you have two guys exactly the same age, both of whom gave questions. One has already shown he can (could?) play; the other hasn’t but likely has the tools to have the higher ceiling. Both teams likely like their bet better. I just think any argument you make for why it was good for the Sox can be made for the Royals. (Caveat that yes, they gave up other guys, too, but it still comes to the same thing... they think Beni is a better bet than Cordero+ distant futures). I’m not suggesting which side is *right.*
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Feb 13, 2021 16:24:25 GMT -5
Franchy was 175 when we was selected as a intll FA now he sits around 230. All while increasing his speed and power. Yes maybe KC knows something that we do not about him.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 13, 2021 16:25:58 GMT -5
This is why Baseball and team building is so fun. The Royals and the Red Sox clearly don't judge him the same way. They both wanted different things and it could be a great deal for both or something much different. Only time will tell. Heck we haven't even fully closed the book on the Kimbrel trade because of Allen.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 13, 2021 17:57:49 GMT -5
What do you mean Benintendi likely would not have been extended? If he had bounced back, its not like we have anyone else kicking down the door for that LF role. You can't extend everyone. I'd have him behind Bogaerts, Devers, Verdugo, and Rodriguez if he bounces back. I wouldn't say they would not have extended him, but it's far from certain.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 13, 2021 18:08:24 GMT -5
What do you mean Benintendi likely would not have been extended? If he had bounced back, its not like we have anyone else kicking down the door for that LF role. You can't extend everyone. I'd have him behind Bogaerts, Devers, Verdugo, and Rodriguez if he bounces back. I wouldn't say they would not have extended him, but it's far from certain. Thanks for the response. I just considered the projected rosters and looked at the pipeline, as well as the fact that there would've been no obvious replacement candidate. If he had been decent but not great he probably wouldn't have cost that much and we might not be able to sign all those guys you listed. They tried to extend Mookie and that didn't work. They could've let him go and gone the platoon route I suppose. Seems like that's where we're headed.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 13, 2021 18:37:01 GMT -5
Three possibilities. the first very almost certain and the last two worth considering.
1) Remember that Cordero has 3 years of control left and Benny 2. The closer Cordero is to Benny as a player, the better the trade looks. They must have the gap as smaller than outside observers think.
Does this make sense? Assuming that Cordero's big decline in sprint speed (from elite to merely good) last year was injury-related, he's still a plus defensive CFer. No one in the press even mentioned his defense when the trade was made, but he was +30 R/150 in a SSS in his pre-rookie season. And of course you only make the trade if that's more than an assumption. If Cordero can be 3/4th the player Benny is, the extra year of control puts you ahead in the trade and you end up buying four prospects for the $1.8M you're sending the Royals.
I have to first state that I loved Lou Merloni as a player and will never forgive Jimy Williams for not giving him the shot at SS he deserved. But Lou on Twitter is demonstrating why he's not working for someone's F.O. He jumped on the demonstrably wrong notion that Marwin filled the LHB on the bench need (which I just posted about in the FA thread) ... and then he tweeted that everyone was overrating Cordero's value in the trade. Which (as I just argued) is backwards. You make trades to win them. There's a chance that none of the four guys you get ever does much in MLB, but you can still win the trade if Cordero is a good player, a solid first-division starter.
I believe they think he is. I suspect that, like Pivetta, he was on the Ray's carefully constructed upside-acquisition list, which I am not too shameless to call the Arozarena Report.
2) The historical track record of guys who had two years like Benny's 2018 / 2019 at his age is not good. I couldn't find a single guy who ever came back to their age 23 performance after putting numbers like Benny did at age 24; I think I went back to the start of the DH era. And I did that mini-study before last year!
Now, I had reason to believe that Benny was better in 2019 than his numbers. I still believe that. But still, this is worth considering.
3) They know more about his makeup than we do. Did he do the bulk-up thing without consulting them, or even against their recommendation? That he learned his lesson is good, but if he had to learn his lesson even after you told him "not a good idea" -- that's a different story.
Finally, getting a chance to pick your PTBNL's the way they do is unusual, and I think almost certainly means you can do better than normal. It's not that it makes up for the lack of scouting eyeballs last year; it's better. This is especially true given the fact that working on skills and physicality seems to be not nearly as bad (relative to seeing game action) as people feared.
They *don’t* have to think the gap is close if Cordero is not the heart of the deal. I mean that from a neutral stance. They could just as easily see him as a one-year trial balloon *if* there was a different purpose. If they expect to get a good haul of PTBNL, they would be fine getting a JAG outfielder to fill a soot until they made another move. Your rationale assumes he was a primary part of the package, which we actually can’t say for sure yet (as trade defenders have been screaming). I’m not saying you can’t be right ultimately that they don’t see a huge gap. But you are predicating that on a leap that this trade was *focused* on Cordero, when he might actually have been a piece. And... here is the other thing. If the Sox think Beni is done, peaked whatever... then if they see the gap as small, it would mean they don’t see Cordero as especially good! So it is hard to argue they see Cordero as a) good; b) a great get because Beni is shot; c) only a slight step down from that shot player. One thing is clear: this is a trade with about a wide a range of outcomes as a trade can have. A young first round pick looking to rebound; a physical specimen; a bunch of PTBNL. The only way to know any more than we do is to suit them up. I have the e-mail address of your favorite English teacher in school. Don't make me use it and break their heart!
