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 Jun 4, 2014 18:49:10 GMT -5
JH will only go as far as he wants to get these guys, not what the market price may be. I wonder if they realize the impact of a big stud on a team. The should watching Papi and now X-Man, but sometimes seem like they are more enamored with players that fit into their system, more the role players, and see the stud as just another piece in their creation. Both of those guys were acquired for cheap so I'm not sure that's a great example. The Red Sox want elite players, every team does. It's about the acquisition cost. This ownership has paid large costs for elite players before.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 27, 2014 16:01:47 GMT -5
Two first division starters per year, and they can't struggle initially or have injury/durability issues. Over a 6-7 year period you'd have an entire lineup and rotation of cost controlled above average players. That's not reasonable? We're Red Sox fans, we deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 19, 2014 12:13:32 GMT -5
I read the article, it said the Red Sox were among the first teams to show interest in him. Are we supposed to get upset because the rumors don't have the Red Sox listed as favorites to sign the hypothetical talent? Maybe complain after they actually don't sign him, or after he's actually producing. There are enough reasonable things to complain about at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 24, 2014 15:00:35 GMT -5
It's time to call Anthony Renaudo what he is - a lukewarm prospect. Maybe a 5th starter next year. Not worth the hype. It's time to spell his name correctly. I must be missing this hype, I could be missing some loud strawmen though.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 24, 2014 10:00:21 GMT -5
Mike Trout + "significant dollars" > Blake Swihart Then we should do that. I'm pretty sure the Angels would jump all over a Swihart for Trout swap. Also, I'm not so sure yet that Mookie has the arm strength to be a Zobrist/Phillips. Maybe a hydraulics upgrade is in order. Point being you can't use words like "untouchable" or speak in absolute terms when there are many exceptions (Trout being just the biggest one). I love Swihart too but he's far from untouchable. If anything this Red Sox team is in perfect position to take on "significant dollars" for the right elite talent if the opportunity comes up. I'd love to trade for another elite prospect like Polanco, but how often does an elite prospect for prospect swap happen? Once every five years maybe? The endowment effect is very real with prospects.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 23, 2014 16:32:08 GMT -5
Comment.. Over the off season Sox brass twice said in podcasts that if they were going to try Mookie at other positions, it would be after he was comfortable at the plate. I'm guessing they think Mookie is comfortable at the plate yet, when Marrero was unavailable for two games with a toe injury, Mookie played 2nd base, Gibson played short. With Petey, if they leave Mooke at 2nd base, Mookie trade chip becomes more likely. To me, Mookie, Xander, Swihart and Owens would be untouchable. I wouldn't want to include any of them in a trade which involved trading for a current player that was going to cost the team significant dollars. However, I would trade an untouchable prospect for another untouchable prospect if the trade made sense position wise for the Sox. The trade would also, of course, need to make sense for the other team. I submit for your approval (because of the non human element), our favorite trading partner and Gregory Polanco. 4 of the The Pirates top 10 prospects are outfielders (Polonco, Meadows, Bell, Ramirez), they have two outfielders that aren't going anywhere (Marte & Mr. Dreadlocks) and they have a decent veteran RF in Snyder as well as a decent 4th outfielder in Tabata. At second they have Neil Walker on a one year contract and absolutely nobody in the pipeline. Gregory Polanco (MLB's #13 prospect) would be perfect for The Sox future in RF, a less premium position than 2B but, we already have one of those. I would love to keep Mookie but if he is traded, hopefully his star will keep rising to the point that if he was traded, he'd return us a significant piece. Mike Trout + "significant dollars" > Blake Swihart
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 22, 2014 23:07:31 GMT -5
From the reports I've read about Cecchini's defense, I worry how he would do even at first base. I've alternately heard him described as mechanical, stiff and having bad reflexes. Is he essentially Mike Carp with less power? Mike Carp without power is a non-prospect. Power is all Carp really brings to the table. Cecchini is a completely different player/talent, the two aren't comparable. Cecchini's future defensive position and value is obviously an open question, but Carp has already proven he's useless defensively.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 14, 2014 14:15:34 GMT -5
I'd say 5/100 a year before free agency is about fair, and 6-7 at $25m per is absurd. That's overpaying even if he was a free agent, which he isn't yet.
