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.
4/29-5/2 Red Sox @ Rangers Series Thread
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,396
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on May 2, 2021 20:32:20 GMT -5
Did he "decide" these things, or did he "decide to see if" these guys are these things? Again, bridge year. We knew at the time these weren't the decisions of a team trying to push in its chips for 2021. I'm interested to see how things change now. It's very clear Cordero needs to go to AAA (1 for his last 34 with 19 Ks). Seems like figuring out a way to work Chavis is makes the most sense. And yeah I'm not sure it's time for Duran yet. I'm still not quite sure how you make it work with Chavis without being willing to play him in LF but they need to try something. I get the bridge year thing, but that can’t be an excuse for *anything.* I was fine not, say, signing Springer and going for smaller, shorter contracts. But the collection of OF choices (and of course they are choices), for example, is barely above 0 WAR.... even in a bridge year, the idea is not to sign guys who are *below* replacement. Add: another thought: what if the received wisdom that this is a bridge year was, itself, a miscalculation? The East is weaker than some of us expected. The core of this team is stronger than expected. But as people have noted throughout these threads, JDM could opt out. X might opt out. And Devers will get paid. What if the tear down is not done, and this was, perhaps one of the last chances with this core? If, after last year’s reset, they fall short then lose one of those three, would that feel like a mistake?
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on May 2, 2021 20:55:30 GMT -5
Did he "decide" these things, or did he "decide to see if" these guys are these things? Again, bridge year. We knew at the time these weren't the decisions of a team trying to push in its chips for 2021. I'm interested to see how things change now. It's very clear Cordero needs to go to AAA (1 for his last 34 with 19 Ks). Seems like figuring out a way to work Chavis is makes the most sense. And yeah I'm not sure it's time for Duran yet. I'm still not quite sure how you make it work with Chavis without being willing to play him in LF but they need to try something. I get the bridge year thing, but that can’t be an excuse for *anything.* I was fine not, say, signing Springer and going for smaller, shorter contracts. But the collection of OF choices (and of course they are choices), for example, is barely above 0 WAR.... even in a bridge year, the idea is not to sign guys who are *below* replacement. Two things: 1. Mitch Moreland (whom you mentioned in another post) has a .670 OPS against RHP and has been a replacement-level player. (Ok, he's actually at .1 b-Ref WAR.) To this point, he would not have been a good platoon partner for B-Bombs. I still love the game 4 HR, though! 2. Yes, the two OF signings have been disappointments and I was baffled by the KKH signing from the start. But you say you were fine not going for Springer, yet you're disappointed in the low-cost guys CB acquired. Well, guess what: when you sign guys to the contracts KKH and particularly Renfore got, you don't get certainty. It's the very reason these guys are cheap. Ditto for Danny Santana, whom we're sure to see this month. It's clear they wanted to start the season below the LT threshold. To stay below, they had to cheap out on a few positions.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,396
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on May 2, 2021 20:58:52 GMT -5
I get the bridge year thing, but that can’t be an excuse for *anything.* I was fine not, say, signing Springer and going for smaller, shorter contracts. But the collection of OF choices (and of course they are choices), for example, is barely above 0 WAR.... even in a bridge year, the idea is not to sign guys who are *below* replacement. Two things: 1. Mitch Moreland (whom you mentioned in another post) has a .670 OPS against RHP and has been a replacement-level player. (Ok, he's actually at .1 b-Ref WAR.) To this point, he would not have been a good platoon partner for B-Bombs. I still love the game 4 HR, though! 2. Yes, the two OF signings have been disappointments and I was baffled by the KKH signing from the start. But you say you were fine not going for Springer, yet you're disappointed in the low-cost guys CB acquired. Well, guess what: when you sign guys to the contracts KKH and particularly Renfore got, you don't get certainty. It's the very reason these guys are cheap. Ditto for Danny Santana, whom we're sure to see this month. It's clear they wanted to start the season below the LT threshold. To stay below, they had to cheap out on a few positions. Two quick thoughts: they coulda had Brantley, for one, and stayed under. It isn’t either/or. But also... *why* did they have to stay under? They actually say they didn’t mandate it, so that story is very unclear. But at this point, isn’t there a creeping suspicion that this might have been a year to invest in a bit more?