I said the gap between the players has to be smaller than outside observers think (relative). Not necessarily close (absolute). And since the trade went down, we've heard a ton about Cordero's upside, so all you have to hypothesize to make this a correct assertion is that the Sox believe in it.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 13, 2021 18:46:28 GMT -5
They *don’t* have to think the gap is close if Cordero is not the heart of the deal. I mean that from a neutral stance. They could just as easily see him as a one-year trial balloon *if* there was a different purpose. If they expect to get a good haul of PTBNL, they would be fine getting a JAG outfielder to fill a soot until they made another move. Your rationale assumes he was a primary part of the package, which we actually can’t say for sure yet (as trade defenders have been screaming). I’m not saying you can’t be right ultimately that they don’t see a huge gap. But you are predicating that on a leap that this trade was *focused* on Cordero, when he might actually have been a piece. And... here is the other thing. If the Sox think Beni is done, peaked whatever... then if they see the gap as small, it would mean they don’t see Cordero as especially good! So it is hard to argue they see Cordero as a) good; b) a great get because Beni is shot; c) only a slight step down from that shot player. One thing is clear: this is a trade with about a wide a range of outcomes as a trade can have. A young first round pick looking to rebound; a physical specimen; a bunch of PTBNL. The only way to know any more than we do is to suit them up. I have the e-mail address of your favorite English teacher in school. Don't make me use it and break their heart!
I said the gap between the players has to be smaller than outside observers think (relative). Not necessarily close (absolute). And since the trade went down, we've heard a ton about Cordero's upside, so all you have to hypothesize to make this a correct assertion is that the Sox believe in it. Irrelevant distraction. The point is, given that the trade is not even complete, it would remain possible that the Royals said, “we’ll give you a *better* low-A guy if you take a lesser major league ready player in Cordero than” player x. You are speculating that the Sox saw a certain proportion of the value in Cordero without knowing what is behind curtain number two. And, though the tide may be turning amongst the Zers (alas, Dr. Swift’s proposal for an Academy modeled on the French ne’er found its audience), my favorite English teacher, being a single person, would be a he or a she. Not a they, so not “their heart.” While we are taking our Strunk and Whites to people typing on cellphones. I will be on the lookout for split infinitives.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 13, 2021 19:11:47 GMT -5
1) Remember that Cordero has 3 years of control left and Benny 2. The closer Cordero is to Benny as a player, the better the trade looks. They must have the gap as smaller than outside observers think.
Does this make sense? Assuming that Cordero's big decline in sprint speed (from elite to merely good) last year was injury-related, he's still a plus defensive CFer. No one in the press even mentioned his defense when the trade was made, but he was +30 R/150 in a SSS in his pre-rookie season. And of course you only make the trade if that's more than an assumption. If Cordero can be 3/4th the player Benny is, the extra year of control puts you ahead in the trade and you end up buying four prospects for the $1.8M you're sending the Royals.
[...]
This is interesting, and I hope you're right, but I have not seen any indication that anyone else recently has viewed Cordero as a plus CF. And it's not quite true that "no one in the press even mentioned his defense when the trade was made." e.g. the Globe story quoting Mets bench coach Dave Jauss, who managed Cordero in the Dominican Winter League this year: “I don’t project him as a center fielder even though he has good enough speed and a good enough arm,” said Jauss. “He came to us with the track record in the Dominican of not being a dependable left fielder. That, by no means, was what he was this year. “ He was a very dependable left fielder, and in the Dominican, most of those parks are big and they are tough to play. [Defense] is not going to keep him from being an everyday left fielder.” .... “He has the ceiling of a Troy O’Leary,” said Jauss www.bostonglobe.com/2021/02/12/sports/scouting-red-sox-outfielder-franchy-cordero-huge-potential-huge-questions/This writer says he will play LF and cites Bloom as endorsing that view, as well as cautiously saying "he has been" a guy who can play all three positions: 'Cordero has seen most of his playing time in center field, with 344 innings over four seasons, plus another 207 innings in left. He will likely be asked to play left field [this is the writer, not Bloom] in Boston, with Alex Verdugo in center and Hunter Renfroe in right field. “ He’s a very different type of player from Benny, but I think he can step right into that role,” said Bloom ["that role" seems to mean Benny's LF?]. “Obviously, we need to get to know him and see exactly the role that he can play, but historically, he’s been a guy who can play all three outfield positions.”' boston.cbslocal.com/2021/02/11/franchy-cordero-red-sox-andrew-benintendi-trade-mlb/Contrast Bloom's language when he signed Renfroe: "He’s a really good defensive outfielder" nesn.com/2020/12/why-chaim-bloom-is-really-excited-about-red-soxs-hunter-renfroe-signing/There was an "assuming" in there. After his lower half injuries, it's obviously unclear how much foot speed he may recover after his big 2020 drop. Bloom's quote upon after the trade fits that really well. But Jauss's report, which I saw after I wrote this, is very helpful.
