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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 15, 2015 22:09:06 GMT -5
They want to compete. If you'd do the deal in a heartbeat, that means it's not good. If you started that with Betts and Erod, then Dipoto would start talking to you. Odds are, even with what Felix is owed, you'd have to give up more. How did you calculate these "odds"?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 14, 2015 18:06:25 GMT -5
I have read a lot of the posts here but not all and so forgive me if this has been discussed before. What San Diego thinking with this trade? Last year they made a bunch of win now type moves. But the year was a disaster for them since many of their win now moves didn't pay off and they still had several holes including a big one at shortstop. So why are they going from win now mode to trading a 28 year old all star for 4 players, the most advanced of which is at least a year away from the big leagues? They got a shortstop but he is probably 3 years away. How does this help a team that has people like Kemp and Shields? How good are those players going to be when Guerra is ready? Kimbrel is the relief pitcher I wanted but I was sure that we would get outbid by someone who had a major league ready shortstop to trade for him. I was thinking the Cubs and Castillo. I do not understand what San Diego was doing with this trade. San Diego was bad last year and realized they aren't going to contend in 2016. They got back more baseball talent than they surrendered last season for Kimbrel, so even if his last season was wasted it worked out for them in the long run. I haven't followed them too closely but I'd imagine this is the best move they've made in the past year.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 14, 2015 0:33:18 GMT -5
I'm holding out hope that Dombrowski will fleece someone else in a deal this winter, and that after looking at all the players dealt and acquired this offseason it'll mostly break even. This trade is really bad though, and the direction and timing of it is disheartening to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 13, 2015 14:30:18 GMT -5
If Carlos Carrasco is a #3 pitcher, sign me up for a rotation full of #3 pitchers just like him.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 27, 2015 13:37:00 GMT -5
Eh, I don't know about that. I might take Denver's CB group over the Jets'-- Revis is the best of the bunch, but Chris Harris is chronically underrated, and Talib is a good bit better than Cromartie. I give LB and edge rusher to Denver as well, and interior defensive line is closer than you think. Fair points, Denver might have as talented of a defense, and they might cause more protection problems for this o-line. Perhaps I'm overstating the importance of Wade Phillips, but in the last three Houston games he basically trotted out the same game plan each time and Brady torched his squads three times. This Denver squad is better than any he had in Houston, but I just can't imagine the Phillips/Kubiak duo neutralizing this Patriots offense all game. Even before Houston I remember Brady torching Phillips in Dallas and San Diego, the only game the Patriots struggled against a Wade Phillips led defense was the 06 divisional playoff matchup. I was probably reacting more to the potential "disaster game" quote, Denver is certainly capable of winning the game but I don't think they are built to win in a rout. I don't know enough about the Bowles regime, but they already strike me as a tougher matchup than the current Denver/former Houston regime, and that's really the bigger difference for me than any gap in talent.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 26, 2015 17:30:18 GMT -5
Eh, I think the Jets defense is more impressive than Denver's. Denver has been great but the best offense they've faced so far was probably KC (they've all been mediocre at best). I'm not too worried about a Wade Phillips defense with this version of Peyton Manning even on the road. This week's game is probably the 2nd or 3rd toughest remaining game on the schedule, especially with the short week and injury situation.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 6, 2015 15:24:00 GMT -5
The 2013 Red Sox won the World Series with a rotation of Lester-Lackey-Buchholz-Peavy-Doubront/Dempster. All of the recent "super rotations" (the Nats this year and Tigers & Phillies before them) have come up short. It'll be impossible to pair two better pitchers than Kershaw/Greinke, and that hasn't resulted in a WS for the Dodgers yet either. Too many people overstate the importance of stacked rotations in terms of winning a title, it's as if people assume a good team with great SP is more likely to win a title than a great team with good SP. The key is to win your division and hope your starters are healthy and able to pitch their best baseball of the season during the playoffs (like Lester and Lackey in 2013). Lester pitched well in 2013 but he wasn't an ace by any reasonable definition, and Lackey put up a regular season in line with Rick Porcello's 2013-2014 production.
