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 May 16, 2015 12:05:05 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.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 12, 2015 11:49:43 GMT -5
All this allegory about the NFL procedures is just a smokescreen. Tom Brady was the protagonist that set in motion all that has followed. The NFL couldn't let this go and has set it's own standard on punishment. Everyone knows it had no effect on the outcome of the games..but that is incidental to the actions of purposefully deflating the ball to get an advantage. He directed it and he joins the rest of us in the unfair world of punitive measures. The NFL's own refs and own gauge's had conflicting PSI measurements, so actually there are issues with the NFL procedures in this regard. The fact is the NFL had two different gauges available to measure footballs before the game, and each gauge had a difference between .3-.45 PSI per reading. That's only part of the issue, but again, when the NFL can't get consistent/accurate gauges to measure footballs it's hard to not look at their process as anything but flawed and sloppy. And again, the league says this is a serious offense, yet the league was notified before the game of this potential situation and the word never reached the commissioner...if that's not "lack of institutional control" what is?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 12, 2015 11:05:21 GMT -5
When the Saints had "Bountygate" they suspended Sean Payton for a year over "lack of institutional control", as if he should've known what was going on. The Patriots draft pick loss and fine are for the same infraction.
My question is how the league office doesn't hold itself to this same standard. How is it that Grigson sent an email to the league office before the game about deflated balls and it never reached Goodell? This entire situation was handled so poorly before the game even started that you could easily say the NFL had lack of institutional control over the entire process (both in handling the footballs and handling the "sting" operation or whatever you want to call it). The fact that Goodell wouldn't have known about the Colts concerns before the game began suggests either people in the league office took it upon themselves to do something without the commissioner's knowledge, or Goodell knew and just lied about it.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 8, 2015 11:56:23 GMT -5
I think the most unfair part of this situation is Brady's refusal to turn over texts/emails qualifying as conduct detrimental and being the grounds for his possible suspension. Why should he trust all his private messages and pictures to be protected and kept private by these random investigators? The league office had leaks every day about the investigation, I wouldn't trust them to snoop around my private messages and I'm not a superstar QB. Regardless of Brady's guilt/innocence, I think it's far more likely he wanted to keep his private messages private than trying to cover up texts/emails about cheating. Can anyone imagine Brady texting about breaking rules (and even if he was that stupid I think he'd use a burner or an alternate email)? The league office is never transparent in their process, yet players need to make their entire personal lives accessible. I'm sick of hearing from the "if you don't have any to hide" crowd, I'm pretty sure everyone has conversations with friends and family they wouldn't want to share with strangers.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 27, 2015 19:57:06 GMT -5
(Anthony Rizzo + Reymond Fuentes + Casey Kelly) = Adrian Gonzalez = (Rubby De La Rosa + Allen Webster) = Wade Miley = PTBNL So Carl Crawford and Josh Beckett never existed?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 11, 2015 14:30:56 GMT -5
I know people want to pretend the difference between this year and past postseason failures was all about forming a shutdown defense around Revis, but that's not what actually happened. The Patriots, like most seasons, earned a postseason bye and home field advantage. This year, unlike past seasons, the offense was highly productive throughout the entire postseason.
After the 07 AFCCG loss, the Patriots offense scored 14, 14, 17, 21, 13, and 16 points in elimination game losses. Even with an elite defense those aren't scores that you win many postseason games with. I'm not putting all the blame on the offense for past failures, but the 2011 SB team for example had one of the weakest defensive backfields I can remember and could've won that SB as easily as the Patriots could've lost this past one. The story of this postseason wasn't Revis, it was Brady and the offense playing all time great playoff football. I'm confident the Patriots could win with a lesser corner group if the offense has another all time great postseason performance. On the other hand, if the offense struggles to the tune of 13-17 points in a playoff game next season I wouldn't expect Revis and the defense to bail them out either. Football games are won and lost in many ways.