What Jauss tells us with the "dependable" stuff is that Franchy has learned to run solid routes, and especially, to get solid reads off the bat in LF. Those reads are different for each position, as evidenced by the fact that guys who have played just a little corner OF regularly have worse numbers there than in CF, while the rule of thumb for 4th OFers is that they gain 6 R/150 moving from CF to RF and another 6 moving from RF to LF (with arm an extra component for the latter). A guy who is not "dependable" in an OF spot is a guy who hasn't gotten the reads down yet. We saw that last year with Munoz, who showed the tools to be a good defensive LFer and made some outstanding plays with his athleticism, but was also just as likely to run in the wrong direction, eliciting a WTF? reaction. If there's any doubt that this is a serious component of OF defense, JBJ's entire foundation as an elite OFer is his read off the bat.
Franchy didn't play an inning in CF for Jauss, and he has a lot more experience there (still) than in LF. His last BA scouting report mentions "exceptional first-step quickness," which is to say, read off the bat. So it's quite possible that if Jauss had seen him there, he would have projected him better defensively. And he can reasonably be expected to improve further in LF.
He seems to be saying that his speed is OK for CF but he projects to be better in LF, which suggests that as of this winter, he wasn't back to an 85 - 90th percentile. But it's probably better than 68th ... so maybe it gets better still.
The plan seems to be look at him in all three positions in ST, and there's a chance (30%?) that they decide their best defensive OF has him in CF with Verdugo staying in RF.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Feb 13, 2021 19:25:15 GMT -5
You can't extend everyone. I'd have him behind Bogaerts, Devers, Verdugo, and Rodriguez if he bounces back. I wouldn't say they would not have extended him, but it's far from certain. This is a very good point. Realistically, how many 10M+ players can a team carry a year? 7 or so? 8 to 9 when going over? Below are the number of players who contributed to 10M+ of the luxury tax each year (note: for players traded it only includes the prorated portion). Bold are the years we went over the luxury tax. - 2020 (7): Sale, JDM, Xander, Eovaldi, Price (had he played), Pedroia, JBJ
- 2019 (9): Price, JDM, Porcello, Betts, Pablo, Eovaldi, Sale, Pedroia, Xander
- 2018 (9): Price, JDM, Hanley, Porcello, Pablo, Pedroia, Kimbrell, Sale, Betts
- 2017 (6): Price, Hanley, Porcello, Pablo, Pedroia, Kimbrell
- 2016 (8): Price, Hanley, Porcello, Pablo, Ortiz, Pedroia, Buccholz, Kimbrell
- 2015 (8): Hanley, Pablo, Ortiz, Napoli, Pedroia, Porcello, Victorino, Castillo
- 2014 (7): Ortiz, Napoli, Peavy, Pedroia, Victorino, Lackey, Castillo
Currently we have the following: - 2021 (7): Sale, JDM, Xander, Eovaldi, Price, Pedroia, Richards
- 2022 (6): Sale, JDM, Xander, Eovaldi, Price, Richards (team option)
- 2023 (2): Sale, Xander
Note that Eduardo will likely join this group in 2022, and Devers is an arbitration award from joining as well. Verdugo won't be too far behind either. We do have the financial flexibility to take on some contracts in 2023 when he became a free agent, but the question becomes whether he is the person we'd want to have in this top 7-8 list. If the front office concluded they didn't want to tie up the payroll in 2023 with Benintendi, that would be more reason why the 5-for-1 swap was appealing. EDIT: Forgot to include Price in 2022
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,122
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 13, 2021 19:39:51 GMT -5
This is interesting, and I hope you're right, but I have not seen any indication that anyone else recently has viewed Cordero as a plus CF. And it's not quite true that "no one in the press even mentioned his defense when the trade was made." e.g. the Globe story quoting Mets bench coach Dave Jauss, who managed Cordero in the Dominican Winter League this year: “I don’t project him as a center fielder even though he has good enough speed and a good enough arm,” said Jauss. “He came to us with the track record in the Dominican of not being a dependable left fielder. That, by no means, was what he was this year. “ He was a very dependable left fielder, and in the Dominican, most of those parks are big and they are tough to play. [Defense] is not going to keep him from being an everyday left fielder.” .... “He has the ceiling of a Troy O’Leary,” said Jauss www.bostonglobe.com/2021/02/12/sports/scouting-red-sox-outfielder-franchy-cordero-huge-potential-huge-questions/This writer says he will play LF and cites Bloom as endorsing that view, as well as cautiously saying "he has been" a guy who can play all three positions: 'Cordero has seen most of his playing time in center field, with 344 innings over four seasons, plus another 207 innings in left. He will likely be asked to play left field [this is the writer, not Bloom] in Boston, with Alex Verdugo in center and Hunter Renfroe in right field. “ He’s a very different type of player from Benny, but I think he can step right into that role,” said Bloom ["that role" seems to mean Benny's LF?]. “Obviously, we need to get to know him and see exactly the role that he can play, but historically, he’s been a guy who can play all three outfield positions.”' boston.cbslocal.com/2021/02/11/franchy-cordero-red-sox-andrew-benintendi-trade-mlb/Contrast Bloom's language when he signed Renfroe: "He’s a really good defensive outfielder" nesn.com/2020/12/why-chaim-bloom-is-really-excited-about-red-soxs-hunter-renfroe-signing/There was an "assuming" in there. After his lower half injuries, it's obviously unclear how much foot speed he may recover after his big 2020 drop. Bloom's quote upon after the trade fits that really well. But Jauss's report, which I saw after I wrote this, is very helpful.