Also, I figured after missing out on Cliff Lee and letting Robinson Cano walk this board would stop assuming every good free agent was destined to sign with the Yankees. I guess not. For the record, irrational fear should be placed on the Dodgers franchise at this time.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 14, 2014 11:14:25 GMT -5
The biggest mistake the Lester is no Greinke crowd is making is the failure to realize that Lester is a number one pitcher in a championship team while Greinke is a number two on a division winner. I'd much rather have Lester on the sox than Greinke because Lester has done it. I'm stunned that people compare him to Sanchez and Garza. Do you think Sanchez or Garza could have what Lester did? Garza's a 2/3 on an excellent team and Sanchez is a 3.The sox have clearly decided to let him go. They made a silly offer. In the past, they've made these types of low ball offers to players who left. The only team that can do what the Red Sox are doing is the Yankees, and only because they usually pay the max, although they botched the Cano negotiations. There's no reason for Lester to sign with the Sox as free agency approaches. The market always goes up. Lester is going to MFY or the Cubs. Since Lackey won't play for $500k, he's an excellent trade candidate. Next year the rotation will likely be buccholz, ___________ (free agent), ____________ rookie pitcher, ______________ rookie pitcher, Doubront or Veteran bottom of rotation. Could be interesting to watch but certainly not a contender. My guess is the Sox are looking to turn over the pitching staff. The key question: are the minor league pitchers up to it. Owens likely is but the other probably aren't. The biggest mistake you're making is failing to realize if Lester had Kershaw on his team he'd be the #2 guy, and if he was in Detroit he'd be the #3. Having superior teammates doesn't make you any better or worse. As far as who has "done it", Beckett's "done it" twice while Kershaw has never "done it". Who would you prefer? I'm having a hard time respecting this argument, especially when your example (Garza) HAS out pitched Lester in an ALCS Game 7. Yes, Anibal Sanchez and Matt Garza are capable of a nice postseason run for a championship team, however no one player can carry a team to a WS win. Also, the guy you're discussing trading (Lackey) has "done it" twice too.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 14, 2014 1:15:28 GMT -5
There are many reasons why Mookie isn't a realistic option right now but the biggest is Pedroia will eventually play baseball again. They aren't going to abandon his development plan knowing he has virtually no shot at winning the job long term, it's setting him up for failure. Skipping AAA after only a cup of coffee at AA can happen in some cases, but only if the player can stick. Mookie will return to the minor leagues at some point, and he'll either have to start learning a new position or be stuck waiting for the next Pedroia injury.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 12, 2014 15:40:02 GMT -5
We dont even know what his "home town discount" is, and if it really is one Very true. We also don't know if the Red Sox were holding on four years or keeping it under $80m. It'd be an interesting dynamic if the Red Sox offered the exact same extension Pedroia signed, or perhaps one year less (so their deals would end in the same season) with the same total money. I know it sounds absurd and the players are in different situations but Lester talked a lot of noise about be willing to sign a similar deal...so what better starting point to remind him of those comments? $70-80m was never going to happen, but once you offer $100m or more it's Pedroia territory and you can't be THAT far from Lester's comfort range.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 29, 2014 10:55:41 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 1m #redsox and @jlester31 have tabled their extension talks amicably. Sides still want deal. Could talk in season. Yeah, it is following the scenario of the Sox not budging on years, something that other teams will. He is gone next year, enjoy him this year. Right now "the market" is contracts into years that probably will not be that productive. Sox and JH believe that a Lester is replaceable, not a Papi or Dustin who signed for less but will get paid probably in unproductive years. I do not know if they are right or just arrogant, but young pitchers do not always develop as projected. Bird in had is sometimes worth more than two in the bush (league) . Lester has continued to improve and seems to be very sturdy, at least so far. But what do I know. I would have given Ellsbury the extra years. In what sense? His 08-10 run was clearly better than his 11-13 run. I wish we had an idea of what the Red Sox were offering and what Lester wants. It seemed like this would be easy to complete with Lester's offseason comments.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 28, 2014 19:46:28 GMT -5
Connolly's cap hit is only ~$650k more than Wendell's.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 25, 2014 11:55:12 GMT -5
Jerry and/or his wife also left the child alone with Jared when they had court ordered Grandparent supervised visits...it's not a huge crime or anything, but calling them enablers is as kind as possible. Ignoring this awful story, I haven't been a fan of Remy in years...he openly talks about how he doesn't watch baseball except for his paid job and he's clueless about advanced statistics and prospects in the system. People always cite his "great" chemistry with Don but I feel like the fill in replacements have shown similar chemistry too. He's certainly not the worst announcer, he's just thoroughly mediocre and replaceable, I don't think he's earned the right to do this job for as long he decides. I absolutely love Eck doing the games too but I know that's a less popular opinion, I'd be happy with any number of replacements.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 4, 2014 21:05:39 GMT -5
It's all about the results/production. If you saw Webster pitching effectively you would've seen a guy who looked confident. Instead, you saw Webster pitch poorly in his first exposure to the MLB. Was he supposed to project confidence during those starts? If he didn't show any emotion I'd assume the Cafardo's of the world would question if he really cared about the game, or if he could "handle" the Boston intensity.
