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.
Evaluating the Front Office and Ownership
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Dec 20, 2022 11:37:10 GMT -5
On the one hand, people love to post links to paywalled Athletic articles without comment or relevant quotes. On the other hand, the articles are reliably terrible and don't really add any value above the discussion we're already having here. So I guess it cancels out.
Anyways, as for The Offseason So Far... I think a dumb way to judge is by just assuming they'll start the season with the roster they have now. A fair way to judge it is to look at the moves so far and consider what they've put themselves in a position to be able to do going forward. The most obvious path-of-least-resistance thing to do would be to add one of Andrus/Segura and one of Eovaldi/Kluber. So let's say they go into next season with this roster:
Lineup | Bench | Rotation | Bullpen | Yoshida | Refsnyder
| Sale | Jansen | Turner | Arroyo | Kluber | Martin | Devers | Wong | Paxton | Schreiber | Story |
| Bello | Rodriguez | Casas |
| Whitlock | Houck | Segura |
| Pivetta | Barnes | Verdugo |
| Crawford
| Taylor | Kiké |
|
| Brasier | McGuire
|
|
|
|
Additions in bold. So did they improve the team in the offseason? They lost JDM but replaced him with Turner. They lost Bogaerts but replaced him with Segura and Yoshida. They added Kluber. They lost Strahm but added a bunch to the bullpen.
On balance, is this team better or worse than what they had last year? I think the answer to that question should determine whether they've been "winners" or "losers."
Compared to how last year ended up, they have a few things going for them. They will not play as many games against the AL East. They have significantly improved their corner outfield spot, with Yoshida essentially replacing the dredge in right field form last year. Yoshida could underperform the 50% ZiPS percentile and still be a major upgrade. First base should also be improved with pretty big upside there. Similar to Yoshida, it wouldn't be very difficult for Casas to be a major improvement. I think it's reasonable to expect Story to add more value in 2023, having a full Spring training and not getting hit in the wrist. Similarly, Kiké doesn't even have to hit like 2021 to add value to centerfield. If he's just a league average or even slightly below hitter, just playing center for 140+ games would add value. Their only loss position player wise is at shortstop. I'm pretty confident DH and catcher can stay the same. And one thing that can mitigate that loss is that Xander, whether you believe in clutchness or not, was very bad in high leverage last year, so even though he had a great season overall, he didn't help the team win as much as you would've expected given his numbers. So adding Segura/Andrus/whoever isn't as big a loss as one may expect. Pitching wise, the rotation last year was ravaged by injuries, but the projected 2023 rotation is really teetering on the young guys pitching well and just pitching innings. Can't say that's anything more than a wash. The bullpen certainly looks better, but they weren't even that bad by WPA last year and relievers are so volatile, we'll see. All together I think this ends up being about an 85 win team next year (as of now, offseason not over). Probably on the outside of the playoff picture but could be in it in September. I think what's disappointing is this probably could've been a 90+ win team if they signed one of the shortstops and made a big trade for Murphy (or something like that). The FO/owners seemed to want to prioritize long term flexibility and potential in the farm. I'll go along with that strategy if: 1. The 2023 team overperforms my expectations 2. The future looks a lot brighter at the end of 2023 than it does now
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Dec 20, 2022 12:05:00 GMT -5
I'm a tad more bullish on that roster than you are (that looks about an 88-90 win team to me), but I think your analysis is pretty good. They seem better everywhere except shortstop (which, in my mind, is 99.9% on ownership), and I think the difference the difference between a full year of something like Story/Segura and last year's Bogaerts/injured Story would be within the margin of error.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 20, 2022 12:05:39 GMT -5
On the one hand, people love to post links to paywalled Athletic articles without comment or relevant quotes. On the other hand, the articles are reliably terrible and don't really add any value above the discussion we're already having here. So I guess it cancels out. Anyways, as for The Offseason So Far... I think a dumb way to judge is by just assuming they'll start the season with the roster they have now. A fair way to judge it is to look at the moves so far and consider what they've put themselves in a position to be able to do going forward. The most obvious path-of-least-resistance thing to do would be to add one of Andrus/Segura and one of Eovaldi/Kluber. So let's say they go into next season with this roster: Lineup | Bench | Rotation | Bullpen | Yoshida | Refsnyder
| Sale | Jansen | Turner | Arroyo | Kluber | Martin | Devers | Wong | Paxton | Schreiber | Story |
| Bello | Rodriguez | Casas |
| Whitlock | Houck | Segura |
| Pivetta | Barnes | Verdugo |
| Crawford
| Taylor | Kiké |
|
| Brasier | McGuire
|
|
|
|
Additions in bold. So did they improve the team in the offseason? They lost JDM but replaced him with Turner. They lost Bogaerts but replaced him with Segura and Yoshida. They added Kluber. They lost Strahm but added a bunch to the bullpen. On balance, is this team better or worse than what they had last year? I think the answer to that question should determine whether they've been "winners" or "losers."
Here are the ZiPS projections on the current starters in fWAR: Sale 1.2 Paxton 1.9 Bello 2.4 Pivetta 1.6 Whitlock 2.1 Houck 1.4 Crawford 0.8 He has Eovaldi - who people here are mentioning as more or less interchangeable with Kluber - as 2.1 That's basically a basket of #4, 5 and 6 starters. Sure, if Sale and Paxton are what they were, then we may have a #2 and 2/3. But right now, this is not a rotation that screams to me "Contender!" Turner has to stay healthy and continue to defy, or at least, mostly fool the aging curve. Devers is projected a 4.2 fWAR (in his walk year - seems a bit low). Story projected as having a 3.4 fWAR - very welcome if that's accurate. Casas projected as a 1.2 fWAR guy in his first full year. McGuire projected a 1.0 fWAR; Wong a 1.2 Verdugo projected 2.2 fWAR Kiké projected 2.4 fWAR Meanwhile: Yoshida has to defy what all the other evaluators in MLB seemed to think he is (and I hope he does), a #4 OF. They lost a projected 4.5 fWAR SS and need to replace that production or have one or more of the above grab a significant percentage of it. The pen looks better, but that's SO tough to forecast. I remember how happy we were with the Diekman acquisition last year. Seems to be one reliever per team that always gets over-paid and under-delivers. Bloom's not done (I hope), but right now, this looks like they're running in place to me. Unless we assume complete health and significant over-achievement by some players. Because that always happens. Do they have Sale pitching like 50 innings? That's a ludicrous projection unless he's hurt most of the year. Steamer thinks 3 fWAR in 26 starts.