What Jauss tells us with the "dependable" stuff is that Franchy has learned to run solid routes, and especially, to get solid reads off the bat in LF. Those reads are different for each position, as evidenced by the fact that guys who have played just a little corner OF regularly have worse numbers there than in CF, while the rule of thumb for 4th OFers is that they gain 6 R/150 moving from CF to RF and another 6 moving from RF to LF (with arm an extra component for the latter). A guy who is not "dependable" in an OF spot is a guy who hasn't gotten the reads down yet. We saw that last year with Munoz, who showed the tools to be a good defensive LFer and made some outstanding plays with his athleticism, but was also just as likely to run in the wrong direction, eliciting a WTF? reaction. If there's any doubt that this is a serious component of OF defense, JBJ's entire foundation as an elite OFer is his read off the bat.
Franchy didn't play an inning in CF for Jauss, and he has a lot more experience there (still) than in LF. His last BA scouting report mentions "exceptional first-step quickness," which is to say, read off the bat. So it's quite possible that if Jauss had seen him there, he would have projected him better defensively. And he can reasonably be expected to improve further in LF.
He seems to be saying that his speed is OK for CF but he projects to be better in LF, which suggests that as of this winter, he wasn't back to an 85 - 90th percentile. But it's probably better than 68th ... so maybe it gets better still.
The plan seems to be look at him in all three positions in ST, and there's a chance (30%?) that they decide their best defensive OF has him in CF with Verdugo staying in RF.
You seem to be over-reading or simply mis-reading all of those sources trying to squeeze optimism out of cautious praise. Jauss watched him play LF and literally said "I don’t project him as a center fielder." And not because his speed has not returned. He literally said "he has good enough speed" for CF, not "OK" speed. Words count. It must be something else that makes him say he should not be in CF. And he said nothing about him getting good reads or running solid routes. Literally no one has said that. You are making very poor arguments.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 13, 2021 20:54:04 GMT -5
You can't extend everyone. I'd have him behind Bogaerts, Devers, Verdugo, and Rodriguez if he bounces back. I wouldn't say they would not have extended him, but it's far from certain. This is a very good point. Realistically, how many 10M+ players can a team carry a year? 7 or so? 8 to 9 when going over? Below are the number of players who contributed to 10M+ of the luxury tax each year (note: for players traded it only includes the prorated portion). Bold are the years we went over the luxury tax. - 2020 (7): Sale, JDM, Xander, Eovaldi, Price (had he played), Pedroia, JBJ
- 2019 (9): Price, JDM, Porcello, Betts, Pablo, Eovaldi, Sale, Pedroia, Xander
- 2018 (9): Price, JDM, Hanley, Porcello, Pablo, Pedroia, Kimbrell, Sale, Betts
- 2017 (6): Price, Hanley, Porcello, Pablo, Pedroia, Kimbrell
- 2016 (8): Price, Hanley, Porcello, Pablo, Ortiz, Pedroia, Buccholz, Kimbrell
- 2015 (8): Hanley, Pablo, Ortiz, Napoli, Pedroia, Porcello, Victorino, Castillo
- 2014 (7): Ortiz, Napoli, Peavy, Pedroia, Victorino, Lackey, Castillo
Currently we have the following: - 2021 (7): Sale, JDM, Xander, Eovaldi, Price, Pedroia, Richards
- 2022 (5): Sale, JDM, Xander, Eovaldi, Richards (team option)
- 2023 (2): Sale, Xander
Note that Eduardo will likely join this group in 2022, and Devers is an arbitration award from joining as well. Verdugo won't be too far behind either. We do have the financial flexibility to take on some contracts in 2023 when he became a free agent, but the question becomes whether he is the person we'd want to have in this top 7-8 list. If the front office concluded they didn't want to tie up the payroll in 2023 with Benintendi, that would be more reason why the 5-for-1 swap was appealing. Exactly this regarding Beni. He wasn't a guy they were likely to extend at significant dollars (even if he bounced back) with all the other guys they need to extend (higher on the list) and the potential cornerstone FA or 2 they plan to sign in the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Feb 14, 2021 0:41:02 GMT -5
What do you mean Benintendi likely would not have been extended? If he had bounced back, its not like we have anyone else kicking down the door for that LF role. You have Xander and Sale already on the books. You need to extend Eduardo, Devers, and Verdugo. There was no room for Benintendi in future extensions. All of those players are better and should be extended. What Chris said.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 14, 2021 2:26:33 GMT -5
There was an "assuming" in there. After his lower half injuries, it's obviously unclear how much foot speed he may recover after his big 2020 drop. Bloom's quote upon after the trade fits that really well. But Jauss's report, which I saw after I wrote this, is very helpful.