Pedro Martinez was the most confident Red Sox player I've ever seen and I can remember multiple bad starts where he looked scared and embarrassed. It's hard to look confident during failure.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 3, 2014 18:15:52 GMT -5
5/110m should not be called a discount. If he signs that deal in October after completing a successful season it might be a discount, but at this point I definitely wouldn't want to commit more than that.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 25, 2014 15:13:18 GMT -5
I also think some people are just discounting the security. He's making $500k now. There is a non-zero chance that he has Grady Sizemore-like injuries before he even hits arbitration. It is worth something to Trout to have that security up front, even if he's leaving money on the table at the end. That's why guys like Buchholz and Longoria among many others sign the deals they do. Again, if he values security that much, he could just offer to buy out his arb years on very team friendly terms. What are the Angels going to do? Refuse and pay significantly more money through the process? Hope that he declines and they save a bit of money and suffer the consequences on the field? If Trout is willing to leave money on the table for security he can do it through the arb process, not at the expense of surrendering mid 20s free agent seasons (the most valuable commodity he has to offer). Comparing Trout (the best player in baseball the last two years) to Longoria (no MLB track record at the time) isn't fair.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 25, 2014 15:09:08 GMT -5
80 million for two years? That's crazy money. That's what the Angels are going to pay if they WAIT to sign him till then. To pay that now is nutty. If they wait, they'll either have to give him 10+ years in a massive record setting deal or they will lose him. Trout isn't going to reach free agency and take a two year deal.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 24, 2014 18:20:19 GMT -5
What if I'm Mike Trout, and I don't particularly like being on the west coast or playing for the Angels? Seeing as I'm the best player alive, I probably have the leverage to get the Angels to buy out my arb years at a relative discount without giving up any FA years. That way I get tens of millions in guaranteed money, and I'm two years closer to signing a record-breaking contract with the team of my choice. I was more speaking to about risk vs reward instead of personal choice. I was pointing out the fact that he could get hurt or under perform and make next to nothing in this sport. I don't know that Trout has any leverage to sell out just his arb years without add team control, at least not more leverage than any other arbitration player. Why would the Angels do that? They would be better off just taking him to arbitration or settling year after year, to protect themselves from any risk. I guess if he was willing to devalue his later years, but that is what the Angels are asking for in a 6 year extension. As for the record breaking contract, if all goes according to plan he would still sign one at age 27 instead of 25, and depending on the length of the contract or opt out clauses, and the inflation of salary YTY, it could be more beneficial for Trout to hit the market a little later in his career. As for his arbitration years and contract, I can only speculate, but here are my assumptions. If he was not extended and faced arbitration/settlement in each of his 3 years, I would assume he makes less than 20M in his first year, and never making more than 30M in an arbitration year. I think that is a very aggressive assumption also. So if we say he makes 15M Y1, 25M Y2, and 30M Y3 he would have made 70M to this point. He would then need 40M a year the first two years of his megacontract to make up to the 150M he would have gotten with a 6 year extension. Now the megacontract I am speculating would be at least 10 years, which offers security (the 150M 6 year extension now is true security), but at the age of 27, I don't see any reason why he would not be able to get another 10+ year offer. I know the board is not interested in what it's posters would do in various athletes positions. I was only trying to look at a transaction I don't have a stake in (I don't like the Angels, and Trout probably won't be a Red Sox) objectively. I thought it was a very fair and strategically sound deal for both sides. This is backwards. Where is the upside for the Angels exactly? The only way Mike Trout isn't getting paid record amounts through arbitration is if he gets a serious injury. If Mike Trout gets hurt to the point where he has no value the franchise is already screwed. Buying out arbitration years (at the right cost) for the best player in the sport is an obvious move, and it becomes more obvious if Trout simply values "some" financial security and doesn't try to aggressively pursue