Also, 2 fWAR is roughly "average regular" territory, and that rotation has 11.4 fWAR projected for 5 spots. That's better than #3 starter territory on average.
Look at this roster versus last year's. Other than X, is there a single player who was here last year who you think would improve the current roster? For me the answer is no.
Edit: Only 70 starting pitchers had more than 2 fWAR last year (~2.3 per team). I'm sure some more may have reached 2 fWAR if you combine their rotation slot with quality depth, but still, this does put our median #3 starter at roughly 2 fWAR. If we're averaging 2.3 fWAR per rotation slot with that small of a contribution from Sale, that's pretty darned good.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 20, 2022 12:13:11 GMT -5
Here are the ZiPS projections on the current starters in fWAR: Sale 1.2 Paxton 1.9 Bello 2.4 Pivetta 1.6 Whitlock 2.1 Houck 1.4 Crawford 0.8 He has Eovaldi - who people here are mentioning as more or less interchangeable with Kluber - as 2.1 That's basically a basket of #4, 5 and 6 starters. Sure, if Sale and Paxton are what they were, then we may have a #2 and 2/3. But right now, this is not a rotation that screams to me "Contender!" Turner has to stay healthy and continue to defy, or at least, mostly fool the aging curve. Devers is projected a 4.2 fWAR (in his walk year - seems a bit low). Story projected as having a 3.4 fWAR - very welcome if that's accurate. Casas projected as a 1.2 fWAR guy in his first full year. McGuire projected a 1.0 fWAR; Wong a 1.2 Verdugo projected 2.2 fWAR Kiké projected 2.4 fWAR Meanwhile: Yoshida has to defy what all the other evaluators in MLB seemed to think he is (and I hope he does), a #4 OF. They lost a projected 4.5 fWAR SS and need to replace that production or have one or more of the above grab a significant percentage of it. The pen looks better, but that's SO tough to forecast. I remember how happy we were with the Diekman acquisition last year. Seems to be one reliever per team that always gets over-paid and under-delivers. Bloom's not done (I hope), but right now, this looks like they're running in place to me. Unless we assume complete health and significant over-achievement by some players. Because that always happens. Do they have Sale pitching like 50 innings? That's a ludicrous projection unless he's hurt most of the year. Steamer thinks 3 fWAR in 26 starts.
Also, 2 fWAR is roughly "average regular" territory, and that rotation has 11.4 fWAR projected for 5 spots. That's better than #3 starter territory on average.
Look at this roster versus last year's. Other than X, is there a single player who was here last year who you think would improve the current roster? For me the answer is no.
CVaz. Eovaldi. Wacha. Story at 2b over Story at SS. Verdugo in LF over Verdugo in RF. That is a start. But again… the question is faulty. Better is irrelevant. Better *enough* is what matters. Does this team finish top-3 in the AL East? Better than Cleveland? etc. And if the answer is no, next year doesn’t look great, then have any moves been made for the long run? Yoshida, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 20, 2022 12:36:45 GMT -5
On the one hand, people love to post links to paywalled Athletic articles without comment or relevant quotes. On the other hand, the articles are reliably terrible and don't really add any value above the discussion we're already having here. So I guess it cancels out. Anyways, as for The Offseason So Far... I think a dumb way to judge is by just assuming they'll start the season with the roster they have now. A fair way to judge it is to look at the moves so far and consider what they've put themselves in a position to be able to do going forward. The most obvious path-of-least-resistance thing to do would be to add one of Andrus/Segura and one of Eovaldi/Kluber. So let's say they go into next season with this roster: Lineup | Bench | Rotation | Bullpen | Yoshida | Refsnyder
| Sale | Jansen | Turner | Arroyo | Kluber | Martin | Devers | Wong | Paxton | Schreiber | Story |
| Bello | Rodriguez | Casas |
| Whitlock | Houck | Segura |
| Pivetta | Barnes | Verdugo |
| Crawford
| Taylor | Kiké |
|
| Brasier | McGuire
|
|
|
|
Additions in bold. So did they improve the team in the offseason? They lost JDM but replaced him with Turner. They lost Bogaerts but replaced him with Segura and Yoshida. They added Kluber. They lost Strahm but added a bunch to the bullpen. On balance, is this team better or worse than what they had last year? I think the answer to that question should determine whether they've been "winners" or "losers."
Compared to how last year ended up, they have a few things going for them. They will not play as many games against the AL East.They have significantly improved their corner outfield spot, with Yoshida essentially replacing the dredge in right field form last year. Yoshida could underperform the 50% ZiPS percentile and still be a major upgrade. First base should also be improved with pretty big upside there. Similar to Yoshida, it wouldn't be very difficult for Casas to be a major improvement. I think it's reasonable to expect Story to add more value in 2023, having a full Spring training and not getting hit in the wrist. Similarly, Kiké doesn't even have to hit like 2021 to add value to centerfield. If he's just a league average or even slightly below hitter, just playing center for 140+ games would add value. Their only loss position player wise is at shortstop. I'm pretty confident DH and catcher can stay the same. And one thing that can mitigate that loss is that Xander, whether you believe in clutchness or not, was very bad in high leverage last year, so even though he had a great season overall, he didn't help the team win as much as you would've expected given his numbers. So adding Segura/Andrus/whoever isn't as big a loss as one may expect. Pitching wise, the rotation last year was ravaged by injuries, but the projected 2023 rotation is really teetering on the young guys pitching well and just pitching innings. Can't say that's anything more than a wash. The bullpen certainly looks better, but they weren't even that bad by WPA last year and relievers are so volatile, we'll see. All together I think this ends up being about an 85 win team next year (as of now, offseason not over). Probably on the outside of the playoff picture but could be in it in September. I think what's disappointing is this probably could've been a 90+ win team if they signed one of the shortstops and made a big trade for Murphy (or something like that). The FO/owners seemed to want to prioritize long term flexibility and potential in the farm. I'll go along with that strategy if: 1. The 2023 team overperforms my expectations 2. The future looks a lot brighter at the end of 2023 than it does now Neither will NYY, TOR, TB and BAL
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Dec 20, 2022 12:40:55 GMT -5
Compared to how last year ended up, they have a few things going for them. They will not play as many games against the AL East.They have significantly improved their corner outfield spot, with Yoshida essentially replacing the dredge in right field form last year. Yoshida could underperform the 50% ZiPS percentile and still be a major upgrade. First base should also be improved with pretty big upside there. Similar to Yoshida, it wouldn't be very difficult for Casas to be a major improvement. I think it's reasonable to expect Story to add more value in 2023, having a full Spring training and not getting hit in the wrist. Similarly, Kiké doesn't even have to hit like 2021 to add value to centerfield. If he's just a league average or even slightly below hitter, just playing center for 140+ games would add value. Their only loss position player wise is at shortstop. I'm pretty confident DH and catcher can stay the same. And one thing that can mitigate that loss is that Xander, whether you believe in clutchness or not, was very bad in high leverage last year, so even though he had a great season overall, he didn't help the team win as much as you would've expected given his numbers. So adding Segura/Andrus/whoever isn't as big a loss as one may expect. Pitching wise, the rotation last year was ravaged by injuries, but the projected 2023 rotation is really teetering on the young guys pitching well and just pitching innings. Can't say that's anything more than a wash. The bullpen certainly looks better, but they weren't even that bad by WPA last year and relievers are so volatile, we'll see. All together I think this ends up being about an 85 win team next year (as of now, offseason not over). Probably on the outside of the playoff picture but could be in it in September. I think what's disappointing is this probably could've been a 90+ win team if they signed one of the shortstops and made a big trade for Murphy (or something like that). The FO/owners seemed to want to prioritize long term flexibility and potential in the farm. I'll go along with that strategy if: 1. The 2023 team overperforms my expectations 2. The future looks a lot brighter at the end of 2023 than it does now Neither will NYY, TOR, TB and BAL Yes, but I was talking about how many games they would win, not their playoff odds.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 20, 2022 12:45:55 GMT -5
Do they have Sale pitching like 50 innings? That's a ludicrous projection unless he's hurt most of the year. Steamer thinks 3 fWAR in 26 starts.