What Jauss tells us with the "dependable" stuff is that Franchy has learned to run solid routes, and especially, to get solid reads off the bat in LF. Those reads are different for each position, as evidenced by the fact that guys who have played just a little corner OF regularly have worse numbers there than in CF, while the rule of thumb for 4th OFers is that they gain 6 R/150 moving from CF to RF and another 6 moving from RF to LF (with arm an extra component for the latter). A guy who is not "dependable" in an OF spot is a guy who hasn't gotten the reads down yet. We saw that last year with Munoz, who showed the tools to be a good defensive LFer and made some outstanding plays with his athleticism, but was also just as likely to run in the wrong direction, eliciting a WTF? reaction. If there's any doubt that this is a serious component of OF defense, JBJ's entire foundation as an elite OFer is his read off the bat.
Franchy didn't play an inning in CF for Jauss, and he has a lot more experience there (still) than in LF. His last BA scouting report mentions "exceptional first-step quickness," which is to say, read off the bat. So it's quite possible that if Jauss had seen him there, he would have projected him better defensively. And he can reasonably be expected to improve further in LF.
He seems to be saying that his speed is OK for CF but he projects to be better in LF, which suggests that as of this winter, he wasn't back to an 85 - 90th percentile. But it's probably better than 68th ... so maybe it gets better still.
The plan seems to be look at him in all three positions in ST, and there's a chance (30%?) that they decide their best defensive OF has him in CF with Verdugo staying in RF.
You seem to be over-reading or simply mis-reading all of those sources trying to squeeze optimism out of cautious praise. Jauss watched him play LF and literally said "I don’t project him as a center fielder." And not because his speed has not returned. He literally said "he has good enough speed" for CF, not "OK" speed. Words count. It must be something else that makes him say he should not be in CF. And he said nothing about him getting good reads or running solid routes. Literally no one has said that. You are making very poor arguments. You know what's actually a very poor argument? "You're making very poor arguments" is very poor argument.
You know what an actual good argument would be? Explain for us what "not dependable" versus "dependable" means in OF besides getting good reads off the bat, and give me an example as good as my Munoz one. OK, throwing to the right base is the one other thing you need to learn to do dependably when you shift from CF to LF, and it's ten times as easy to learn and twenty times less important. What did Jauss mean by "dependable" vs. not as a major concern, if he didn't mean reads off the bat? You tell me, and if you can't give me something roughly as convincing, you've got nothing.
Franchy's a fairly obscure player. Jauss was an MLB coach with the Pirates when Franchy was with the Padres, and when you're an MLB coach you don't become an expert on the #13 prospect of a team in another division. He saw Franchy play 3 games in LF in 2018, which he was playing because Margot was in CF. It's perfectly credible that he has no idea that Franchy has played much more CF than LF, and earned raves for his "first-step quickness," which is to say, reads off the bat, from the co-editor of the BA handbook (Kyle Glaser).
Now, if you had a guy who had a reputation for not getting good reads in LF, and you saw him getting good (but not outsanding) reads, you might not recommend a conversion to CF even if he had the tools. Why would you want to put him through that struggle of learning to get a read from a different angle? As I have noted here in the past (using Coco Crisp as an example), it takes several hundred games to do that. You would't want him doing that in MLB. Coco got that chance because he had amazing numbers in LF, and he was average for us his first year ... and then amazing.
That's the only way I can make sense of the words that count that Jauss said. It makes perfect sense if you think the guy has played LF all his life. There's no good reason to believe that Jauss knows that he's actually a CF by trade who got great reads.