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on May 2, 2021 21:20:43 GMT -5
Two things: 1. Mitch Moreland (whom you mentioned in another post) has a .670 OPS against RHP and has been a replacement-level player. (Ok, he's actually at .1 b-Ref WAR.) To this point, he would not have been a good platoon partner for B-Bombs. I still love the game 4 HR, though! 2. Yes, the two OF signings have been disappointments and I was baffled by the KKH signing from the start. But you say you were fine not going for Springer, yet you're disappointed in the low-cost guys CB acquired. Well, guess what: when you sign guys to the contracts KKH and particularly Renfore got, you don't get certainty. It's the very reason these guys are cheap. Ditto for Danny Santana, whom we're sure to see this month. It's clear they wanted to start the season below the LT threshold. To stay below, they had to cheap out on a few positions. Two quick thoughts: they coulda had Brantley, for one, and stayed under. It isn’t either/or. But also... *why* did they have to stay under? They actually say they didn’t mandate it, so that story is very unclear. But at this point, isn’t there a creeping suspicion that this might have been a year to invest in a bit more? Yes, but that's mostly because other question marks have been answered in the positive so far. We have to keep in mind that going into the year there were legitimate question marks and uncertainty about JD's performance, Eduardo's health and performance, the bullpen/pitching staff in general.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on May 2, 2021 21:30:00 GMT -5
Two things: 1. Mitch Moreland (whom you mentioned in another post) has a .670 OPS against RHP and has been a replacement-level player. (Ok, he's actually at .1 b-Ref WAR.) To this point, he would not have been a good platoon partner for B-Bombs. I still love the game 4 HR, though! 2. Yes, the two OF signings have been disappointments and I was baffled by the KKH signing from the start. But you say you were fine not going for Springer, yet you're disappointed in the low-cost guys CB acquired. Well, guess what: when you sign guys to the contracts KKH and particularly Renfore got, you don't get certainty. It's the very reason these guys are cheap. Ditto for Danny Santana, whom we're sure to see this month. It's clear they wanted to start the season below the LT threshold. To stay below, they had to cheap out on a few positions. Two quick thoughts: they coulda had Brantley, for one, and stayed under. It isn’t either/or. But also... *why* did they have to stay under? They actually say they didn’t mandate it, so that story is very unclear. But at this point, isn’t there a creeping suspicion that this might have been a year to invest in a bit more? Brantley is making $16 million. Renfroe and KKH make a combined $10 million. You're correct in that it's unclear why didn't go over the LT threshold. If they're telling the truth and it wasn't mandated, then it had to have been strategic. They didn't want to start the clock in a year when the team was unlikely to contend. It wasn't an unreasonable assumption, given that they were coming off an historically crap (by RS standards) season. Your question (bolded) is a fair one. The answer, I think, is that it's too early to tell. As I said in an earlier post, I've felt along this team's good early performance was built on a fragile base. An honest question: Were you so optimistic about this team's prospects during the off-season that you felt they should be in GFIN mode? It sounds like you weren't because you said you understand the strategy to go for short-duration, low-value contracts.
|
|
|
Post by soxinsf on May 2, 2021 21:35:04 GMT -5
So what is a poor team that is in first place with only four and a half hitters to do?
Reading through the posts above leads to the following sad conclusions.
1. Duran isn’t ready and should not be given a chance unless and until he hits .400 in AAA.
2. Chavis is not the answer unless he plays LF. No matter that the other 1B alternatives are barely hitting their weight and Alex is now platooning Bobby No Bombs.