The way I see it I'm relieved Belichick didn't "overextend" in future commitments just to keep this team together in the short term, even if I wanted Revis back. The day Belichick starts making win now moves is the day he's beginning to plan an exit strategy. His job security gives him a unique ability to maximize the long term interests of the team.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 26, 2015 19:30:24 GMT -5
I remember repeatly writing here that I couldn't tell if AA Middlebrooks was more Inge or Longoria but it was essential for the front office to know and act accordingly since much could be had for him at his minor league hype zenith. In retrospect they blew it too. This, Lars Anderson, Casey Fossum ("future1/2" starter and considered off limits by Theo for many trades) Michael Bowden, etc, and a cast of thousands across the minor leagues in all organizations is why I am frequently skeptical of the high end optimism assigned to prospects. As much as I love watching these guys grow - and seeing them live whenever I can - very, very few will end up being MLB average players or better. And I say that being as enthusiastic supporter of Middlebrooks, Engel Beltre, Anderson and about a half dozen other guys who spund like members of a breathless Peter Gammons Spring Training roll call of "future stars and MLB regulars just a few years away in the Red Sox system." So you're saying to buy low and sell high, correct? And to trade the overhyped prospects while keeping the legit ones? I think that's the goal for every franchise. If they could do it all over again I'm sure they would've dealt WMB earlier, but it is what it is. For the record Fossum was dealt as a key piece in the Schilling deal, so it's not like they sold low there, and having a couple prospects who "busted" is the cost of doing business. They haven't dealt many prospects who've turned out to be above average starters, so that's the opposite side of the argument. Over a decade plus it's easy to be captain hindsight, but I don't think overvaluing prospects has been a big organizational problem.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 22, 2015 18:45:30 GMT -5
Brady should have stayed quiet or thrown a couple of "balls" puns. Anything would be better than that evidently nervous press conference. Bill really didn't help him either. Don't be surprised to see Brady retiring after the SB if this issue lingers. Yeah if only he was emotionless everyone would've believed him, that's worked so well for Aaron Hernandez. Obviously Brady couldn't do anything to convert the people who've had their mind made up. He took questions and flatly denied any involvement. Sure, he could be lying, but criticizing his demeanor and ignoring his words is laughable to me. Brady isn't retiring after the Super Bowl barring career ending SB injury. A lot of conflicting reports about particular details from the "investigation" are out there, so I've heard different conspiracy theories. The people with a black or white viewpoint, "The Brunell's" if you will, assume that the balls were illegally deflated and therefore Brady had to be involved in the illegal deflating. Doesn't that by default mean you believe Brady trusted at least one person to handle the shady illegal activity on his behalf and keep the secret indefinitely? Doesn't that theory seem kind of suspect as well? I can't see Brady trusting his legacy to a random clubhouse attendant, or a group of attendants all in on the scam. People talk, especially people who have secret information about famous people. Anyone who is claiming to have the definitive answer behind this story is a fool. I thought the Borges questions were the most ironic thing in a while. Here's Brady, accused of cheating, standing up and taking questions while denying any involvement. Borges (a guy who was called a plagiarist and punished for it yet never made a personal statement to defend himself) disregards Brady's words and suggests he's lying based on illogical false equivalencies.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 20, 2014 18:41:31 GMT -5
