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 Jan 22, 2014 19:07:33 GMT -5
I'm kind of shocked they'd give him a major league deal, especially after letting Kalish walk (I know it's a different situation, not much left on the market, etc.)
The optimist in me is intrigued that he got the major league deal though.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 20, 2014 20:47:11 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if Lester doesn't end up back in Seattle. His dad was pretty sick recently wasn't he. I don't know if he's ok now but even with the starters they have there, which are admittedly very good, he has a lot of incentive to go back home and they have some money to spend also. People said the same thing about Ellsbury for years and they never entered the mix.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 19, 2014 19:19:11 GMT -5
I could live with the AAA line but .362 OBP before MLB had even figured him out? No thank you. As you said, small sample, and unless you're pitching him out of the pen, MLB lefties will feast if we're living with what we have. That's a funny way of saying "a young pitcher in his first exposure to the MLB".
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 18, 2014 17:07:03 GMT -5
If the Cubs pay ~$200m for Tanaka and he busts Theo & Jed can always blame the contract on feeding the monster...
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 15, 2014 14:23:03 GMT -5
Does Boras do that all the time? Or does that just fit your narrative of him being a ruthless businessman out for his own gain? If you have any reputable reports of this kind of behavior happening "all the time," I'd love to see them. Undoubtedly agents have their own agendas sometimes and can exert meaningful levels of direct or indirect influence on their clients' decision-making process. But the Close/Dodgers stuff is total speculation based solely on the fact that he has other clients who play for the Dodgers. Every big name agent needs to have a close working relationship with every major league team, and there are plenty of other agents with big name clients on the Dodgers (for instance, Boras represents Hyun-Jin Ryu and Alexander Guerrero, Dave Stewart represents Matt Kemp and Chad Billingsley, Nez Balelo represents Andre Ethier and Skip Schumaker, the Levinsons represent Aaron Harang, Brandon League, and A.J. Ellis, etc). Close also happens to have many clients elsewhere, including Derek Jeter, Ryan Howard, Michael Cuddyer, Alex Gordon, etc. PS: Clayton Kershaw's main agent is J.D. Smart, not Casey Close. Smart joined Close's agency (Excel Sports Management) in 2012, but Smart is presumably still Kershaw's lead agent, and Close likely plays a peripheral role at best. So even that initial narrative is factually flawed. Well, I've sold work in Hollywood and worked with enough agencies, which also have sports arms, to know first hand that packaging and maximizing the agency's bottom line is as important (if not slightly more important) as getting as much money for your client as you can - or in some deals, less money if the client is vocal about being paired with other talent or direct opportunities s/he wants. I'd give you straight specifics but then I'd probably never get work again. Then again, you can check out Feeding the Monster in which Mnookin has quotes from Boras where he says he does exactly that and talks about why he - Scott Boras - decided not to give the Red Sox final offer on Jonny Damon - precisely to get more leverage down the road for other clients and prospective clientsI am not impugning Smart, Close or their motives, I'm just saying that if they want to get max dollars for two of their agencies' clients in construct where there is a soft cap (the Luxury Tax) and most of his bidders are close or slightly over that cap, it benefits him and both his clients to sign with two different entities to maximize dollar return for his clients and himself - unless one of the entities doesn't give a rip at all about the soft cap and is willing to blow up the market. Then you still make them top dollar. Johnny Damon decided to sign that deal with the Yankees. If Damon wanted to give the Red Sox a final offer there was nothing Boras could do. Damon suggests the Red Sox had moved on and were fully prepared to let him walk, they weren't actively negotiating on any level. In fact, Damon claims he WAS relaying the information of the Yankees offers back to Boston, and they weren't interested. Exact quotes in this article: fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/12/04/johnny-damon-on-mm-jacoby-ellsbury-will-do-great-in-new-york/
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 12, 2014 18:28:39 GMT -5
fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/12/06/jon-lester-playing-for-red-sox-all-ive-known-all-i-want-to-know/I'm not sure what else Britton expects Lester to say. He's obviously not going to come out and say he doesn't care about money and desperately wants a team friendly deal. Most of Lester's quote is cliche stuff, but it makes sense he'd value security…he's a pitcher and his stock has fluctuated in a huge way the past few seasons. It remains to be seen if they'll find common ground, but he certainly seems open to extending a year before FA, and he understands that means accepting less than he would in free agency. The Pedroia deal is unique and a bad comp and Lester wouldn't need to accept ~13m in AAV for it to qualify as a market friendly deal. The Red Sox don't need Tanaka to leverage Lester, there will be more opportunities to sign good pitchers for ~$150m if they decide to pursue that route in the future.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 8, 2014 10:35:42 GMT -5
I saw that. How did Jack Morris not pitch during the steroid era? The guy played into the mid 90s...