3. Danny Santana is still a gleam in Blooms eyes.
4A. This is a bridge year. What did you expect anyway?
4B. This is a bridge year. IF the Sox are still in contention in mid July, maybe we can talk about big measures then.
Sorry, but not trying to make things better is not an option. OK, let’s not break the bank under most scenarios. Otherwise, and all exaggerations aside, not trying is not an option given the 4 and a half failing hitters.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on May 2, 2021 21:43:23 GMT -5
I think if they truly thought this team would be a mid-90s win team, they would have gone over the LT. Let's see what they do at the trade deadline if this team is sustaining this performance, it wouldn't surprise me if they go over to fill the holes.
Let's go back to March though, and go under the assumption that this team is a mid-80s win team. If mediocrity was the expectation, why go over the LT? There isn't any return for that investment, so perhaps the call was to stay under so that they can spend through 2024 rather than 2023 (assuming the new CBA doesn't change the LT rules).
|
|
rasimon
Veteran
Posts: 428
Member is Online
|
Post by rasimon on May 2, 2021 21:46:02 GMT -5
Did he "decide" these things, or did he "decide to see if" these guys are these things? Again, bridge year. We knew at the time these weren't the decisions of a team trying to push in its chips for 2021. I'm interested to see how things change now. It's very clear Cordero needs to go to AAA (1 for his last 34 with 19 Ks). Seems like figuring out a way to work Chavis is makes the most sense. And yeah I'm not sure it's time for Duran yet. I'm still not quite sure how you make it work with Chavis without being willing to play him in LF but they need to try something. I get the bridge year thing, but that can’t be an excuse for *anything.* I was fine not, say, signing Springer and going for smaller, shorter contracts. But the collection of OF choices (and of course they are choices), for example, is barely above 0 WAR.... even in a bridge year, the idea is not to sign guys who are *below* replacement. Add: another thought: what if the received wisdom that this is a bridge year was, itself, a miscalculation? The East is weaker than some of us expected. The core of this team is stronger than expected. But as people have noted throughout these threads, JDM could opt out. X might opt out. And Devers will get paid. What if the tear down is not done, and this was, perhaps one of the last chances with this core? If, after last year’s reset, they fall short then lose one of those three, would that feel like a mistake? I actually don't get the bridge year thing. The Sox don't have a particularly strong minor league system right now. At least not relative to other teams in their division. Below is a count of the number of prospects in each Fangraphs ratings category for each team in the AL East. Maybe you could argue that one or two Sox prospects should be in a higher category but we still do not match up well against the rest of the division. Chaim did a fairly good job of building the 40 and 40+ categories, and maybe in the future some of those guys will move up, but right now we do not have a lot of top level talent in the minors. What we do have is a few very good players in the majors. Bridging a year would seem to be be using up a year of their talent in order to wait for a group that is not that promising to begin with. Bill James once described the rationals for engaging in trades as either to increase the total amount of talent in the system or to rearrange talent. While building an entire system may be a bit different. The Sox are very much in former camp right now. They need to add talent to the overall system. Last year's dumpster dive was pretty ineffective. They made an inordinate number of pickups. Most were of the sort where if you squinted really hard you could kind of see what they were thinking, but they were just not that promising. How much can you expect from dumpster diving? The best of the dumpster: Arroyo (was a very good prospect recently), Plawecki (no he is not going to hit like that again - but he's better than Leon), Mazza (back of rotation, swing man), and Gonsalves (good prospect recently). Whitlock was a nice pickup. The prospects gained in last Summer's trades ranged from good to underwhelming. They got 40 and 40+ type talent but no top prospects. So how could they add long-term talent to the system? The draft and international free agency are no longer easy sources of talent for teams willing to spend.I would have been way more aggressive in free agency this off-season. But its not my money. TEAM | 80 | 75 | 70 | 65 | 60 | 55 | 50 | 45+ | 45 | 40+ | 40 | BAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 16 | BOS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 17 | NYA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 12 | TBR | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 14 | TOR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 13 |