Every postseason we see good pitchers outperform great ones in individual games and series. To win a championship you should try to build the best and most balanced team possible, selling out for multiple top of the rotation pitchers isn't going to translate to additional championships. It sounds boring but the key to roster building is consistently making good deals and not selling out for a specific need.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 6, 2015 11:59:45 GMT -5
I'd have no interest in acquiring Strasburg unless the trade package was absurdly low. There's nothing he could do in 2016 that would make me feel confident in an extension. He'll almost certainly get a QO but that draft pick will be factored into the original trade and you'll have to pay for it on the front end. He's also not the type of pitcher you can give a heavy workload to during your one rental season. He's just not a good fit with the current staff.
I'd imagine the other pitchers listed except maybe Sonny Gray would require a more significant return than just Miley/Margot/Guerra/filler, that seems more like a best case scenario. Depending on the cost I'd love any of those targets, but I'd imagine the *real* cost would make them unattractive. I'd target "potential aces" in trades rather than trying to buy high on an established ace this winter, unless of course you could find a favorable trade like the Miley/Margot/etc package discussed above.
It's not reasonable to plan on signing David Price in free agency, other teams have tons of money too and we have no idea what the offers will be. The idea of approaching the offseason with a blank check for David Price is bad business. If the Red Sox can sign David Price within their valuation great, but it obviously can't be the only plan, and you need to prepare for the real possibility that one or more teams will spend stupid money on him.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 24, 2015 22:38:56 GMT -5
Players don't look to sign for 3-5 years less than the market will give them, players look to maximize their total earnings. His age is unique, but it's much more likely Heyward would insist on an opt out clause around the third or fourth season of a contract to give him the best of both worlds. He's having a very good season and his stock is high, this will be the best opportunity he ever has to get paid. It'd make no sense to take a shorter guarantee and leave tons of money on the table just to angle for a potential second free agency half a decade later. He's likely to get an offer around the $200m mark this winter, even at $30m per on a five year deal he'd be leaving $50m+ on the table just for this potential second free agency payday. I'm guessing this winter he'll either sign for $200m+ on a long term deal or $140-160m with some type of player friendly opt out in the contract.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 24, 2015 14:04:01 GMT -5
Jason Heyward is getting at least twice as much as Sandoval, if not more (total money committed). If you add Sandoval and Hanley's deals together that's roughly the Heyward projection (I expect more than that tbh). The only way Heyward would consider a deal for less than 8 years would be with a massive AAV overpay (definitely over $25m per) and/or an early player friendly opt-out. If he decides to target 5 year deals he's still getting $28-30m per, easily.
Comparing the Sandoval deal to Heyward's future deal is as misguided as comparing Price's future deal to Porcello's.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 1, 2015 20:09:33 GMT -5
So did I blackout or did Jerry Remy and Don Orsillo say they don't know if hip hop has been around for 20 years? I don't expect them to listen to it, but good lord how did they miss its existence for DECADES.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 31, 2015 16:07:32 GMT -5
That mightve been a problem if Theo didn't also leave Cherington with plenty of established major league stars. As a big market team, you absolutely can build a team like that with those guys providing a little salary relief so you can build the rest of your roster. Established MLB stars like Crawford, Beckett, and Lackey who had severely negative trade value at the time? The only stars he inherited that performed as stars that season were Pedroia and Ortiz. Lester and Gonzalez were above average but far from stars in 2012, while Ellsbury and Crawford barely combined to play 100 games. The best position players beyond those guys were Cody Ross, WMB, Salty, and Mike Aviles. Crawford and Ellsbury barely combined to play 100 games. The pitching staff behind Lester was an absolute joke. Inheriting a worse situation with their resources would be tough to imagine, at least having a blank slate with no stars would allow the team to be reshaped for the future. Theo and company maxed out the budget for 2012 before the 2011 season even began, and they had less flexibility in Cherington's first offseason than any Red Sox team in my lifetime. The team also saw nearly every key internal piece regress or get injured, and they had no depth due to paying so much to the top end of the roster (and after dealing their top pieces for Gonzalez). The injuries weren't really Theo or Ben's fault, but investing so much money in so few players compromises your ability to create quality depth. Keeping Lowrie and Reddick would've improved the team but not enough to contend. Cherington didn't do a good job with the limited options he had for 2012, but Theo didn't allow him a reasonable shot at contention considering the immovable veteran core wasn't good enough. That core going forward wasn't going to win a World Series, they needed the Gonzalez trade, and it led directly to a WS. People were shocked by the trade because the consensus was the Red Sox were stuck with the roster they had going forward, it took that type of deal to allow Cherington the chance to change Theo's blueprint for the future Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 31, 2015 12:42:46 GMT -5