Also, 2 fWAR is roughly "average regular" territory, and that rotation has 11.4 fWAR projected for 5 spots. That's better than #3 starter territory on average.
Look at this roster versus last year's. Other than X, is there a single player who was here last year who you think would improve the current roster? For me the answer is no.
CVaz. Eovaldi. Wacha. Story at 2b over Story at SS. Verdugo in LF over Verdugo in RF. That is a start. But again… the question is faulty. Better is irrelevant. Better *enough* is what matters. Does this team finish top-3 in the AL East? Better than Cleveland? etc. And if the answer is no, next year doesn’t look great, then have any moves been made for the long run? Yoshida, maybe? Wacha was good in counting stats last year but not actually that valuable. He was worth 1.5 fWAR in 23 starts. That's roughly in line with the projections for the 2023 rotation. If teams expected him to drop a 3.32 ERA in 127 innings again he would probably not still be a free agent and he might have a QO attached as well.
2018 or 2021 Eovaldi would be an upgrade. 2019 or 2022 Eovaldi would be a downgrade. His fastball velocity was quite a bit down last year and he was getting teed off on by the end of the year. I don't think he's likely to improve the 2023 rotation beyond adding depth and I'd rather have a 4th round pick.
McGuire was actually a big upgrade over Vazquez last year and I'd also take him over Vazquez this year. I do think that Vazquez will be more productive than Wong this year, so fair, I'll make him #2 on my list.
Re: Story, if the team feels he can't handle SS, he'll very likely stay at 2B. If the team moves him to SS, then, that implies that the team very likely feels he can do well there, which implies we shouldn't be worried about it. There's no likely permutation where Story is our everyday SS and can't handle the position.
I don't like Verdugo's defense in RF either, but he is still a massive upgrade over the guys we were throwing out there last year. JBJ? Arroyo? Cordero? Yoshida is also projected to be better at LF than Verdugo was. So, we're improving at both corners.
---
Better "enough" is moving the goalposts from a lot of the criticisms of this offseason, but I think it's a fair question. I personally think we will be better enough to challenge for WC 2/3, but I'm sure I won't be able to convince anyone to share my optimism. I basically believe that 2022 was an injury-driven worst case scenario, while the good-luck driven best case scenario was basically the 2021 team. If you treat last year's team as more of a low to mid-80s win team with average luck, then, which I do, and if you feel that this team looks better than last year's team, which I do, it's not hard to see a team that could already be in that mid to high-80 win territory and challenging for a WC spot next year. If we sign guys like Andrus and Kluber to round out the roster, all the more so.
There's no specific need to make a move for the long run for the team to be in better shape. The farm is likely to provide useful talent going forward and there are still no albatrosses on the books hindering FA spending. There's no need to get a top FA like Correa or Bogaerts locked up to feel better about the future. In fact, signing any of the top guys this offseason would have made me feel better about the next few years, but worse in the long run, given how expensive and long their contracts ended up being. For me it has to be a productive player at a non-exorbitant price, especially if the team isn't already bursting with controllable 2 WAR types.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 20, 2022 12:47:58 GMT -5
Neither will NYY, TOR, TB and BAL Yes, but I was talking about how many games they would win, not their playoff odds. And this should actually improve their playoff odds regardless. Less games in the division and the East being strong means the East will kick the snot out of the Central and West teams. That in turn means the WC winners will be more likely to come from the East. The Sox do still need to finish in at least fourth in the East to have a shot, but the schedule change will help their overall odds. And this isn't even considering how bad the Sox were against the East last year and how good they were against everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 20, 2022 12:57:19 GMT -5
CVaz. Eovaldi. Wacha. Story at 2b over Story at SS. Verdugo in LF over Verdugo in RF. That is a start. But again… the question is faulty. Better is irrelevant. Better *enough* is what matters. Does this team finish top-3 in the AL East? Better than Cleveland? etc. And if the answer is no, next year doesn’t look great, then have any moves been made for the long run? Yoshida, maybe? Wacha was good in counting stats last year but not actually that valuable. He was worth 1.5 fWAR in 23 starts. That's roughly in line with the projections for the 2023 rotation. If teams expected him to drop a 3.32 ERA in 127 innings again he would probably not still be a free agent and he might have a QO attached as well.
2018 or 2021 Eovaldi would be an upgrade. 2019 or 2022 Eovaldi would be a downgrade. His fastball velocity was quite a bit down last year and he was getting teed off on by the end of the year. I don't think he's likely to improve the 2023 rotation beyond adding depth and I'd rather have a 4th round pick.
McGuire was actually a big upgrade over Vazquez last year and I'd also take him over Vazquez this year. I do think that Vazquez will be more productive than Wong this year, so fair, I'll make him #2 on my list.