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 4, 2014 20:21:29 GMT -5
I am glad to see I am not the only one this is happening to. He didn't say that all owners got their start from their parents nor did he say that owners didn't work hard to build their wealth. He said that the owners tend to have had more advantages in life than the players do and he's correct about that. Yes there are some owners who grew up poor and there are players who come from wealthy families, but you can't tell me that many of these owners weren't helped by whom their parents were. No he said "There are players from all different backgrounds, I can't say the same about owners." Which is saying that owners do not come from different backgrounds, or to simplify, he is saying that owners only come from one background. That is what I disagree with. I should've said relative to the players, I just thought it was obvious we were comparing the two groups (owners and players) directly given the context. I didn't mean to insinuate every single owner came from an identical background, that's literally impossible, which is why I phrased it the way I did. My response was to a poster who was suggesting players benefited from their family DNA and upbringing yet failed to acknowledge how important that dynamic is for the owners. Players come from a more diverse pool than the owners do. There are only 30 principal owners at any given time compared to a huge pool of players and I understand that difference too. Another difference is owners actively control who can and can't buy a team while players can't block a certain type of person from becoming a professional athlete. EDIT: On second read, no. By saying the owners don't come from all different backgrounds doesn't mean I'm saying they ALL come from the SAME background. Even just in a racial context not every background is represented at an ownership level. The fact is one has to grasp at straws to claim any racial diversity whatsoever. Not every owner is white but historically it really helps to be white if you want to own a professional baseball team. That is only one of many common links shared by the large, large majority of owners…like I said it correlates at a much higher rate at the ownership level than the players level.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 4, 2014 15:01:08 GMT -5
They could consider Michael Young or Eric Chavez for half the year until Cecch is likely ready. Instead of Dozier they could trade Starling, then maybe we add in a high ceiling guy like Rijo .I think adding a guy like Gonzo makes us the clear favorite to repeat. It was supposed to be that simple during the 2010-2011 offseason too.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 2, 2014 22:03:41 GMT -5
People deserve to capture the value of their own labor. The labor of elite (MLB caliber) baseball players is extraordinarily valuable. Owners are merely capturing the value of the labor of others. I have far less respect for that method of "earning" money. Players capture the "value " of their DNA, their upbringing, their trainers, their family, etc. Owners make money - they sell the product. I can't see how one is morally superior. They are splitting a pie that continually grows; that's all. Owners never benefit from what family they were born into or their upbringing? I'd say family resources and upbringing correlates more at an ownership level than a player level. There are players from all different backgrounds, I can't say the same about owners.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 2, 2014 14:17:06 GMT -5
From the same article: Six years, $120 million or so. That’s what you guys think Tanaka is going to sign for. That’s what I’m guessing too, though I won’t be too shocked if it’s ends up a bit higher than that. I would pretty surprised if it was much lower. As a general rule, the crowd has been consistently too low on large contracts; missing on Cano by two years, missing on Ellsbury by one year and $3M in AAV, missing on Choo by two years and $3 million in AAV, and missing on McCann by one year and $2M in AAV. If this estimate follows the trend of previous forecasts for big contracts, maybe a more realistic projection would be 7/$154, or almost exactly equal to the Ellsbury contract. Toss in the $20 million posting fee, and that would put him at $7/$174M, or $1M shy of the extension signed by Felix Hernandez.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 31, 2013 16:53:35 GMT -5