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,396
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on May 2, 2021 21:57:27 GMT -5
Two quick thoughts: they coulda had Brantley, for one, and stayed under. It isn’t either/or. But also... *why* did they have to stay under? They actually say they didn’t mandate it, so that story is very unclear. But at this point, isn’t there a creeping suspicion that this might have been a year to invest in a bit more? Brantley is making $16 million. Renfroe and KKH make a combined $10 million. You're correct in that it's unclear why didn't go over the LT threshold. If they're telling the truth and it wasn't mandated, then it had to have been strategic. They didn't want to start the clock in a year when the team was unlikely to contend. It wasn't an unreasonable assumption, given that they were coming off an historically crap (by RS standards) season. Your question (bolded) is a fair one. The answer, I think, is that it's too early to tell. As I said in an earlier post, I've felt along this team's good early performance was built on a fragile base. An honest question: Were you so optimistic about this team's prospects during the off-season that you felt they should be in GFIN mode? It sounds like you weren't because you said you understand the strategy to go for short-duration, low-value contracts. No, absolutely not. I was not optimistic. So I’m asking if that thought is creeping in. But I also don’t get paid to assess guys, nor do I have inside info on, say, how JDM felt over the winter etc.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 2, 2021 21:59:48 GMT -5
Yeah, "bridge year" is just a phrase that people toss around but I think it doesn't quite fit the Sox' situation.
Here's something I've said before: I think Bloom's approach to the off-season was to
a) Make the team as consistently strong and competitive over the long-term as possible, while b) making the team as strong as possible in 2021.
And he wasn't going to do anything in pursuit of (b) that compromised (a) in any way.
This *shockingly radical* strategy of making the team good both now and in the future - advised against by many here during the offseason - has resulted in a team that, as of 5/2/21, has a 52% chance of making the playoffs, per fangraphs. Not bad!
And, consternation in the above page's worth of posts notwithstanding, it seems to me they only have one glaring hole: a need for another outfielder, to replace Franchy and push Renfroe into a true platoon role. Duran could come up in a month or two and take care of it. Or Santana could take care of it. Or they could patch it with some sort of Chavis/Marwin plaster. In any event, the problem of having a dreadful bottom of the order is not going to continue indefinitely without being addressed, so I recommend that people chill out and watch the clouds pass in the sky for a few minutes and think about how having Cora as manager is definitely worth the aggravation of his inexplicably insisting on Kiké in the leadoff spot.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on May 2, 2021 23:00:04 GMT -5
This seems like as good a time as any to assess the balance sheet. What else am I missing? Pros:- Top 4 of Verdugo, Xander, JDM, and Devers look to be as good as any top 4 in the league.
- Starting pitching looks solid and has plenty of depth with Sale potentially coming back and a strong core behind Pivetta/Perez
Cons:- Huge cliff after Devers. Too many hitters that should only crack the lineup as the number 9 hitter.
- Relief pitching unreliable behind Barnes. Who do we go to in the 7th and 8th inning of the ALDS game 5?
I wonder if we feel burned by the bullpen so feel it is worse than it is. Barnes, Whitlock, Andriese, maybe Darwinzon now all look very good, even with hiccups the last two days. In an ALDS, too, that reliever could be Houck, maybe Pivetta... hell maybe Sale. Anyway.... I look at the teams we’ve played and don’t see bullpens I’d trade our for without hesitation. I would agree with you on this, the bullpen has done well so far and when they're on they have been lights out. And our asset on starting pitching likely is the solution come playoff time. What I'm thinking about when I list them as a con is primarily Darwinson and Ottovino being the main setup men behind Barnes. They are constant self-implosion risks each time they take the mound. They seem like they will be teetering Tiers 2 and 3 all season in the trust meter thread.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,652
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 2, 2021 23:14:03 GMT -5
That was an ugly game in an ugly series against a team who stinks but they never beat on the road. For whatever reason they just cannot win in Arlington.