If you can't give me a solid alternative explanation for why he said he doesn't project as a LF despite having the tools, you have nothing.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 14, 2021 9:24:11 GMT -5
What do you mean Benintendi likely would not have been extended? If he had bounced back, its not like we have anyone else kicking down the door for that LF role. You have Xander and Sale already on the books. You need to extend Eduardo, Devers, and Verdugo. There was no room for Benintendi in future extensions. All of those players are better and should be extended. What Chris said. Yes I realize this now and it actually makes a ton of sense for the Red Sox to platoon an OF spot. They just haven’t done that well in the past. They ostensibly did it with Gomes and Nava but Farrell would just go with his gut on which guy would start a lot of nights despite the R/L pitching matchup.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,122
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 14, 2021 11:17:51 GMT -5
You seem to be over-reading or simply mis-reading all of those sources trying to squeeze optimism out of cautious praise. Jauss watched him play LF and literally said "I don’t project him as a center fielder." And not because his speed has not returned. He literally said "he has good enough speed" for CF, not "OK" speed. Words count. It must be something else that makes him say he should not be in CF. And he said nothing about him getting good reads or running solid routes. Literally no one has said that. You are making very poor arguments. You know what's actually a very poor argument? "You're making very poor arguments" is very poor argument.
You know what an actual good argument would be? Explain for us what "not dependable" versus "dependable" means in OF besides getting good reads off the bat, and give me an example as good as my Munoz one. OK, throwing to the right base is the one other thing you need to learn to do dependably when you shift from CF to LF, and it's ten times as easy to learn and twenty times less important. What did Jauss mean by "dependable" vs. not as a major concern, if he didn't mean reads off the bat? You tell me, and if you can't give me something roughly as convincing, you've got nothing.
Franchy's a fairly obscure player. Jauss was an MLB coach with the Pirates when Franchy was with the Padres, and when you're an MLB coach you don't become an expert on the #13 prospect of a team in another division. He saw Franchy play 3 games in LF in 2018, which he was playing because Margot was in CF. It's perfectly credible that he has no idea that Franchy has played much more CF than LF, and earned raves for his "first-step quickness," which is to say, reads off the bat, from the co-editor of the BA handbook (Kyle Glaser).
Now, if you had a guy who had a reputation for not getting good reads in LF, and you saw him getting good (but not outsanding) reads, you might not recommend a conversion to CF even if he had the tools. Why would you want to put him through that struggle of learning to get a read from a different angle? As I have noted here in the past (using Coco Crisp as an example), it takes several hundred games to do that. You would't want him doing that in MLB. Coco got that chance because he had amazing numbers in LF, and he was average for us his first year ... and then amazing.
That's the only way I can make sense of the words that count that Jauss said. It makes perfect sense if you think the guy has played LF all his life. There's no good reason to believe that Jauss knows that he's actually a CF by trade who got great reads.
If you can't give me a solid alternative explanation for why he said he doesn't project as a LF despite having the tools, you have nothing.
Your two biggest mistakes here are your continued insistence that "first-step quickness" = "reads off the bat," and your thinking that Jauss has less ability than you to judge whether Cordero could be a good centerfielder. 1) "First-step quickness" is a well-known term in many sports. If refers to how explosive your first step is, whether off the blocks in track, with a basketball, when the football is hiked, or when a fielder or base-stealer in baseball starts moving. It's partly a gift, but also something you can improve by training, and there are hundreds of people on the internet offering to improve the first-step quickness of your teen athlete. www.xceler8athletics.com/keys-to-improve-first-step-quickness/ It is not unrelated to running good routes, because it is a part of running good routes, but it's not the same as running good routes. The opposite, in some sense, of "first-step quickness" is "runs better when underway," which is sometimes said of big guys who cannot steal bases but who don't look bad going from first to third, especially in the second-to third part. Statcast says that getting a good "jump" ("feet covered in the correct direction") has three components: 1) "reaction: feet covered in any direction" in first 0-1.5 seconds"' 2) "burst: feet covered in any direction" 1.6-3 seconds and 3) "route: feet covered [measured] against correct route" 0-3 seconds. You can be good at the first two and people say you have first-step quickness, but that says nothing about what routes you take. So there is a huge difference between saying "good first-step quickness" and "good reads off the bat" of "good jumps." baseballsavant.mlb.com/jump?year=2019. So you have one Kyle Glaser quote from BA (from when? 2017? there were many great things said about him in 2017, then 2018 happened) that says he has "first-step quickness" and you are taking it to mean "runs good routes." This is, as I said, a very poor argument. 2) You say that the reason Dave Jauss says "I don’t project him as a center fielder" is that he saw him play 3 games in LF in 2018, and basically does not read handbooks as much as you, and does not know that he has played a lot of CF. Dave Jauss, as I said, "managed Cordero in the Dominican Winter League this year." He knows that Cordero has a "track record in the Dominican of not being a dependable left fielder," which means that he has seen him in the past and has talked to people about him. He has been in baseball since the late 80s. He has managed minor league teams, worked as a scout (helping us win in 2004), run player development, and served several teams as a bench coach (and a bench coach's duties are often to coordinate scouting reports). If you think he does not read, and read BETTER scouting reports than the BA handbook, that is a pretty silly claim. If you are claiming that Dave Jauss cannot look at the way a man plays LF, and tell whether he would be good in CF (which is something teams have literally been paying him to do), that is a very poor argument. I'm not going to argue about this anymore.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 14, 2021 11:39:41 GMT -5
You seem to be over-reading or simply mis-reading all of those sources trying to squeeze optimism out of cautious praise. Jauss watched him play LF and literally said "I don’t project him as a center fielder." And not because his speed has not returned. He literally said "he has good enough speed" for CF, not "OK" speed. Words count. It must be something else that makes him say he should not be in CF. And he said nothing about him getting good reads or running solid routes. Literally no one has said that. You are making very poor arguments. You know what's actually a very poor argument? "You're making very poor arguments" is very poor argument.