Re: Story, if the team feels he can't handle SS, he'll very likely stay at 2B. If the team moves him to SS, then, that implies that the team very likely feels he can do well there, which implies we shouldn't be worried about it. There's no likely permutation where Story is our everyday SS and can't handle the position.
I don't like Verdugo's defense in RF either, but he is still a massive upgrade over the guys we were throwing out there last year. JBJ? Arroyo? Cordero? Yoshida is also projected to be better at LF than Verdugo was. So, we're improving at both corners.
---
Better "enough" is moving the goalposts from a lot of the criticisms of this offseason, but I think it's a fair question. I personally think we will be better enough to challenge for WC 2/3, but I'm sure I won't be able to convince anyone to share my optimism. I basically believe that 2022 was an injury-driven worst case scenario, while the good-luck driven best case scenario was basically the 2021 team. If you treat last year's team as more of a low to mid-80s win team with average luck, then, which I do, and if you feel that this team looks better than last year's team, which I do, it's not hard to see a team that could already be in that mid to high-80 win territory and challenging for a WC spot next year. If we sign guys like Andrus and Kluber to round out the roster, all the more so.
There's no specific need to make a move for the long run for the team to be in better shape. The farm is likely to provide useful talent going forward and there are still no albatrosses on the books hindering FA spending. There's no need to get a top FA like Correa or Bogaerts locked up to feel better about the future. In fact, signing any of the top guys this offseason would have made me feel better about the next few years, but worse in the long run, given how expensive and long their contracts ended up being. For me it has to be a productive player at a non-exorbitant price, especially if the team isn't already bursting with controllable 2 WAR types.
I don’t think it is moving goalposts, because there are a ton of ways to look at “better.” As I’ve said, for example, Turner is better than 2022 JDM, but that JDM was terrible. So if you badly lower a bar then raise it slightly, you are better. But it doesn’t mean better *enough.* I’ll just say that Wacha was 3.3 bWAR. If you sub in Paxton, you have a real uphill battle. Paxton has started 22+ games 3 times. He hasn’t thrown 22 *innings* in 3 years. I think there is a lot of magical thinking around him.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 20, 2022 13:20:50 GMT -5
Wacha was good in counting stats last year but not actually that valuable. He was worth 1.5 fWAR in 23 starts. That's roughly in line with the projections for the 2023 rotation. If teams expected him to drop a 3.32 ERA in 127 innings again he would probably not still be a free agent and he might have a QO attached as well.
2018 or 2021 Eovaldi would be an upgrade. 2019 or 2022 Eovaldi would be a downgrade. His fastball velocity was quite a bit down last year and he was getting teed off on by the end of the year. I don't think he's likely to improve the 2023 rotation beyond adding depth and I'd rather have a 4th round pick.
McGuire was actually a big upgrade over Vazquez last year and I'd also take him over Vazquez this year. I do think that Vazquez will be more productive than Wong this year, so fair, I'll make him #2 on my list.
Re: Story, if the team feels he can't handle SS, he'll very likely stay at 2B. If the team moves him to SS, then, that implies that the team very likely feels he can do well there, which implies we shouldn't be worried about it. There's no likely permutation where Story is our everyday SS and can't handle the position.
I don't like Verdugo's defense in RF either, but he is still a massive upgrade over the guys we were throwing out there last year. JBJ? Arroyo? Cordero? Yoshida is also projected to be better at LF than Verdugo was. So, we're improving at both corners.
---
Better "enough" is moving the goalposts from a lot of the criticisms of this offseason, but I think it's a fair question. I personally think we will be better enough to challenge for WC 2/3, but I'm sure I won't be able to convince anyone to share my optimism. I basically believe that 2022 was an injury-driven worst case scenario, while the good-luck driven best case scenario was basically the 2021 team. If you treat last year's team as more of a low to mid-80s win team with average luck, then, which I do, and if you feel that this team looks better than last year's team, which I do, it's not hard to see a team that could already be in that mid to high-80 win territory and challenging for a WC spot next year. If we sign guys like Andrus and Kluber to round out the roster, all the more so.
There's no specific need to make a move for the long run for the team to be in better shape. The farm is likely to provide useful talent going forward and there are still no albatrosses on the books hindering FA spending. There's no need to get a top FA like Correa or Bogaerts locked up to feel better about the future. In fact, signing any of the top guys this offseason would have made me feel better about the next few years, but worse in the long run, given how expensive and long their contracts ended up being. For me it has to be a productive player at a non-exorbitant price, especially if the team isn't already bursting with controllable 2 WAR types.
I don’t think it is moving goalposts, because there are a ton of ways to look at “better.” As I’ve said, for example, Turner is better than 2022 JDM, but that JDM was terrible. So if you badly lower a bar then raise it slightly, you are better. But it doesn’t mean better *enough.* I’ll just say that Wacha was 3.3 bWAR. If you sub in Paxton, you have a real uphill battle. Paxton has started 22+ games 3 times. He hasn’t thrown 22 *innings* in 3 years. I think there is a lot of magical thinking around him. Can you define what "better enough" is for you? Like what is sufficient progress to say that the off-season went well? I think it's helpful if we all understand the targets we're talking about. To me: A high 80s win team with strong development / performance from cost controlled guys and the farm would be a successful season. Re-sign Devers and then in the end I'll be happy enough with how the off-season played out.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 20, 2022 13:26:36 GMT -5
I don’t think it is moving goalposts, because there are a ton of ways to look at “better.” As I’ve said, for example, Turner is better than 2022 JDM, but that JDM was terrible. So if you badly lower a bar then raise it slightly, you are better. But it doesn’t mean better *enough.* I’ll just say that Wacha was 3.3 bWAR. If you sub in Paxton, you have a real uphill battle. Paxton has started 22+ games 3 times. He hasn’t thrown 22 *innings* in 3 years. I think there is a lot of magical thinking around him. Can you define what "better enough" is for you? Like what is sufficient progress to say that the off-season went well? I think it's helpful if we all understand the targets we're talking about. To me: A high 80s win team with strong development / performance from cost controlled guys and the farm would be a successful season. Re-sign Devers and then in the end I'll be happy enough with how the off-season played out. Better enough would be at least clearly favored ahead of some AL East rivals? I think they are better than the Orioles, but it shouldn’t be a question. The Rays always seem catchable… but have they? Can’t the development happen even with a better team? I mean, nothing about resigning X, for example, interferes with Casas. And development also seems like the lowest possible bar. There could be a major league strike and minor leaguers could develop.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 20, 2022 13:49:25 GMT -5