Richards wasn't as dominant but he was effective and only issued one walk, so if there's anything positive about this weekend, it was that Garrett Richards has been effective the last two times out and if he can pitch this way would give them 3 viable starters you can start in a playoff series. Add one more whether it's Pivetta, a returning Sale, Connor Seabold, or even Whitlock, then you have something that gives you a chance to advance.
Of course it'll be hard to do much if you keep watching Adam Ottavino walk the freaking leadoff hitter like he's prone to do. Having your 8th inning guy doing that in a close game will kill you sooner or later. The man just walks too many damn hitters so his margin for error is limited. Basically for him to succeed he really can't allow much at all in the way of hits because if he does somebody will score. The Red Sox need a reliable 8th inning guy. I don't trust Ottavino to be that guy. I don't know if they really have that kind of guy on the roster. Who know? Maybe Seabold, if he's not needed for the rotation, winds up in that role later in the season as an attempt to have him contribute while keeping his innings down?
But as everybody else mentions, that lineup has way too many dead spots. I have to remind myself that most every team has that. After all the league BA is in the low .230s - for both leagues actually. But the goal is to be well above average and the Sox have that good core in the lineup, but if they're not hitting, then the Sox are screwed because nobody else will pick up the slack.
And it also doesn't help when you're not cashing in the few runners you do have.
That said, there's not much they can do. They can't send Franchy down until there's a minor league season to send him down to, which I would guess is soon.
Santana isn't ready yet so I guess you go with Marwin in LF for a little while, not that he's any bargain. Frankly, I'd like to see less of him.
Ultimately, they need Duran to claim an OF spot, whether it's LF or CF. My guess is they'll need him more for LF as Kiké is mediocre for a CF offensively, but not below replacement level as he slugs enough and his .230 BA is average enough to be adequate.
But he needs to be out of the leadoff spot. I think, outside of Eric Van, who I don't agree with this on this issue or find his arguments persuasive, we have a consensus here that he needs to get the hell out of the leadoff spot. I don't buy that Verdugo can't lead off. The lineup should have the best four guys leading off the game and getting the most plate appearances and the order that makes sense is Verdugo/Bogaerts/Devers/Martinez and then you have Vazquez snaps out of his slump, that Dalbec can get better results, because the bottom line is that he hasn't produced much. Arroyo has been the most impressive non-core 4 hitter they got this year. They could lead off him if they're so inclined, but I don't know that he'd be an effective leadoff hitter. It seems to me he might hit for a good BA - .260 this year is a good batting average, like .300 in normal years where the league BA is .260. He doesn't walk a lot so his OBP might not be a heckuva lot higher than the league average of .310....but either way, I've had enough of Kiké and his sub.300 OBP leading off, at least against righties, and getting the most plate appearances on the team when he leads off.
I think it could put pressure on Duran as we don't even know how good a AAA hitter he is yet, but if that guy can come up and hit .270 and walk a little, with his speed, he might be the best option for leadoff, particularly if for whatever reason they don't want to bat Verdugo leadoff.
But like I said, it's not ideal to put that kind of pressure on Duran.
It seems to me that if they do wind up going outside the organization it would be for a setup man and/or a LF, but at this point that's so far down the road, they need to see what they have internally first.
As the season goes along I'm starting to think Manfred might have had their record right. They're a much better team that I thought they'd be. I picked them 79-83 although I thought if this team had everything break right, they might wind up in the low 90s, but it seems to me, if they can figure out how to get league average production out of 1b and LF and have a guy who can hang onto 8th inning leads (unfortunately Sawamura doesn't appear to be that guy either), they get help from a returning Chris Sale, then this team might actually be good enough to win 95.