The WAR comparisons don't work when you mix starters and RPs. The RPs always have lower WARs but I confess I don't know why. You cannot tell me that Chapman with a fWAR of 2.1 is worth less than Buchholz and that you would prefer to have Buchholz. Robertson is the fourth highest rated RP in fWAR. Buchholz is the 19th rated starter. However, he doesn't show up in the fangraphs list of starters and I don't know why. I tried changing the filters to account for his lower innings pitched but that didn't work. Still, when he is looked at separately he has a fWAR of 3.5. Now, compare the actual records. I'm not going to use ERAs because they really can't be reasonably compared between starters and relievers and I think many of us now don't put as much weight on them as we once did. Buchholz started 18 games and made no relief appearances. He pitched 113 innings, won 7 and lost 7. He had a FIP of 2.67 and an xFIP of 3.27. Robertson has appeared in 48 games, all in relief, and has pitched 52 innings. He has won 6 games and lost 3. He has saved 27, which is less than normal for him, but then he is pitching for a bad team. His FIP is 2.09 and his xFIP is 2.17. All other things being equal, if Robertson had been pitching for the Sox instead of Buchholz, don't you think the team record would be better? How many games have been lost by the bullpen this year? A lot more than won by Buchholz. I think just the addition of one RP of Robertson's quality could have made the Sox a .500 team. And now seeing how much better the team has become, I wonder where the team would be in the standings today if the Sox had gone out and fixed the bullpen when its weaknesses became so obvious early in the season? Well, since Robertson can't be a one man bullpen and pitch every inning of relief, those games would still be blown by the likes of Breslow, Ogando, etc. The team would not gain ten wins from one reliever in less than a full season, that's crazy talk. EDIT: As long as we're talking about Buchholz wins, I thought I'd throw this out there: Clay Buchholz pitched 18 games this season, and the Red Sox lost 10 of those games. In seven of those ten games, the Red Sox scored one run (they also scored one run in a 1-0 win).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 27, 2015 16:51:46 GMT -5
shaw has impressed me with the abiity to lay off tough pitches from lefties and woek counts against high octane guys. (severino, kluber, dude last night). I really don't think he'll be much more than 260/20/85 with his share of doubles and walks, with some solid defense. In Boston it won't fly. it didn't for daubach (much worse on d) but that's a chip that some national league team will give us some power arms and/or a starter for in a package. hmmm I choose andrew cashner Daubach played in a completely different offensive environment. Brian Daubach's 1999 and 2001 offensive numbers would be elite now. Also, .260 with "walks and solid defense" and 20+ HR power would basically be 2013 Mike Napoli, and that certainly plays in Boston. I don't think Shaw will be that productive, but if he is that productive he's clearly good enough to get a starting spot going forward.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 25, 2015 14:00:34 GMT -5
I haven't watched the NESN telecasts as much as usual, but I've still managed to hear Remy talk multiple times about how "lost" he'd be without this job and how much it means for his overall well being. I remember one instance where Don and Jerry were talking about what they'd do if they won the lottery/powerball, and Remy said he'd continue his job. Don laughed about it and joked Remy would move on, and then Remy changed his tone and stressed how much he loved the job and how important it was to him. Even before this news it felt like there was something going on behind the scenes, I just figured Don would stay and Remy would be the guy they'd phase out.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 18, 2015 21:53:45 GMT -5
For weeks dozens of us have been trying to figure out how to fix the Sox and there was very little consensus. Mostly, we scratched our collective heads about what to do about Hanley and Sandoval, a terrible bullpen and lousy starting pitching without spending a fortune on free agents or trading away the farm. It didn't seem that the team management had any better idea than most of us. Well, folks, that's about to change. Things are going to happen. And I am all for that. I always have believed that when things are not going well, make changes even if the changes are not obviously better. Change is better than standing still. This is the type of thinking that allowed Tito to be replaced by Bobby Valentine.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 13, 2015 14:49:44 GMT -5