What are everyone's thoughts of re-signing Drew AND a 1-year rental in CF, and having both JBJ and Bogaerts start in AAA? Allow them to get some seasoning and refine their skills against pitching that we expect them to tear up. Perhaps give someone like Sam Fuld, Rick Ankiel or Grady Sizemore a call and throw one of them a minor league deal with an invite to spring training. Hell, if Sizemore's good to go, he can be a one-year rental for us, or at least a half year rental before JBJ gets the call, and if he produces, we could even get something for him at the trade deadline (very wishful thinking, I know). I know everyone's excited for what's to come from these two guys, but Bogaerts is still only what, 21? Bradley's 23, so he's a bit older, but he didn't exactly prove he's ready last year in AAA. More at bats in Pawtucket could help his bat progress to be more major-league ready, while we all know he's ready defensively. All those outfielders you just named aren't realistic candidates to play regular roles. Ankiel should retire and the best case for Sizemore is just staying healthy enough to play some type of platoon/bench role. If the Red Sox wanted to dream on an outfielder who couldn't stay healthy they would've just kept Kalish. I'd like Fuld for organizational depth but he's not going to alter JBJ's path, he just isn't good enough. I'll take JBJ's floor over those guys without a doubt, and that's ignoring his upside and what's best for his long time development.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 31, 2013 13:02:34 GMT -5
I wonder how far off the list Ball was. It seems like Manaea comfortably made the list (although who knows, maybe there were a cluster of Royals at the end).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 23, 2013 14:38:02 GMT -5
It's not really fair to use hindsight. It worked out, but there are never guarantees that you win with the best team in the SSS playoffs. Maybe that trade is also what put us on the path to 2012. Absolutely. If you're playing blackjack and you hit on 19, that's a dumb move. And it doesn't become any less of dumb move just because a two comes out. We'll also never know how the 2008 Red Sox (and future teams) would've done with Hanley Ramirez on the team (for cheap). He was literally one of the best players in baseball. He could've helped win some games I think.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 18, 2013 20:33:42 GMT -5
Yeah it'd be totally boring to score like 1500 runs in a season. Seriously, this is total you-kids-get-off-my-lawn talk. Just because people understand the game differently than you may doesn't mean they're less invested in it. I completely and totally understand the value of walks. But as a fan, they are not exciting to watch if that's all there is. You cannot say my opinion of what I prefer to watch is wrong. Advanced statistics have added to my enjoyment of the sport and help make me more emotionally invested. Whatever floats your boat and all those similar expressions.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 16, 2013 23:44:51 GMT -5
Then you are on the wrong site. In nearly every case, signing a veteran to block a younger player or prospect for multiple years will result in the team having a better projected chance at winning the World Series in the upcomming season. Do that enough, you'll very quickly be an also ran even with the Red Sox's resources. As the Angels showed, you might not have the short-term results either. To use one recent example. The Red Sox would have a better chance to win the World Series in 2014 had they resigned Jared Saltalamacchia to a three year contract. They didn't do it mainly because doing so would have blocked two catching prospects starting in 2014. The idea is to give the team the best chance to win the World Series for several years. The only way to do that is by integrating young players. Given that most prospects aren't Xander Bogarts that's going to involve taking some risk. Risk that might harm your chances in a given year. This is only true in a vacuum. You don't sign the blocker, but you have a half season to set your team then have era source depth to deal for any issues. The acquisition cost for a player at the trade deadline is generally high. The acquisition cost of Drew (assuming he returns to Boston) would be a short commitment for slightly below market due to the QO. If the Red Sox need to add a SS/3B at the deadline it's not going to be for cash, and if it is the player will be Michael Young or someone similar. I don't like the idea of bypassing quality veterans on value signings to avoid "blocking" a prospect. Injuries happen, depth is necessary, and creating a culture where you