Hi all first time posting here. Lifetime Sox fan love the board. The question that seems to never be getting asked is "If we keep Swihart, what do we do with Vazquez"? As good as they both are, you can't have two guys behind the plate unless you want to stash one of them as the backup, which in either case would be a tremendous waste. It leaves you with the following options: 1. Move Swihart off catcher to first base. This would be the best move from a cost standpoint since we keep both young, cost-controlled guys. With Xander at SS and Betts in RF nearly half the lineup plays for league minimum. The drawback is that it's also a big waste of Swihart defensively. Also we all know he'll hit very well for a catcher, but 1B is a different story. Look no further than Joe Mauer for proof of this concept. 2. Trade Swihart for Hamels. You gain one of the top pitchers in the league, give up a guy who will probably be a top 5 player at a premium position. You also take on a 9-figure contract for a pitcher who may not make it in the AL east. 3. Trade Vazquez for Hamels. Maybe Amaro is willing to concede this point if we include a couple guys like Owens, Margot, etc. HE still gets his catcher just not the one he wants. Given the fact that this is Amaro we're talking about this is about as likely as Grandma literally getting run over by a reindeer this Christmas. 4. Keep both, have Vazquez start this year and maybe next year decide which one we like best and trade the other at that time. All told, I would have to go with option 2. I know you are all madly in love with the prospects, but you have to give to get, and Swihart has yet to see a MLB pitch. I know he's put up great minor league numbers but that's no guarantee he's the next Buster Posey or Joe Mauer. Just a side note (and yes I know it sounds incredibly juvenile but what the heck), but if you've checked the 2015 schedule you know we open the season in Philly. It would be hysterical to have Hamels as our pitcher that day instead of theirs on their turf. Your scenarios ignore another possibility, which would be dealing Swihart or Vazquez for a player (or players) other than Cole Hamels. If the Red Sox are willing to deal Swihart or a package including Vazquez + Owens/Margot + etc. I think they should land a better asset than Cole Hamels (factoring in performance, age and cost). If there isn't a better package available this offseason, they could still hold both players and deal one at the deadline, or next offseason, or later than that. You raise valid points about the problems of both players coexisting on the roster, you'd totally lose value that way. However, if Amaro isn't valuing those prospects the way the Red Sox are they'd also be losing value. It's not like it's keep Swihart or trade him for Hamels...if they decide to deal Swihart there will be no shortage of interested teams. EDIT: I re-read your scenarios and your 4th option is basically what I'd go with, I missed that one on the first read. Welcome to the forum.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 11, 2014 17:30:18 GMT -5
Turn Clay into Cole somehow and I'm giddy. Clay's 3 best seasons total to 6.0 bWAR per 30 starts. Hamels' 3 best seasons total to 6.0 bWAR per 30 starts. I'll be giddy if Clay is healthy and stays that way all year, too. Well Clay has never started 30 games before and that's pretty much all Hamels does. That has value, arguably more value than hypothetical bizzaro world 30 start ace Clay Buchholz.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 8, 2014 14:29:15 GMT -5
Yeah, that's more in the range I'm comfortable. Just for my understanding (and apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere), why did Vazquez get so many more framing opportunities? Was it mostly a product of Red Sox pitchers' inability to get swings-and-misses down the stretch? Or was it just a fluky sample size thing? If Vazquez continuously "steals" strikes at an elite level the pitchers will notice and test the boundaries of the strike zone more often than they would with an average/below average framer.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 23, 2014 13:06:52 GMT -5
One of the only things I enjoy more than baseball is music. I figure some posters from this diverse community might feel the same way about music and hopefully will enjoy stuff I've never heard of. I'm always looking for new recommendations, whether it's literally new or something I might've overlooked or never heard from the past. So if anyone feels passionately about an artist, album, song, producer, etc. I'd like to hear about it. I'm open to all genres and eras.
I'll go first with a new song and video. It's by a female artist from England called FKA Twigs. She just dropped her debut album and it's pretty great, she also has some older videos and a couple EP's I really like. Her lyrical content is highly sexualized but I'm in for the voice, the production, and the overall artistry. It's some blend of R&B and electronic music. I guess the easy comp would be Aaliyah with a more experimental version of Lorde's production. Fans of Erykah Badu, Janelle Monae, or AlunaGeorge will probably enjoy this.