You know what an actual good argument would be? Explain for us what "not dependable" versus "dependable" means in OF besides getting good reads off the bat, and give me an example as good as my Munoz one. OK, throwing to the right base is the one other thing you need to learn to do dependably when you shift from CF to LF, and it's ten times as easy to learn and twenty times less important. What did Jauss mean by "dependable" vs. not as a major concern, if he didn't mean reads off the bat? You tell me, and if you can't give me something roughly as convincing, you've got nothing.
Franchy's a fairly obscure player. Jauss was an MLB coach with the Pirates when Franchy was with the Padres, and when you're an MLB coach you don't become an expert on the #13 prospect of a team in another division. He saw Franchy play 3 games in LF in 2018, which he was playing because Margot was in CF. It's perfectly credible that he has no idea that Franchy has played much more CF than LF, and earned raves for his "first-step quickness," which is to say, reads off the bat, from the co-editor of the BA handbook (Kyle Glaser).
Now, if you had a guy who had a reputation for not getting good reads in LF, and you saw him getting good (but not outsanding) reads, you might not recommend a conversion to CF even if he had the tools. Why would you want to put him through that struggle of learning to get a read from a different angle? As I have noted here in the past (using Coco Crisp as an example), it takes several hundred games to do that. You would't want him doing that in MLB. Coco got that chance because he had amazing numbers in LF, and he was average for us his first year ... and then amazing.
That's the only way I can make sense of the words that count that Jauss said. It makes perfect sense if you think the guy has played LF all his life. There's no good reason to believe that Jauss knows that he's actually a CF by trade who got great reads.
If you can't give me a solid alternative explanation for why he said he doesn't project as a LF despite having the tools, you have nothing.
You are fun sometimes, but man... you get tunnel vision. “Dependable,” from 12th c. French depend-re, “to hang.” Relating to duty or obligation, meaning “sure.” That is... broad. If I say “go to left field!” And you do? That counts as “dependable” in that you are fulfilling your duty. Is that what he means? Doubt it. But since you insist on English lessons, you might consider the degree to which language is ambiguous — and not seek to pin your specific meanings on abstract terms — or at least don’t condescend to people who point out abstract terms, indeed, can be read many ways. Close your pocket calculator and pick up thy Wittgenstein (to paraphrase Carlyle). I couldn’t give a s—t less what the details are of Cordero’s fielding, but, man, your pattern of having a theory then insisting that is the only way to read ambiguous (or often selective) evidence and then treating people who see it differently as stupid is unnecessary. You contribute an interesting perspective. Try a touch of humility. Another English rec: read Keats on Negative Capability.... learning to live with uncertainty.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 14, 2021 11:59:04 GMT -5
If a player is a special athlete with a great first step, yet has negative defensive value in the majors, he has issues. He likely doesn't read the ball well and doesn't have an advanced baseball IQ. The good thing is those things can improve. Yet Baseball Reference and Fangraphs both agree he's been rather bad given his skills.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Feb 14, 2021 12:43:28 GMT -5
If a player is a special athlete with a great first step, yet has negative defensive value in the majors, he has issues. He likely doesn't read the ball well and doesn't have an advanced baseball IQ. The good thing is those things can improve. Yet Baseball Reference and Fangraphs both agree he's been rather bad given his skills. Apparently the second step is important.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 14, 2021 13:02:34 GMT -5
You know what's actually a very poor argument? "You're making very poor arguments" is very poor argument.
You know what an actual good argument would be? Explain for us what "not dependable" versus "dependable" means in OF besides getting good reads off the bat, and give me an example as good as my Munoz one. OK, throwing to the right base is the one other thing you need to learn to do dependably when you shift from CF to LF, and it's ten times as easy to learn and twenty times less important. What did Jauss mean by "dependable" vs. not as a major concern, if he didn't mean reads off the bat? You tell me, and if you can't give me something roughly as convincing, you've got nothing.