have to earn a job by outplaying your teammates is a positive thing. Aren't the WMB supporters blaming his injuries, inconsistency with mechanics and poor offseason work ethic as reasons for his struggles? Why shouldn't the Red Sox prepare themselves for injuries or unexpected poor performance? Why shouldn't they give him even more incentive to compete for playing time and have a positive offseason? If his struggles are due to mechanical breakdowns I'd think giving him less of a workload could be a positive thing in the short term, he's admitted to losing confidence and pressing in the past. I agree it's less than ideal to give him the short side of a platoon this season for his long time development…but the argument I have a hard time accepting is that such a role would in itself sabotage his long term outlook. If you believe in WMB as a valuable commodity who can be a long term starter on a contending Red Sox team don't you have to believe he could "recover" from such a demotion? And if he can't, what happens if he gets injured and misses a few months of playing time, is he permanent damaged goods? I have to believe WMB would get significant at bats on this team even if they had another relatively healthy season. Too many posters here talk about offseason roster building like they're doing franchise mode in a video game with injuries turned off.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 13, 2013 13:52:11 GMT -5
First off if by "falling into their lap" you mean that Drew signs for some unrealistically low price I sincerely doubt that's going to happen. Secondly how exactly is Middlebrooks going to develop sitting on a major league bench playing twice a week or in AAA facing Quad A pitchers for two years? He isn't. 27 year old backup 3B usually don't turn into regulars. To use your David Freese comparison, David Freese did just that. The real reason I bring up Freese is he's actually nothing like the player you thought he was. Freese gets on base.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 7, 2013 1:43:08 GMT -5
It's not about Kuroda being good or not, it's about risk and need. He's a high risk and low need. Plus, high cost (2/32-at least) + draft pick. When a guy gets to 39 the clock is very near the end of its life. Plus, it's been made clear its Japan or NYY for him. The reason you are the only one on him is because others know this so it's an almost impossible scenario. If you think Kuroda is "high risk" your eyeballs didn't assimilate this: "Kuroda just put up his 4th straight sub 3.4 ERA season averaging over 200 innings pitched each year, including the last few as a RH pitcher in Yankee stadium against some solid hitting lineups in the AL East. I think you have to look for a while to find much fault with that." Pitchers get hurt and decline though. Old ones especially. Any three year deal for a pitcher his age carries a large amount of risk. Plus, from all reports, Kuroda only considered the Yankees or Japan…so the only way you sign him is to significantly outbid the Yankees, who were very desperate for his services. I'm not sure why you're suggesting this is a reasonable scenario, it just sounds like baseless whining.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2013 0:58:31 GMT -5
First keep in mind the long shot factor and admitted wishful thinking. Assuming 100% health with no restrictions (a major assumption). Kalish has incredible athleticism, well above average range and above average arm strength. He has a b's out style that is very reminiscent of a young Trot Nixon before Trot started having back issues. In terms of batting, keep in mind that almost everybody in camp will be rusty and I seriously doubt if Ryan is sitting at home watching reruns on TV right now. I think he had progressed enough as a player that as a 26 year old, he should be able to get back to where he was by spring's end. Shane had a great year and he's a decent player but that was a career year in virtually every category and it was well above his career norms. He will be 34 and I am guessing that the list of major league players that sustained age 33 career years is rather small. Two years ago he was an even better (more productive) hitter, it wasn't really a career year.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 4, 2013 20:04:26 GMT -5
I'd love to see the Golden Eagles sign Kuroda and have a better rotation than the Yankees next season.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 4, 2013 13:56:50 GMT -5