FKA Twigs - Two Weeks (Video)
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 9, 2014 12:08:48 GMT -5
Can't the Red Sox just wait it out until Amaro is fired? This guy can't be keeping his job through the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 31, 2014 13:15:10 GMT -5
I don't think Lester would be back with the RS after they showed him out of the door by the trade. It's their way or the highway approach. It's final divorce between him & the FO. I can't see they offer more than 5 yr/100+ higher contract to bring him back. The Yankees will snap him up since they have unlimited financial to do it. Kind of like when they underbid for Cano and he walked, right? "Unlimited financial" though.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 31, 2014 12:46:17 GMT -5
Even if you accept the above (which I don't), the 2015 option at least makes it really easy to sign Lackey to a reasonable extension. Say, tear up the 2015 option and do 2/$20m. What is there to not accept - basic principles of economics? At this stage in his career, Lester's time is worth more than $500K. In fact, his agent will likely indicate that Lester's time (not to mention his risk of injury) for 2015 alone is worth more than approximately $10 million. Ok, I'm not stuck on the 2/20 extension, but something similar would be obvious. Passing on 2/20 and sitting out the season is very risky, to assume he'd get 20m on the open market for 2016 is risky and probably the best case scenario for him. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that option has no value, but it very clearly does. They aren't going to tear it up and give him a market deal, and if Lackey won't at least agree to a reasonable extension he'd be a fool to sit out (unless he genuinely wanted to retire/re-sign in St. Louis).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 31, 2014 7:40:41 GMT -5
Nice to live in the past and have your head in the sand. Can't blame you. Reality is messy, so are the Sox right now. Change is sometimes the name of the game, and sometimes you screw up making changes. The issue now is whether they can right the ship, or did they crash the ship?. Remember baseball is entertainment and us fans support it. It is suppose to be fun. It is play ball. Don't make it entirely a businesses. By the way. suggested the Sox were bad early in the season. Many mocked. Suggested at the same time Lester would be gone. Many mocked or said good riddance. But still time for the Sox to change this. The other teams may actually help them. Please, continue to list all the things you've been right about in the past, it's riveting. Continue to blast the "sheeple" who believe things like winning the World Series matters more than a down year.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 30, 2014 12:13:45 GMT -5
Think about it we are the Yankees now. We stir the drink that is the MLB. Either we are contending for title and getting pieces. Now we are out like two years ago and we have the Mlb buzzing. We can affect the title run. We have the chips. The Sox are a last place team trading off its most productive players. In no way is that how the Yankees do business. As far a creating buzz, the Marlins created a buzz by selling off its entire roster after winning the world series in 1998. That's a much better comparison to what the Sox are doing here. Yeah why acquire prospects when you can let a Robinson Cano walk in a non-playoff year and then lose the comp pick while signing terrible deals? That's clearly the way to do business.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 24, 2014 1:14:17 GMT -5
Not unheard of for a team to try and sell high while they can on a guy like this either. Boston has before and it paid huge dividends.. Cue Ted Cox, the main chip in the Dennis Eckersley deal, who had a huge last half of September '77, after putting up similar numbers to what Holt has throughout his MiLB career. Far fetched, but Holt still has 6y of team control. Marlins want to possibly move Stanton possibly and could interest them in Holt over Betts as the main piece? I'd rather give them Holt any day of the week. It worked with the Indians and Eckersley. You just never know how gullible a team can be.[/b] Sure, and we can throw in my less than mint 2000 Topps Morgan Burkhart rookie card and gain ownership of their stadium too.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 3, 2014 13:08:14 GMT -5