If the Red Sox traded Pedroia "well over a year ago", that would've been the 2013-2014 offseason...you know, a few months after a World Series Championship and before the seven year extension signed only a few months back actually began. This was also before Mookie Betts had played a game above Salem. Now, lets assume the Red Sox would've "won" that hypothetical Pedroia trade (a big assumption): would the trade actually help the franchise enough to be worth the negative impact of dealing a guy like Pedroia, especially considering the timing? I'd say it's doubtful, even given hindsight of the 2014-2015 teams being worse than anyone could've projected, and Mookie going through the system faster than anyone could've projected. To compensate for that type of a deal, the Red Sox would likely have to start handing out real no trade protection in deals going forward. Money talks but people actually do value security, especially home grown players who've already settled into the area and might consider extensions before free agency. If you take away that feeling of security you'll absolutely need to compensate in terms of dollars, so you'll end up tangibly paying in dollars for creating that perception. The Red Sox could've got a real haul for Pedroia, but it's a mistake to assume that haul would be more valuable than Pedroia in the first place, let alone the impact in the clubhouse and the perception of the franchise in the short term. If the Red Sox had dealt Pedroia during that offseason the past two teams would still be horrible, and the narrative would be the Red Sox alienated the clubhouse and lost their way. If you're one of the people who think the Red Sox didn't negotiate in good faith with Lester, how could you possible ask for this type of move? The Red Sox have made a lot of poor decisions since that World Series Championship, this really isn't the thing to focus on. I wouldn't even close the door on dealing Pedroia going forward, it just wasn't an option that made sense well over a year ago. I already pointed out this was early 2014, not 2013 so your premise it moot. I didn't say during the 2013 season, I said after the 2013 season during the 2013-2014 offseason. You stated you wanted him traded "well over a year ago". Last year's trade deadline was a year and two weeks ago, if you wanted him dealt then I don't know why you wrote "well over a year ago". Even if you want to backtrack it to Opening day 2014 and make it 16 months ago (I guess that might quality for "well over a year ago"?) it still doesn't sense. Why would you not call for him to be dealt during the offseason only to change your mind a month into the season? Players like Pedroia don't get dealt in April or May regardless, the earliest possibility for a trade would've been last July, almost exactly a year ago. If you meant you wanted to trade him last trade deadline fine, maybe you just worded it wrong. I'd argue whatever the Red Sox could've dealt Pedroia for last year is probably close to what they could get now, his value hasn't really fluctuated that much even with this injury. It's not like they would've been selling high last July, he was in the middle of his worst offensive season.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 13, 2015 11:36:51 GMT -5
Between 2000 and 2007, the Red Sox drafted/signed: Hanley Ramirez, Kevin Youkilis, Anibal Sanchez, Jon Lester, David Murphy, Jonathan Papelbon, Dustin Pedroia, Jacoby Ellsbury, Clay Buchholz, Justin Masterson, Josh Reddick, Anthony Rizzo. Each of these players aggregated at least 10 WAR. This enabled them to compete between 2007 and 2011. They currently only have one player signed or drafted between 2008 and 2010 (Xander Bogaerts) who will achieve 10 career WAR (Christian Vasquez could be a second). On top of that, the players acquired in 2006 and 2007 were traded for veterans. As the players added in 2000 through 2010 aged and reached free agency, there was no one in system to replace them. This is why the Red Sox are in last place. Teams can win divisions and even championships without a core of young, cost-controlled talent, but those teams cannot be sustained. Trading prospects might enable the Red Sox to compete next year, but it will come at a steep future cost. If the Red Sox want to build a team that can compete year in and year out, they need to develop a core of young players. Your first sample size is eight seasons long and the second sample is three seasons long.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 13, 2015 11:23:04 GMT -5
If the Red Sox traded Pedroia "well over a year ago", that would've been the 2013-2014 offseason...you know, a few months after a World Series Championship and before the seven year extension signed only a few months back actually began. This was also before Mookie Betts had played a game above Salem.
Now, lets assume the Red Sox would've "won" that hypothetical Pedroia trade (a big assumption): would the trade actually help the franchise enough to be worth the negative impact of dealing a guy like Pedroia, especially considering the timing? I'd say it's doubtful, even given hindsight of the 2014-2015 teams being worse than anyone could've projected, and Mookie going through the system faster than anyone could've projected. To compensate for that type of a deal, the Red Sox would likely have to start handing out real no trade protection in deals going forward. Money talks but people actually do value security, especially home grown players who've already settled into the area and might consider extensions before free agency. If you take away that feeling of security you'll absolutely need to compensate in terms of dollars, so you'll end up tangibly paying in dollars for creating that perception. The Red Sox could've got a real haul for Pedroia, but it's a mistake to assume that haul would be more valuable than Pedroia in the first place, let alone the impact in the clubhouse and the perception of the franchise in the short term.