Can you define what "better enough" is for you? Like what is sufficient progress to say that the off-season went well? I think it's helpful if we all understand the targets we're talking about. To me: A high 80s win team with strong development / performance from cost controlled guys and the farm would be a successful season. Re-sign Devers and then in the end I'll be happy enough with how the off-season played out. Better enough would be at least clearly favored ahead of some AL East rivals? I think they are better than the Orioles, but it shouldn’t be a question. The Rays always seem catchable… but have they? Can’t the development happen even with a better team? I mean, nothing about resigning X, for example, interferes with Casas. And development also seems like the lowest possible bar. There could be a major league strike and minor leaguers could develop. Ah okay so to me clearly favored heading into the season isn't a realistic goal, at least not with how I want them to be building, given where last season left off. I don't think that was possible without trading the farm (or signing like Correa + Verlander on top of the guys they got, but that's not in the budget). It's fair to want them to do that I think, but personally not what I'd want. I think they can outperform other AL East teams, I don't think winning the division is impossible, but I also don't think the FO went into the off-season with the thought that they would be pre-season favorites in the division coming out of it. To me, I will evaluate the success of the off-season based on the actual performance of the new team (and taking into account uncontrollable variables), rather than the pre-season judgement, because that says more about the FO's talent evaluation/selection. Yes player development can happen with a better team, but to put on the field a team of the pre-season-expectations-caliber you are deeming acceptable would have required sacrificing several of the highest development-potential players. Agree on re-signing X, I wish they had, but to me that is actually more of a failure of last off-season (low balling extension offer) than this one as I wouldn't have wanted them to match SD. In terms of overall FA evaluation this distinction doesn't matter, but for evaluating this specific off-season it does. Also, signing him would not have changed where they will be projected to finish in the division heading into the season. I also think this mistake is recoverable as I personally don't believe Xander will age super well (but I hope I'm wrong there).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 20, 2022 14:04:51 GMT -5
Better enough would be at least clearly favored ahead of some AL East rivals? I think they are better than the Orioles, but it shouldn’t be a question. The Rays always seem catchable… but have they? Can’t the development happen even with a better team? I mean, nothing about resigning X, for example, interferes with Casas. And development also seems like the lowest possible bar. There could be a major league strike and minor leaguers could develop. Ah okay so to me clearly favored heading into the season isn't a realistic goal, at least not with how I want them to be building, given where last season left off. I don't think that was possible without trading the farm (or signing like Correa + Verlander on top of the guys they got, but that's not in the budget). It's fair to want them to do that I think, but personally not what I'd want. I think they can outperform other AL East teams, I don't think winning the division is impossible, but I also don't think the FO went into the off-season with the thought that they would be pre-season favorites in the division coming out of it. To me, I will evaluate the success of the off-season based on the actual performance of the new team (and taking into account uncontrollable variables), rather than the pre-season judgement, because that says more about the FO's talent evaluation/selection. Yes player development can happen with a better team, but to put on the field a team of the pre-season-expectations-caliber you are deeming acceptable would have required sacrificing several of the highest development-potential players. Agree on re-signing X, I wish they had, but to me that is actually more of a failure of last off-season (low balling extension offer) than this one as I wouldn't have wanted them to match SD. In terms of overall FA evaluation this distinction doesn't matter, but for evaluating this specific off-season it does. Also, signing him would not have changed where they will be projected to finish in the division heading into the season. I also think this mistake is recoverable as I personally don't believe Xander will age super well (but I hope I'm wrong there). Ok. But my issue is, let’s say they finish third, just miss the WC, and Turner, Kluber, and Jansen have really good years. That means they have had an ok year — but minimally ok — *and* it has been built around guys who will simple go poof in a year or two. It is neither a short term nor a long term gain. So then you are looking at 2024 with a roster that is a year older (good in a handful of areas like Casas), with money but what did that get them this year? It just seems like a game of kick the can. Put differently, Turner is totally a Gomes type. If there is a good core, he makes you championship quality. But with the erosion of the core… it is just good enough to he a Goldilocks move.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 20, 2022 14:14:11 GMT -5
Ah okay so to me clearly favored heading into the season isn't a realistic goal, at least not with how I want them to be building, given where last season left off. I don't think that was possible without trading the farm (or signing like Correa + Verlander on top of the guys they got, but that's not in the budget). It's fair to want them to do that I think, but personally not what I'd want. I think they can outperform other AL East teams, I don't think winning the division is impossible, but I also don't think the FO went into the off-season with the thought that they would be pre-season favorites in the division coming out of it. To me, I will evaluate the success of the off-season based on the actual performance of the new team (and taking into account uncontrollable variables), rather than the pre-season judgement, because that says more about the FO's talent evaluation/selection. Yes player development can happen with a better team, but to put on the field a team of the pre-season-expectations-caliber you are deeming acceptable would have required sacrificing several of the highest development-potential players. Agree on re-signing X, I wish they had, but to me that is actually more of a failure of last off-season (low balling extension offer) than this one as I wouldn't have wanted them to match SD. In terms of overall FA evaluation this distinction doesn't matter, but for evaluating this specific off-season it does. Also, signing him would not have changed where they will be projected to finish in the division heading into the season. I also think this mistake is recoverable as I personally don't believe Xander will age super well (but I hope I'm wrong there). Ok. But my issue is, let’s say they finish third, just miss the WC, and Turner, Kluber, and Jansen have really good years. That means they have had an ok year — but minimally ok — *and* it has been built around guys who will simple go poof in a year or two. It is neither a short term nor a long term gain. So then you are looking at 2024 with a roster that is a year older (good in a handful of areas like Casas), with money but what did that get them this year? It just seems like a game of kick the can. Put differently, Turner is totally a Gomes type. If there is a good core, he makes you championship quality. But with the erosion of the core… it is just good enough to he a Goldilocks move. I guess I just believe they need Casas/Bello types to develop into valuable players so that this all works. If you have to pay $30M for all your core players it gets really really hard to succeed. Once you have that core of controlled guys in place that is when it's the optimal time to buy the expensive stars to supplement them (like Dombrowski did with Price/Kimbrel). If those guys like Casas and Bello do develop this year the team should outperform the pre-season expectations. I personally am okay with can-kicking (in a way that attempts to/is competitive) until we have those pieces in place.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,659
|
Post by gerry on Dec 20, 2022 14:27:42 GMT -5
My question is to you Manfred, is anything the Sox have done this offseason, or may ever do, better enoughâ.