Nobody here seems to consider that Lester is more valuable to the Red Sox than some of his likely suitors because without Lester the Sox have nothing resembling a top of the rotation pitcher to replace him, let alone a number 1. Yanks of Tanaka and Detriot has Verlander and perhaps Scherzer (although Lester only goes to Detroit is Scherzer leaves, which he likely will) The only person in the Sox system who projects to be a top of the rotation pitcher is Owens and some scouts think he's more of a number 3. In any event he's probably 2 years away. If Lester leaves, the sox on paper are likely not a playoff team over the next three or so years. How much money is that worth to management? It's a huge miscalculation to assume Lester's value is the same throughout baseball. He's a proven championship pitcher in Boston who has stayed relatively healthy. The Sox have no replacement for him, which is the real killer. The Sox also have only one long term contract on the books (pedroia). Its makes all the sense in the world for the Sox to go 5x25 or 6x23-24 with him. I'll take John Lackey over Justin Verlander right now.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 29, 2014 12:09:39 GMT -5
Peavy is the last guy who should be talking about money and performance.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 26, 2014 23:02:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 18, 2014 15:11:21 GMT -5
Such a cliche and predictable ending
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 18, 2014 12:06:58 GMT -5
Jacoby takes our 5/110 over the Yankees 7/153? What world do you live in? One where if they would of offered it before the end of the season & FA he would of taken it. Jake wasn't all about the money as many on here claim that actually didn't know or read up on him prior to this year. All I read about him was he'd allow Scott Boras to advise him and he'd follow his lead. I sincerely doubt Boras would've advised him to accept that deal months before free agency. Even if you disagree, saying definitively "he would of taken it" is just not true, you have no idea, it's a hypothetical scenario in an alternate universe.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 16, 2014 23:04:08 GMT -5
2007 0.8 1.0 WAR in 22 IP 2008 0.8 -1.2 WAR in 76 IP 2009 1.1 2.0 WAR in 92 IP 2010 3.5 5.6 WAR in 173 IP 2011 1.1 1.9 WAR in 82 IP 2012 1.5 0.9 WAR in 189 IP 2013 3.2 4.3 WAR in 108 IP 2014 0.2 -1.3 WAR in 50 IP over close to 1/2 the season That's 1 1/2 seasons of very good pitching, 5 not so good if you include this year, and his 2007 hot start. Fixed it for you. Repeat: fWAR for pitchers is absolute, indefensible, lazy, intellectually myopic garbage. It's established beyond any doubt that BABIP varies among pitchers and that, furthermore, it's a partial function of FIP. Buchholz is one of the people driving that correlation; when his FIP is good, he has a real BABIP skill that can be proven real by other methodologies, and when his FIP is bad, his BABIP collapses along with it. So there's no excuse for assuming that every pitcher has the same BABIP, rather than trying to estimate what the true BABIP allowed was (as does b-ref). If science proceeded by saying "let's adopt a stance of ignorance whenever we cannot be certain," we'd have no science at all. Buchholz has had one astounding half season, one terrific near-full season, two other excellent half-seasons (the first of which would have been a full season had he been called up), a season (2012) where he was overall so-so, but was actually terrible for a third of a season and terrific for the other two-thirds, plus terrible struggles his rookie year and just now. Starting in 2009, he has consistently been one of the best pitchers in baseball, with two huge, troubling glitches: in both 2011 and 2013 he missed half the season, and came back the next year and was terrible to begin with. He shouldn't be recalled until his mechanics are both fixed (which appears to be the case already) and reasonably consistent (not yet the case), or his rehab time runs out. But assuming that happens, there's no doubt he's one of the five best pitchers in the organization. Which is not that shocking, figuring that a year ago at this time he was the best pitcher in baseball by a wide margin.
Yeah Kershaw was better though.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 8, 2014 22:36:13 GMT -5
Yes, but using a one AB sample size to make your argument is very intelligent. He may not be the Sox's best player (yes), but statistically you can argue that he's been one of their best - if not their best - hitters this year. And you seem to be ignoring the major defensive improvements he made in a short period of time, which isn't atypical for a 21-year-old. I was using that AB to make my point. He is still learning. He has been very good, no question, but I think it is stupid to put him on this pedestal so soon and ignore the holes in his game. Yeah there's a word for that, it's called confirmation bias.
|
|
|