If the Red Sox had dealt Pedroia during that offseason the past two teams would still be horrible, and the narrative would be the Red Sox alienated the clubhouse and lost their way. If you're one of the people who think the Red Sox didn't negotiate in good faith with Lester, how could you possible ask for this type of move? The Red Sox have made a lot of poor decisions since that World Series Championship, this really isn't the thing to focus on. I wouldn't even close the door on dealing Pedroia going forward, it just wasn't an option that made sense well over a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 29, 2015 11:14:06 GMT -5
Dodgers to acquire Mat Latos and Mike Morse (incl. taking on their salaries) and a CBT pick for three minor league arms. Another move I really like from the Dodgers. That GM was absolutely available this past winter. Just saying (and said so then). Even if he was available I doubt he would've moved to a division rival (even if he preferred the Red Sox job to the Dodgers job which probably was not the case).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 26, 2015 21:00:06 GMT -5
I know Hanley has a -0.8 fWar mostly as a result of very poor LF play but can someone who has positional adjustments available tell me what his fWar would be if he produced the exact same offensive line as a DH the entire season? Including baserunning he'd be slightly under .5 fWAR on the season on my quick rough estimate. EDIT: Basically what Ortiz has given you with worse base running. Yes, he's been that bad on the bases.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 23, 2015 11:56:42 GMT -5
This revisionist history of if the Red Sox had Lackey plus Lester/Scherzer/Hamels is pointless to me. You could argue if the position players performed even closet to their projections the team would be in the race with these current mediocre pitchers. I get that a lot of posters here believe you NEED an ace to win, or that elite pitching is the only thing that wins in October, but this team was supposed to be elite offensively and instead they've been a bottom 5 group in the league. Focusing solely on the pitching is missing the point entirely, this team has been lost hitting and fielding as well. Signing one elite pitcher would've been an investment for short term production with long term risk, it would've been the wrong move given the current results of this team.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 22, 2015 14:07:00 GMT -5
ESPN's Buster Olney reports that the Orioles "appear willing to talk about" Kevin Gausman in potential trades.
He's the only guy who is rumored to be available that actually makes sense to deal for right now (rather than waiting for the offseason to acquire MLB talent). Who knows what it'd take, but the Red Sox could potentially offer current MLB assets plus prospects to make a deal work.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 20, 2015 17:01:49 GMT -5
when it comes to the stat geeks....Losing is the new winning. If that's true Ruben Amaro is apparently Bill James
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 16, 2015 12:47:52 GMT -5
The promotions of JBJ/Mookie/Xander were each under unique circumstances. Many people, myself included, felt like JBJ's initial promotion was rushed. Xander and Mookie were on a quick time table but each player produced in his initial exposure to the MLB. Xander was a key part of a World Championship team. Sure, he's struggling now, but it's tough to say it's because he was "rushed". If anyone feels like Mookie isn't a productive player right now that's your problem. I think it's a stretch to call Xander a "key" part of a championship team. Drew was our shortstop. Xander played 18 regular season games. He had 2 plate appearances against TB, 9 against Det and 23 against St. L. I can think of 18-20 guys who played a bigger role. Lou Merloni continually says don't judge a player by initial success. If they don't have the experience. They can't handle struggles like someone who has had to overcome them. If you're quickly promoted, you never struggle. Can't handle it when it happens. I should've prefaced the key part as key postseason performer, which he absolutely was. He replaced Middlebrooks and put together some of the best at bats of the World Series. Obviously it was a short sample, but it's not like he was exposed early on. Even in 2014 he started off very productive, so the narrative that he was "unprepared for the MLB" is tough to swallow. If anything he's had a problem adjusting to the league's adjustments against him, and he could only really experience that specific challenge at the MLB level. Young players usually struggle initially, usually there are growing pains, it's just a matter of how long and how severe. I don't know if the overall point here is that more time in the minors would've avoided these growing pains, but that's really hard to say. Xander and Mookie forced their promotions with extended excellence, they looked so advanced at the plate that additional time in Pawtucket probably wasn't going to do much for their development. Ironically the argument to keep them down would've been based on defensive development, and both guys are doing relatively well in that department. My point is it's a mistake to group in JBJ with the other two, the three situations are each very different. There is no set number of at bats each player should receive at each level, and you'd be hard pressed to find many people who felt like Mookie and Xander weren't prepared for the MLB at the time of their promotions.
|
|
|