Look at his full-season stats and rates. Speed: 2008 = 8.2, 2009 = 8.1, 2011 = 6.3, 2013 = 8.2. I fail to see how 2013 is "well above his career averages" unless you only look at the "average" which includes injury seasons. I'm perfectly comfortable ignoring his injury-lost seasons because there were caused by freak accidents rather than soft-tissue problems. Again: I really dislike the defensive metrics precisely because you can look at Ellsbury to see this. Something like UZR/150 which changes 30 points from one year to the next? Players don't improve or worsen that much. Regardless though: in 2013 his Def value was 12.0 which is right in the middle of his career #s, so again; it's not "well above his career averages". We'll have to agree to disagree here, I think. I believe that Ellsbury has 2 seasons at similar to slightly greater value than 2013 left in him. After that he'll start to decline but, in total, he will exceed or meet the value of the contract given to him in the first 4 seasons. Right, just like home run totals. Players don't hit 32 in one season and never crack 10 in any other year, wild fluctuations in performance just doesn't happen like that.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 3, 2013 21:37:00 GMT -5
I am not certain the Yankees have many (or any) large free agent signings left this offseason. Jeff Passan @jeffpassan Source: Not only do the Yankees believe they've got room for Ellsbury and Cano or Choo, they still plan on signing at least one SP as well. Looks like they're going with the Dodgers "screw the CBT" strategy. I'd hope so, their rotation is laughable right now. Even adding one of Tanaka or Kuroda leaves them extremely suspect.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 26, 2013 12:17:21 GMT -5
.321/.376/.552, 32 HRs, 39 SBs At this point, Ellsbury is going to cost more than $40 million more than Kemp. It's not a fair comparison between the two. I'd love to have Ells back, but there is no way he would ever consider 5 year, $100 million. So we move onto the next option. I get it, it probably isn't going to happen. But now is the time to make said trade, we have the prospect depth and will be able to add to it even more this offseason by getting 3 more top picks. We have guys like Mookie Betts, blocked by Pedroia, and an cabinet full of top pitching prospects who are expendable because there isn't going to be room on the roster anytime soon for all of them. Isn't Kemp owed about $130m over 6 years? Unless I'm reading it wrong that's the information on Cots. Where is this 5/100m figure coming from?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 13, 2013 14:09:46 GMT -5
Why do you limit yourself to the "preseason"? The question "what number of wins do you expect to have with the talent that is able to play." Missing their starting 3B, SS, 1B, and CF plays into your expectations of their talent and how many wins you'd expect them to have, no? I don't know when they expected Overay, Wells, Nunez, Nix and Hafner to be in the top 9 in PAs, but, well, that group sucks. I haven't looked at it in-depth, but I'd expect that the Yankees won a number of games more than we'd expect with the lineup they put out there (clearly they outplayed their pythag, but that's a slightly different question). I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than the Sox. Its certainly up there. Personally I find preseason expectations extremely arbitrary and I don't think they should be the deciding factor for MOTY. But again, she used it as one of her primary arguments, and that's why we're talking about it. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that. I take issue with her personal criteria and the preseason argument she's trying to make. Like I said, there are plenty of good arguments for Joe Girardi, she just made a poor one. Also, we knew they'd be without their 3B, SS, 1B and CF in the preseason, some people were just overly optimistic those older players would return healthy and productive by midseason, and that was always overly optimistic...and they got about the worst luck possible with those four injuries
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 13, 2013 12:44:41 GMT -5
I could care less about Christina's vote (or the award itself), but her supporting argument is bogus. Posters are in this "debate" about preseason expectations and whether the team was a 70 win projection, or 81, or 90 but that's all missing the point...is anyone arguing the Yankees or Rays outperformed their preseason expectations MORE than the Red Sox did? No? Ok then Why not? Esp the Yankees. The Red Sox won 12 more games than the Yankees. What source projected a larger gap in the preseason?
|
|
|