Their moves have improved the bullpen substantially. They spent $$ to do so by signing Jansen, Martin, Mills, Rodriguez while retaining Houck, Schreiber, Kelly, Crawford, Taylor, et al, and added to AAA depth. Jansen and Martin are capable of raising esprit to new levels. Is that enough?
This board was originally happy that JDMâs contract was over. Some wanted a DH platoon of Hosmer/Dalbec. Turner, on a one or two year deal likely improved on both options with both his bat and glove, and the clubhouse. Is that enough?
Last year Sale, Paxton, Eovaldi, Houck, Whitlock, Seabold, Kiké, Devers, XB, JDM, Storey, Verdugo, Arroyo and others either played through or lost time to injuries. The Sox should never have signed such unhealthy players, right? Is it enough to expect enough regression to the norm (these are mostly the same guys that did so well in 2021) to be a good team again? If yes, that would be better enough, right?
IF and C defense should improve. OF defense should at least stay the same, even remembering some of the issues from 2022. An argument could be made, all things considered, defense will be pretty close to better enough, right.
Some are implying that a lineup with Yoshida, Storey, Devers, Turner, Verdugo, Andrus, Kiké, McWong, Refsnyder, Arroyo will not even be better than 2022, much less contend. Thatâs just crazy.
IMHO. Better offense (even benefiting from Devers, Turner, Paxton, others playing for a contract). Better IF defense, and likely OF defense (healthy Kiké and Verdugo). Better and deeper Rotation with more to come. Better bullpen. Better clubhouse vibes with Turner, Yoshida, Jansen, Martin and a healthy Kiké. I would think this and more signings should be âbetter enoughâ to compete successfully in 2023.
And most of these contracts are short term because guys like Mayer, Rafaela, Bleis, Mata, Murphy and more will soon join young Bello, Casas, Houck, Whitlock, Verdugo and, now, Yoshida. Will that be better enough?
Other than giving an extra $$100,000,000 to 30 year old Xander to make up for the earlier botched negotiations, and signing Abreu, Murphy, Scherzer, the Sox seem to be emerging from the offseason improved.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 20, 2022 14:54:43 GMT -5
My question is to you Manfred, is anything the Sox have done this offseason, or may ever do, better enoughâ. Their moves have improved the bullpen substantially. They spent $$ to do so by signing Jansen, Martin, Mills, Rodriguez while retaining Houck, Schreiber, Kelly, Crawford, Taylor, et al, and added to AAA depth. Jansen and Martin are capable of raising esprit to new levels. Is that enough? This board was originally happy that JDMâs contract was over. Some wanted a DH platoon of Hosmer/Dalbec. Turner, on a one or two year deal likely improved on both options with both his bat and glove, and the clubhouse. Is that enough? Last year Sale, Paxton, Eovaldi, Houck, Whitlock, Seabold, Kiké, Devers, XB, JDM, Storey, Verdugo, Arroyo and others either played through or lost time to injuries. The Sox should never have signed such unhealthy players, right? Is it enough to expect enough regression to the norm (these are mostly the same guys that did so well in 2021) to be a good team again? If yes, that would be better enough, right? IF and C defense should improve. OF defense should at least stay the same, even remembering some of the issues from 2022. An argument could be made, all things considered, defense will be pretty close to better enough, right. Some are implying that a lineup with Yoshida, Storey, Devers, Turner, Verdugo, Andrus, Kiké, McWong, Refsnyder, Arroyo will not even be better than 2022, much less contend. Thatâs just crazy. IMHO. Better offense (even benefiting from Devers, Turner, Paxton, others playing for a contract). Better IF defense, and likely OF defense (healthy Kiké and Verdugo). Better and deeper Rotation with more to come. Better bullpen. Better clubhouse vibes with Turner, Yoshida, Jansen, Martin and a healthy Kiké. I would think this and more signings should be âbetter enoughâ to compete successfully in 2023. And most of these contracts are short term because guys like Mayer, Rafaela, Bleis, Mata, Murphy and more will soon join young Bello, Casas, Houck, Whitlock, Verdugo and, now, Yoshida. Will that be better enough? Other than giving an extra $$100,000,000 to 30 year old Xander to make up for the earlier botched negotiations, and signing Abreu, Murphy, Scherzer, the Sox seem to be emerging from the offseason improved. I’ve said what I think better enough might be: picked to finish at worst in 3rd place with a high likelihood of a WC. That is a low standard, but it is a big improvement over last place. I’ve also applauded moves. The bullpen is better. Yoshida is worth a shot. Even Turner is ok. But no one went into this off season thinking “you know what would be good? Let X walk, sign a guy from Japan, a closer, and Turner. That’s the smart move.” I’d like to hear someone say this was a good plan, it all came together. I imagine everyone acknowledges this was a bit of a scramble to make the best of things. Yoshida is a massive X factor. If he is good, they could have a pretty good lineup. But I assume nothing with him… neither good not bad. He could be almost anything. So I definitely can’t call it an improvement. I’ll simply set it aside and say TBD. A good deal of this comes down to the rotation, and I have less faith in Paxton and Sale than a lot of folks. I just think they can’t stay healthy. If they do, I am certainly underestimating the team. It is all guesswork, so I know full well where I might be missing. Casas could come out like a house on fire. Story might be an all star. Verdugo might be good. The rotation might be excellent. It is why they play.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 20, 2022 15:29:43 GMT -5
To simplify a bit, there's three main things that determine how good the team you build is: 1) How much money is being spent? 2) How well is the money being spent? 3) How much cheap talent do you have? #1 is on the owners, and they spend a good amount. #2 is on Chaim and you can check the spreadsheet he has spent very efficiently #3 is a huge factor and the Red Sox have been near the bottom of the league for years. I like your format so I'm going to steal it, but I'm mostly going to disagree with you 1) They spend money, there's no denying that. Last year was their "cheapest" year in two decades and they were 6th in spending and they were within about 10% of second place. However, I haven't really liked the way that they've spent money recently. I don't get how you spend $160M on Story and are absolute geniuses, but dropping $180M on Bogaerts would have been pure stupidity. I get age differences and other variables, but don't like how that played out. Ditto for the long walk to get from Benintendi to [insert guy's name I'm not going to bother looking up] who hasn't played a single game in MLB. 2) *checks spreadsheet* In 2020 when they gave up on the season before it started: +88.6 surplus WAR via trade The next 2 years when the team was competing and we were to bear witness to C***m B***m's infinite wisdom: -61 surplus WAR via trade Credit where credit is due, the trades with the Dodgers and Phillies worked out well. The rest is not pretty. I'm giving Bloom zero credit for 2020 free agency, he spent $5.8M on 6 guys and got less than 3 WAR. 2021 was a good year for free agency if you like cost-per-WAR analysis. However, 2/3 of his good decisions were acquiring Renfroe and letting JBJ walk and he screwed both up by trading Renfroe for JBJ the following year. 3) The Red Sox claiming they're going to win by developing the farm system is like the A's saying they're going to win with their payroll. The system is stacked against the Sox and if they're even a little competitive then they have to get lucky to have even an average farm system.Slightly off topic, but 5 of the current top 10 prospects are Dombrowski's guys and 10 of the top 20 too. That's if we don't count Bello on DD's side. I get that prospects take time and this might not be completely fair, but the notion that DD did anything wrong or that Bloom is righting the ship seems overblown to me. I particularly dislike Bloom's tinkering at the bottom. He looks like he has the same strategy I have in my Fantasy Football league. I lack the time, energy, talent and resources to adequately pick the bottom of my roster so I constantly chase shiny objects and end up with twice as many transactions as everyone else. Same for the Sox, although they might have a little more success. They likely have the strongest