But until then they're going to keep tripping over themselves, blowing leads late in the game, and having their lack of plate discipline, particularly at the bottom half of the lineup, prevent them from putting distance between themselves and other teams, which will leave them prone for the other teams to get their act together, get hot, and pass them in the standings. They might just be the 87 win team Manfred projected them to be.
|
|
|
Post by jbsox on May 3, 2021 8:03:35 GMT -5
Yeah, "bridge year" is just a phrase that people toss around but I think it doesn't quite fit the Sox' situation. Here's something I've said before: I think Bloom's approach to the off-season was to a) Make the team as consistently strong and competitive over the long-term as possible, while b) making the team as strong as possible in 2021. And he wasn't going to do anything in pursuit of (b) that compromised (a) in any way. This *shockingly radical* strategy of making the team good both now and in the future - advised against by many here during the offseason - has resulted in a team that, as of 5/2/21, has a 52% chance of making the playoffs, per fangraphs. Not bad! And, consternation in the above page's worth of posts notwithstanding, it seems to me they only have one glaring hole: a need for another outfielder, to replace Franchy and push Renfroe into a true platoon role. Duran could come up in a month or two and take care of it. Or Santana could take care of it. Or they could patch it with some sort of Chavis/Marwin plaster. In any event, the problem of having a dreadful bottom of the order is not going to continue indefinitely without being addressed, so I recommend that people chill out and watch the clouds pass in the sky for a few minutes and think about how having Cora as manager is definitely worth the aggravation of his inexplicably insisting on Kiké in the leadoff spot. One idea to satisfy A & B is by mid season trade 1 if not 2 starting pitchers and 1 reliever for prospects, and back fill those spots with Houck, Sale, and Braiser when he returns, and hopefully not have a drop off. Can also hope for OF improvement internally as well.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,288
|
Post by radiohix on May 3, 2021 8:36:34 GMT -5
The Sox are playing the Tigers next series, should be an excellent opportunity to look at their next target: Robbie Grossman and his sexy 17.4% BB rate (career 12.7% and always been sporting one of the lowest MLB chase rates), he's been unlucky so far this year (xwOBA of .365). He's cheap (5 millions AAV) and won't cost you anything in terms of trade pieces.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 3, 2021 8:43:17 GMT -5
Brantley is making $16 million. No, absolutely not. I was not optimistic. So I’m asking if that thought is creeping in. But I also don’t get paid to assess guys, nor do I have inside info on, say, how JDM felt over the winter etc. Some of us pay a subscription fee for a premium membership to get your assessment of players. Try to get with the program
|
|
|
Post by patford on May 3, 2021 8:45:00 GMT -5
It would be nice if there was a sub-forum here for people who are smarter than the GM and manager.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,396
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on May 3, 2021 9:03:45 GMT -5
It would be nice if there was a sub-forum here for people who are smarter than the GM and manager. In the words of Dr. Johnson, you may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 3, 2021 11:53:50 GMT -5
I think if they truly thought this team would be a mid-90s win team, they would have gone over the LT. Let's see what they do at the trade deadline if this team is sustaining this performance, it wouldn't surprise me if they go over to fill the holes. Let's go back to March though, and go under the assumption that this team is a mid-80s win team. If mediocrity was the expectation, why go over the LT? There isn't any return for that investment, so perhaps the call was to stay under so that they can spend through 2024 rather than 2023 (assuming the new CBA doesn't change the LT rules). Because you're building for more than one year and a transformative/near transformative free agent is available in what was clearly a buyers' market? Also, has anyone taken a good hard look at the farm system? Very few near MLB-ready players in the pipeline at the moment (excluding, say, relievers which always seem to cycle through) and yet you still have a dynamic core in JDM, Devers and Xander. One or two high-level, star quality pieces now, and working in the pieces you think will be available from the farm in then next 1-3 years gives you more of an opportunity of a contending team (rather than the often BS-laden "a competitive team" that FOs love to throw out there), and covers any potential departures over the same period. Plus you have significant money coming off the books after this year. The Luxury Tax is only on the overage and spending money costs you zero prospects.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on May 3, 2021 12:14:37 GMT -5