every last dollar. The only way the Angels would "win" by going year to year is if Mike Trout turns into a pumpkin. Given the Angels current situation it makes little sense to not offer him a reasonable deal to buy out the arb years. If they can't compete with cheap, best in the game version of Mike Trout it becomes very difficult to imagine how they could without him. If Trout believes he could land a 10+ year contract AFTER the age of 27 (like you do) it would make zero sense to give away younger free agent years. Why would you be afraid to stay healthy/productive in the next 4 years, yet believe in your ability to do it over 6+ years? If he's just looking for "some" immediate money/security he could easily approach them about a team friendly deal to buy out his remaining years...at some point the Angels will settle for just those years if he's adamant. Mike Trout has much more leverage than the Angels do, playing hardball or year to year offers little to zero upside for the team.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 23, 2014 17:45:46 GMT -5
Yeah it's tough to take Lauber's sources too seriously when they cite Xander's makeup as a potential issue. Take a lap and find new sources.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 22, 2014 0:31:38 GMT -5
Mike Trout isn't a hypothetical. He really exists, as hard as that may be to believe at times. All these other 5 and 7 WAR players you're talking about, though? If what I said about Pujols and Hamilton isn't true about their budget being stretched whatsoever, there's no chance he hits free agency. Therefore, the discussion about Trout the free agent is fantasy. The Angels could have the money to make him whatever offer they choose but he still needs to accept it. If Trout trusts his ability to stay healthy and productive the obvious move is playing out his deal and hitting free agency as early as possible. At that point the Angels could have payroll flexibility and he could simply prefer to sign a similar deal with another team.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 15, 2014 22:04:28 GMT -5
But in that scenario, it's a close enough race that the Red Sox aren't going to fool around with spot-starting guys in order to set the staff up for a playoff run. They only way they'd start giving guys extra days off is if they're up fifteen games in mid-august. The reality is that, as long as the Red Sox are in any kind of race, healthy and effective pitchers are going to make all their starts as scheduled. And I don't see any problem with that. It certainly wasn't a problem for Lester or Lackey last year. You completely missed my point... and I didn't so much as insinuate the Sox would or should "spot-start" guys in the middle of a pennant race. You lost me at "the last thing we would want is 30 starts from all five". That's the last thing? I think you are forgetting basically every other scenario. Getting thirty starts from all five guys means they didn't get hurt and were pitching effectively. Actively rooting against such a lucky outcome due to fear of some cumulative effect come October is really misguided. You want your best pitchers to stay healthy and pitching effectively, not resting/injured/skipped/demoted.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 4, 2014 0:53:48 GMT -5
Cutting Amendola isn't productive. And I can't imagine the Patriots would try to add another top FA corner if they signed Talib.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 2, 2014 10:11:07 GMT -5
I don't know if it's me or not, but when I look into Webster's eyes, he looks like he's scared out of his mind. On the other hand, Workman looks confident. Anybody else notice that? The dreaded eye test of the eye test. It's tough to LOOK confident when you struggle (Webster), and when you get good results you usually look confident by default (Workman).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 23, 2014 18:06:34 GMT -5
I don't see how Lester will extend for less than 5 years and $110 mil. The Yankees just gave effectively $175 mil over 7 years for Tanaka. Lester is a least a proven commodity and he has also been a proven playoff guy who has been durable. All those things are valuable. If he makes it to FA he probably gets close to $140 mil ( assuming he has another year like the last one ). When a player has a solid year like Ortiz just had or Scherzer you start hearing a lot about how they want an extention. How much they love playing in boston...etc. Sometimes it is just better to see how they do and either take the pick or do a deal then. I'm in that mode with Lester unless he gives some hometown discount. We could be in the same mode with Peavy. We may end up with 2 picks before it is done. Did you not read the tweets? He said he was willing to give a hometown discount. That's exactly what he said he's prepared to do. Tanaka was essentially on the free market, he has no place in this conversation.
|
|
|