group of 31-60 prospects in recorded Red Sox history. Congratulations. There's two other things I think come to mind with this front office: 4) Zero loyalty to players under Bloom and, by extension, no loyalty to fans either. I'm not inclined to give Bloom any leeway or loyalty when that's clearly not his game. 5) I don't think the team factors in enough variability when looking at outside talent. Looking again at Story, I don't think they properly projected his floor with his deal and there is a seemingly endless list of other outside players who didn't work out in Boston. There is huge, huge, value for players who want to play in Boston and can thrive. Retaining players isn't just good for players and fans, it adds a level of certainty to projected outcomes that this team has typically not received from outside players. So, yeah not really a fan. Time to find the next Dombrowski. Is it really that dire? I know that small-market teams get competitive balance picks and a bit more international bonus pool money, but that hardly means that the big-market teams are in "have to get lucky to have even an average farm system" territory. The Dodgers have managed to maintain a great farm system for years now while also having one of the highest payrolls in the game, so it certainly can be done. Am I missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 20, 2022 15:54:55 GMT -5
Is it really that dire? I know that small-market teams get competitive balance picks and a bit more international bonus pool money, but that hardly means that the big-market teams are in "have to get lucky to have even an average farm system" territory. The Dodgers have managed to maintain a great farm system for years now while also having one of the highest payrolls in the game, so it certainly can be done. Am I missing something here? I mean, I'm probably overselling it a little but the first team out of the playoffs gets the 19th pick in the draft, right? If you compete and consistently make the playoffs most years how would you not have the 19th best farm system or worse without a big dose of luck? By having a better scouting team, drafting approach and player development system, right? I know that MLB teams have all gotten smarter, but there must still be ways to get an edge, I don't think draft pick and prospect outcomes are entirely random. I'm not saying the Red Sox are necessarily better at these things (though for most of the 21st century they empirically have been), but teams aren't all equal I assume. Like - the Red Sox took Nick Yorke and that was a big surprise and also netted them Blaze Jordan, that was a creative approach to the draft, it's still TBD if that pans out, but not every team would have made the same decisions there and I don't think it's necessarily luck if their approach does work.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Dec 20, 2022 16:00:24 GMT -5
I mean, if teams are routinely making the playoffs, it probably means they're better at identifying and developing talent - if all teams were equally good at it, there'd be way more parity. Even NBA teams can do well picking in last third of the first round, and there's way more certainty with first round basketball picks than first rounders in baseball. I don't think there's much of an inherent link between market size, draft position, and farm system.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 20, 2022 16:09:58 GMT -5
I mean, I'm probably overselling it a little but the first team out of the playoffs gets the 19th pick in the draft, right? If you compete and consistently make the playoffs most years how would you not have the 19th best farm system or worse without a big dose of luck? By having a better scouting team, drafting approach and player development system, right? I know that MLB teams have all gotten smarter, but there must still be ways to get an edge, I don't think draft pick and prospect outcomes are entirely random. I'm not saying the Red Sox are necessarily better at these things (though for most of the 21st century they empirically have been), but teams aren't all equal I assume. Like - the Red Sox took Nick Yorke and that was a big surprise and also netted them Blaze Jordan, that was a creative approach to the draft, it's still TBD if that pans out, but not every team would have made the same decisions there and I don't think it's necessarily luck if their approach does work. I would add that teams can also use their financial muscle to add prospects. E.g., by taking on an overpriced contract like JBJ's or Ottavino's and getting Binelas, Hamilton, and German in the bargain.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Dec 20, 2022 18:08:28 GMT -5
I mean, if teams are routinely making the playoffs, it probably means they're better at identifying and developing talent - if all teams were equally good at it, there'd be way more parity. Even NBA teams can do well picking in last third of the first round, and there's way more certainty with first round basketball picks than first rounders in baseball. I don't think there's much of an inherent link between market size, draft position, and farm system.Here are the links to do the math if you want, but my 30-second eyeball test says that the bolded statement is mostly incorrect. The Dodgers being the most notable exception and the Red Sox being higher than they usually are mostly because of their uncharacteristically high 2021 draft position. www.mlb.com/draft/2023/orderwww.mlb.com/news/farm-system-rankings-2022-midseasonI'll be honest: even if I took just those two factors, 2023 draft order and 2022 midseason farm system rankings, as sufficient on their own to prove anything, I still don't see a meaningful link between market size, draft position, and farm system. The Yankees have the #12 system in the biggest market and a regular postseason presence with a lower draft pick. The Rays have a top 10 system, a tiny market, and are also regularly in contention, with a lower draft pick. The Royals have the #21 system and have been drafting highly for a while. I think you can find any combination of market size/draft position/farm system quality that you want. Yeah, it's probably easier to build a good farm system with better draft picks... but it's also hard to get the highest draft picks if you're a well-run organization, part of which is identifying and developing talent. It probably all balances out in the wash such that it isn't a consistent, meaningful relationship, but instead down to each team's particular circumstances. There are still only 30 teams, and I don't honestly know if that's a big enough sample to figure out what's the single best way to do anything.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 20, 2022 18:16:45 GMT -5
I'll be honest: even if I took just those two factors, 2023 draft order and 2022 midseason farm system rankings, as sufficient on their own to prove anything, I still don't see a meaningful link between market size, draft position, and farm system. The Yankees have the #12 system in the biggest market and a regular postseason presence with a lower draft pick. The Rays have a top 10 system, a tiny market, and are also regularly in contention, with a lower draft pick. The Royals have the #21 system and have been drafting highly for a while. I think you can find any combination of market size/draft position/farm system quality that you want. Yeah, it's probably easier to build a good farm system with better draft picks... but it's also hard to get the highest draft picks if you're a well-run organization, part of which is identifying and developing talent. It probably all balances out in the wash such that it isn't a consistent, meaningful relationship, but instead down to each team's particular circumstances. There are still only 30 teams, and I don't honestly know if that's a big enough sample to figure out what's the single best way to do anything. This is now 5 years old, but as of 2017: blogs.fangraphs.com/how-the-teams-have-drafted-in-this-millennium/The article shows that the Red Sox were the best team at drafting by WAR from 2000-2016 (though obviously only players drafted through 2013ish would actually factor in here). They were also one of the winningest teams in baseball in that period. The Braves and Cardinals also show up at the high end despite being overall good teams. Meanwhile on the low end are Orioles who were not notoriously successful in this window. Maybe the bars have narrowed since then, would love a refreshed look at this. Credit for this probably goes to Theo & Co., he really did build a drafting and player development machine.