Everyone has their own point of view. I thought that is what this forum was for. I don't agree with some comments, but they have the right to say them. I may say a lot of dumb things, but they are my dumb things and I stand by them.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on May 3, 2021 12:24:54 GMT -5
that game was lost because JD hit into 2 DP's period. That is going to happen and i don't fault him for attacking pitches early, but I think you should make the pitcher work a little with the bases loaded or with 2 in scoring position. Make him pitch to get out of it. that last at bat he attacked a pitch low in the zone that just screamed DP.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on May 3, 2021 12:50:29 GMT -5
I think if they truly thought this team would be a mid-90s win team, they would have gone over the LT. Let's see what they do at the trade deadline if this team is sustaining this performance, it wouldn't surprise me if they go over to fill the holes. Let's go back to March though, and go under the assumption that this team is a mid-80s win team. If mediocrity was the expectation, why go over the LT? There isn't any return for that investment, so perhaps the call was to stay under so that they can spend through 2024 rather than 2023 (assuming the new CBA doesn't change the LT rules). Because you're building for more than one year and a transformative/near transformative free agent is available in what was clearly a buyers' market? Also, has anyone taken a good hard look at the farm system? Very few near MLB-ready players in the pipeline at the moment (excluding, say, relievers which always seem to cycle through) and yet you still have a dynamic core in JDM, Devers and Xander. One or two high-level, star quality pieces now, and working in the pieces you think will be available from the farm in then next 1-3 years gives you more of an opportunity of a contending team (rather than the often BS-laden "a competitive team" that FOs love to throw out there), and covers any potential departures over the same period. Plus you have significant money coming off the books after this year. The Luxury Tax is only on the overage and spending money costs you zero prospects. Bolded: This not true. Going over the LT affects you in numerous ways, including potentially your drafting position. The RS had their first pick moved back 10 spots in 2019. If you sign a FA who rejected a QO, you lose $1 million from your international signing pool. It also affects the draft picks you surrender for signing a FA who rejected a QO. Regarding the RS having very few near MLB-ready players in the pipeline, I think you might mean they have very few high-end guys coming up in the next couple of years. In fact, they have only two - Casas and Downs - and neither is considered super elite. But I think they have quite a few guys who may not be high-end but who can hold down MLB roster spots. That has value, too, because it frees up money. For instance, I can easily see a 2023 rotation that includes three guys pitching competently for low money: Pivetta, Houck and Seabold. If we're lucky enough to snag one of the college P's, that guy could be contributing by the second half of 2023, too. It's also not unreasonable to think they could have three starting position players who will be 3 WAR or more and extremely cheap: Duran, Downs and Casas. Ward, Wallace, German and at least one or two others on the farm could be BP pieces by then. CB is sure to find other bargains in the next couple of years. I doubt that we have acquired our last Pivetta, Whitlock, Seabold or Arroyo. It's what he was brought here to do.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,652
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 3, 2021 13:31:50 GMT -5
Everyone has their own point of view. I thought that is what this forum was for. I don't agree with some comments, but they have the right to say them. I may say a lot of dumb things, but they are my dumb things and I stand by them. Exactly. If you can't critique anything the Red Sox do because "they know a lot more than you do", then forget having a forum and just make it a Red Sox shrine of worship instead. The Red Sox will made a ton of decisions and some will not work out well. Even the best of franchises don't bat 1.000 so I don't see what's wrong with critiquing things if you disagree with someting. If I critique something and I'm wrong, so be it. Wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last time. Nobody bats 1.000 in these forums either even if some think they do.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 3, 2021 14:02:10 GMT -5