Franchy's a fairly obscure player. Jauss was an MLB coach with the Pirates when Franchy was with the Padres, and when you're an MLB coach you don't become an expert on the #13 prospect of a team in another division. He saw Franchy play 3 games in LF in 2018, which he was playing because Margot was in CF. It's perfectly credible that he has no idea that Franchy has played much more CF than LF, and earned raves for his "first-step quickness," which is to say, reads off the bat, from the co-editor of the BA handbook (Kyle Glaser).
Now, if you had a guy who had a reputation for not getting good reads in LF, and you saw him getting good (but not outsanding) reads, you might not recommend a conversion to CF even if he had the tools. Why would you want to put him through that struggle of learning to get a read from a different angle? As I have noted here in the past (using Coco Crisp as an example), it takes several hundred games to do that. You would't want him doing that in MLB. Coco got that chance because he had amazing numbers in LF, and he was average for us his first year ... and then amazing.
That's the only way I can make sense of the words that count that Jauss said. It makes perfect sense if you think the guy has played LF all his life. There's no good reason to believe that Jauss knows that he's actually a CF by trade who got great reads.
If you can't give me a solid alternative explanation for why he said he doesn't project as a LF despite having the tools, you have nothing.
You are fun sometimes, but man... you get tunnel vision. “Dependable,” from 12th c. French depend-re, “to hang.” Relating to duty or obligation, meaning “sure.” That is... broad. If I say “go to left field!” And you do? That counts as “dependable” in that you are fulfilling your duty. Is that what he means? Doubt it. But since you insist on English lessons, you might consider the degree to which language is ambiguous — and not seek to pin your specific meanings on abstract terms — or at least don’t condescend to people who point out abstract terms, indeed, can be read many ways. Close your pocket calculator and pick up thy Wittgenstein (to paraphrase Carlyle). I couldn’t give a s—t less what the details are of Cordero’s fielding, but, man, your pattern of having a theory then insisting that is the only way to read ambiguous (or often selective) evidence and then treating people who see it differently as stupid is unnecessary. You contribute an interesting perspective. Try a touch of humility. Another English rec: read Keats on Negative Capability.... learning to live with uncertainty. I'm reminded of a criticism of the show Sherlock I saw recently (the Benedict Cumberbatch version). The gist of the criticism was that the show presents a dumb person's view of what intelligence is: it implies that intelligence lies in deducing conclusions with absolute certainty, whereas real intelligence consists in negotiating uncertainty and being open to ambiguity in a world in which the information we have access to is always only partial.
Nonetheless, I happen to think Sherlock is a really entertaining show.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,583
|
Post by radiohix on Feb 14, 2021 13:09:21 GMT -5
Currently we have the following: - 2021 (7): Sale, JDM, Xander, Eovaldi, Price, Pedroia, Richards
- 2022 (6): Sale, JDM, Xander, Eovaldi, Price, Richards (team option)
- 2023 (2): Sale, Xander
Juan Soto will hit free agency after 2024...Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 14, 2021 13:53:27 GMT -5
You are fun sometimes, but man... you get tunnel vision. “Dependable,” from 12th c. French depend-re, “to hang.” Relating to duty or obligation, meaning “sure.” That is... broad. If I say “go to left field!” And you do? That counts as “dependable” in that you are fulfilling your duty. Is that what he means? Doubt it. But since you insist on English lessons, you might consider the degree to which language is ambiguous — and not seek to pin your specific meanings on abstract terms — or at least don’t condescend to people who point out abstract terms, indeed, can be read many ways. Close your pocket calculator and pick up thy Wittgenstein (to paraphrase Carlyle). I couldn’t give a s—t less what the details are of Cordero’s fielding, but, man, your pattern of having a theory then insisting that is the only way to read ambiguous (or often selective) evidence and then treating people who see it differently as stupid is unnecessary. You contribute an interesting perspective. Try a touch of humility. Another English rec: read Keats on Negative Capability.... learning to live with uncertainty. Dude, I'm a classical philologist. I'm familiar with etymology but also with rhetoric, including bad rhetorical tricks, and the cheesy tactic of trying to shift the burden of proof, which is why I ignored your first rant on the word "dependable." There is no amount of logorrhea or ad hominem attacks that can make the Jauss' statement that he was a "dependable" left-fielder but he wouldn't put him in centerfield into evidence that he can be a good CF. And your recommendation that I "learn to live with uncertainty" shows an amusing lack of self-knowledge. γνῶθι σεαυτόν. Why are you attacking me? I never said any of what you are attributing to me. I was actually saying what you appear (?) to be saying? I don’t think I had a “first” rant. I honestly don’t know to whom this is addressed. Add: actually, upon checking, I note I came in behind you and am on your side! Huh.
|
|
|