|
|
|
Post by runner on Dec 20, 2022 18:42:26 GMT -5
I'll be honest: even if I took just those two factors, 2023 draft order and 2022 midseason farm system rankings, as sufficient on their own to prove anything, I still don't see a meaningful link between market size, draft position, and farm system. The Yankees have the #12 system in the biggest market and a regular postseason presence with a lower draft pick. The Rays have a top 10 system, a tiny market, and are also regularly in contention, with a lower draft pick. The Royals have the #21 system and have been drafting highly for a while. I think you can find any combination of market size/draft position/farm system quality that you want. Yeah, it's probably easier to build a good farm system with better draft picks... but it's also hard to get the highest draft picks if you're a well-run organization, part of which is identifying and developing talent. It probably all balances out in the wash such that it isn't a consistent, meaningful relationship, but instead down to each team's particular circumstances. There are still only 30 teams, and I don't honestly know if that's a big enough sample to figure out what's the single best way to do anything. This is now 5 years old, but as of 2017: blogs.fangraphs.com/how-the-teams-have-drafted-in-this-millennium/The article shows that the Red Sox were the best team at drafting by WAR from 2000-2016 (though obviously only players drafted through 2013ish would actually factor in here). They were also one of the winningest teams in baseball in that period. The Braves and Cardinals also show up at the high end despite being overall good teams. Meanwhile on the low end are Orioles who were not notoriously successful in this window. Maybe the bars have narrowed since then, would love a refreshed look at this. Credit for this probably goes to Theo & Co., he really did build a drafting and player development machine. I'd imagine the power shift trended towards the Dodgers or Astros from 2017 and on. The Braves are probably high on the list, too.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 20, 2022 21:27:06 GMT -5
This is now 5 years old, but as of 2017: blogs.fangraphs.com/how-the-teams-have-drafted-in-this-millennium/The article shows that the Red Sox were the best team at drafting by WAR from 2000-2016 (though obviously only players drafted through 2013ish would actually factor in here). They were also one of the winningest teams in baseball in that period. The Braves and Cardinals also show up at the high end despite being overall good teams. Meanwhile on the low end are Orioles who were not notoriously successful in this window. Maybe the bars have narrowed since then, would love a refreshed look at this. Credit for this probably goes to Theo & Co., he really did build a drafting and player development machine. I'd imagine the power shift trended towards the Dodgers or Astros from 2017 and on. The Braves are probably high on the list, too. Dodgers have had top 10 and many top 5 system rankings since 2012, and have made the playoffs almost every year since that year. Because of where they typically pick (as late or later than Boston or NYY) I would say they have the best scouting and player development organization in MLB, as well as the best internal system for integrating the two. Houston went into 3 years of full tank to build up their farm (although they had some stinker first round picks), but they have sustained their player development success since winning their first WS. They let Springer, Cole, Morton, Kuechel and Correa go and really didn’t miss a step. Bregman may be next. Altuve is the holdover and Peña is the new star. Crane runs that team now, so who knows what their future is. Sox are top of second tier by MLB ranking. But I feel like they are more wide than deep, and their highest rated talent was mostly A or even below A-ball. They look like they will advance 1 guy this year Casas, and maybe Rafaela if an OF gets hurt, but more likely in 2024. 2025 looks to be an absolute earliest for Mayer. That’s not so much a core, as three potentially nice players who have chances to hit high ceilings. After those three though, it’s decidedly murky. Yorke could be something or we could all be watching Pete Crow Armstrong next year on the Cubs and thinking what could’ve been. Bleis is so far away, I would contend he shouldn’t even be ranked (nor should anyone) until he reaches high A. That’s just too much projection tossed over too many unknown variables. I mean, who really knows if Bleis, Perles, Romero or Anthony will even get past AAA? They are so far away Walter’s prob a 4/5, but if he hits his ceiling of a 3 it would be a pleasant surprise. .Even Mata, who looks like an ace sometimes, could end up in the pen because of his control. So perhaps some pieces but no real core or ace. And nothing approximating that in the next couple years.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 20, 2022 21:49:18 GMT -5
This is now 5 years old, but as of 2017: blogs.fangraphs.com/how-the-teams-have-drafted-in-this-millennium/The article shows that the Red Sox were the best team at drafting by WAR from 2000-2016 (though obviously only players drafted through 2013ish would actually factor in here). They were also one of the winningest teams in baseball in that period. The Braves and Cardinals also show up at the high end despite being overall good teams. Meanwhile on the low end are Orioles who were not notoriously successful in this window. Maybe the bars have narrowed since then, would love a refreshed look at this. Credit for this probably goes to Theo & Co., he really did build a drafting and player development machine. I'd imagine the power shift trended towards the Dodgers or Astros from 2017 and on. The Braves are probably high on the list, too. If I had to guess the Red Sox are still in the lead here as between Mookie, Benintendi, Vazquez, Rizzo and a few others they've put up 50+ more WAR in the span since then and they had a big lead, and that's despite the fact that Devers and Bogaerts wouldn't even count. But yeah if we look at purely guys who debuted after this was published they're surely no where near the top.
|
|
|