Because you're building for more than one year and a transformative/near transformative free agent is available in what was clearly a buyers' market? Also, has anyone taken a good hard look at the farm system? Very few near MLB-ready players in the pipeline at the moment (excluding, say, relievers which always seem to cycle through) and yet you still have a dynamic core in JDM, Devers and Xander. One or two high-level, star quality pieces now, and working in the pieces you think will be available from the farm in then next 1-3 years gives you more of an opportunity of a contending team (rather than the often BS-laden "a competitive team" that FOs love to throw out there), and covers any potential departures over the same period. Plus you have significant money coming off the books after this year. The Luxury Tax is only on the overage and spending money costs you zero prospects. Bolded: This not true. Going over the LT affects you in numerous ways, including potentially your drafting position. The RS had their first pick moved back 10 spots in 2019. If you sign a FA who rejected a QO, you lose $1 million from your international signing pool. It also affects the draft picks you surrender for signing a FA who rejected a QO. [/b] Regarding the RS having very few near MLB-ready players in the pipeline, I think you might mean they have very few high-end guys coming up in the next couple of years. In fact, they have only two - Casas and Downs - and neither is considered super elite. But I think they have quite a few guys who may not be high-end but who can hold down MLB roster spots. That has value, too, because it frees up money. For instance, I can easily see a 2023 rotation that includes three guys pitching competently for low money: Pivetta, Houck and Seabold. If we're lucky enough to snag one of the college P's, that guy could be contributing by the second half of 2023, too. It's also not unreasonable to think they could have three starting position players who will be 3 WAR or more and extremely cheap: Duran, Downs and Casas.Ward, Wallace, German and at least one or two others on the farm could be BP pieces by then. CB is sure to find other bargains in the next couple of years. I doubt that we have acquired our last Pivetta, Whitlock, Seabold or Arroyo. It's what he was brought here to do.[/quote] Both of these are correct. However, none of those guys, I believe, have had any AAA ABs - and we've all seen guys who looked like MLB Average players or better in AA who suddenly can't get through AAA. But I agree with the overall points you are making, and I think the key with the luxury tax is not to go over for more than a year or two. As to the draft money, I also think there's too much weight about the $1M deduction put on guys below the second round. There are plenty of anecdotes about guys who are later round picks who become superstars, but these are almost as rare as one of us picking a PowerBall jackpot number. Throw the resources - even adumbrated resources - into your 1s and 2s and grab signability guys you've done your homework on after that. If you need more org guys, hey, that's what MiLB free agents are for. Also, I think where there's a chance to get a free agent who can make your team dramatically better for 3-5 years (all projections, I know) and there doesn't look to be someone like that who will be available in the next 1-3 years, its important to realize that and be bold, rather than think "We can make that up with these replacement level guys by platooning them" or "so-and-so in our system will be that." Especially in a league where there's no salary cap and you're one of the team with cash.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 3, 2021 16:42:44 GMT -5
that game was lost because JD hit into 2 DP's period. That is going to happen and i don't fault him for attacking pitches early, but I think you should make the pitcher work a little with the bases loaded or with 2 in scoring position. Make him pitch to get out of it. that last at bat he attacked a pitch low in the zone that just screamed DP. Lol. The guy is hitting .347/.431/.713. C'mon now. It's not like he said to himself, as the pitch was coming in, "hm, this pitch has a very high likelihood of me hitting into a double-play, but f- it, I feel like swinging, so here goes!" There are things to complain about with this team. JD Martinez really isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on May 3, 2021 17:29:12 GMT -5
I'm fine with calling out those plays in terms of ranking where we lost the game, those 2 DPs surely were up there at the top. He had a off game yesterday, just couldn't seem to get comfortable up there with the 2 Ks and 2 DPs.
With that said, it's hard to complain about JDM right now given the zone he has been in. That 3rd inning pitch was a fastball in the lower-in area that he normally crushes, that had grand slam written all over it given his April stretch.
|
|
|