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 jmei on Mar 1, 2023 22:38:01 GMT -5
Please move on. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 1, 2023 19:19:54 GMT -5
Apropos of nothing, but it is infuriating to me to see so much national media praise of the Padres front office. Overpaying (in trades, free agency signings and extensions) for star talent that fits poorly on the field should not be that praiseworthy. It is great that Padres ownership is willing to spend to chase a title, but you cannot convince me that the front office has done a good job of allocating the resources that they have been allotted. 2021-2022 Padres: Ownership happy to spend, in go for it now mode, reaping the rewards of having the #1 ranked farm system 2018 and 2019, won 168 games 2021-2022 Red Sox: Ownership happy to spend, in go for it later mode, paying the price for having the #30 ranked farm system 2018 and 2019, won 170 games
As you astutely picked up, the fact that the Padres front office is being praised while the Red Sox front office is being trashed in most corners makes it particularly infuriating.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 1, 2023 18:22:31 GMT -5
Apropos of nothing, but it is infuriating to me to see so much national media praise of the Padres front office. Overpaying (in trades, free agency signings and extensions) for star talent that fits poorly on the field should not be that praiseworthy. It is great that Padres ownership is willing to spend to chase a title, but you cannot convince me that the front office has done a good job of allocating the resources that they have been allotted.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 1, 2023 16:19:57 GMT -5
They really ought to further adjust the Rule 5 rules for (1) international free agents (they get one extra year, but the ones who sign at 16 really ought to get two extra years) and (2) players who miss entire seasons (whether due to injury or other circumstances) (they should get an extra year to mitigate the risk of being rushed either by their original team or a drafting team). Not sure who would be pushing for rule changes, though. Maybe minor leaguers finally joining the MLBPA would push things along, but they have much more pressing priorities (namely, minor league salaries and benefits). I don't really get why the Rule 5 draft survives CBA negotiations. I don't think union members are excited about these players taking jobs, and I don't think teams enjoy the process. Both sides seemed happy the year they skipped it. I don't think it really serves its stated purpose to begin with. The modal selection is an AA pitcher that nobody would give a big league job to under normal circumstances. There's very few picks of established AAA players where the selecting team would have happily played him in the majors if they had him all along.
You have to remember that the Rule 5 draft influences behavior even outside of the specific players that get selected. Every year, something like 100+ minor leaguers (if you assume an average of 3.3+ players per team) get added to 40-man rosters to protect them from the Rule 5 draft that would otherwise not be added. Those guys become official MLB players with the resulting benefits (including an MLB salary and MLBPA membership), which obviously benefits the MLBPA. I think the concept makes good sense, just needs a little tweaking around the margins.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 1, 2023 16:14:27 GMT -5
I am trying not to pile on, but a few incremental (substantive) thoughts:
-Philadelphia's cloak and dagger approach (secret throwing sessions, moving his throwing sessions around last minute, etc.) do not seem to reflect a team that wants to either trade with the Red Sox to get his permanent rights (i.e., be able to option him to the minors) or trade him to another team (whether the Red Sox or someone else). Given the significant uncertainties here (it is virtually unprecedented that a player misses three full seasons for a reason other than injury), no team is going to make you an offer unless they have a sense of what they're getting/giving up, and these maneuvers are presumably designed to prevent other teams from knowing what Song looks like, which would be counterintuitive if you've done all this in order to gin up trade interest.
-A lot of why Song was so well regarded coming out of the draft was not his raw stuff (which is good but not particularly notable) but his pitchability (good mechanics, fastball command, four-pitch mix, etc.). Those things would seem like the last things to return after a long layoff.
-Let's consider the counterfactual where he wasn't selected to the Rule 5 draft. Would he even be assigned to a Red Sox affiliate coming out of spring training? Feels like he'd spend a few extra weeks in extended spring training, maybe go to Salem in May and end the season in Greenville? I just can't imagine that a player on that trajectory could spend a full season on an MLB roster, even on the worst team in the league. It's not that it's impossible (again, unprecedented situation here), it's just that the odds seem very low.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 1, 2023 15:50:10 GMT -5
I noticed some people are worried about Song, how he will mentally be affected and whether the players association should prevent moves like this. So a couple of points to alleviate those concerns: - Song is a professional athlete and former elite college pitcher - Song graduated from the very difficult Air Force Academy and then Air Force flight school - Song has reached a dream of playing for an MLB team (although possibly only in camp or exhibition games) - The rule 5 draft is meant to reduce the control of teams and provide a pathway for more players to reach the majors, so it seems to be fulfilling its purpose I hope we get Song back, but I'm not feeling bad for him and I'm quite confident he doesn't feel bad for himself I agree with most of your points and your conclusion. But I disagree that the rule 5 is fulfilling its purpose here. It’s designed for players who are buried but another team sees something that makes them a fit for an MLB roster. No one thinks Song right now is ready for an MLB roster, and the best thing for his future is to spend as much time as possible in a development focused environment, which is definitely not the case buried on the back end of a team trying to compete. They really ought to further adjust the Rule 5 rules for (1) international free agents (they get one extra year, but the ones who sign at 16 really ought to get two extra years) and (2) players who miss entire seasons (whether due to injury or other circumstances) (they should get an extra year to mitigate the risk of being rushed either by their original team or a drafting team). Not sure who would be pushing for rule changes, though. Maybe minor leaguers finally joining the MLBPA would push things along, but they have much more pressing priorities (namely, minor league salaries and benefits).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 28, 2023 13:22:14 GMT -5
Eh, sort of. In his video scouting report for MLB.com, Callis says about Mayer: "it's not impossible that he could slow down enough as he fills out that he might have to shift to second or third base." Longenhagen definitely thinks the odds of that are higher than the other national guys, but it's not like he's the only one who has flagged it as a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 28, 2023 12:40:42 GMT -5
Even if he's merely a meh MLB hitter (with the swing-and-miss issues offsetting his power), Dalbec might have enough defensive versatility to stick around as a backup for years. 1B/3B is a good start, and I suspect he can add LF and RF with a bit of practice.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 28, 2023 9:23:49 GMT -5
I really don't get how so many people here still seem to think that BOS will get Song back and then in a year or two he'll be a useful major leaguer. In order for that to happen, the following series of events would have to take place: 1. PHI decides they can't spare their 8th bullpen spot for him; 2. PHI asks BOS what they want in exchange for Song's rights and the price is too high; 3. PHI shops Song to the rest of the league and no one is willing to give up anything for him to eat their 8th reliever spot this year while he works his way back into baseball shape throwing bullpens (hell, even $51,000, straight cash homey, would be more than what PHI would get from BOS); 4. PHI places Song on waivers and no other team will spare even a 40-man spot for him for zero cost; 5. PHI offers Song back to BOS for $50k. 6. BOS puts Song on their 40-man roster and options him to the FCL to work himself back into shape and in 2024 he shoots up the minor league ladder like a rocket. If you've been paying attention, you noticed that #2 is completely contradictory to #3 and #4. The only reason PHI wouldn't be able to trade for Song's full rights is if BOS asks for an exorbitant return. Well, if that's how BOS values him, then why wouldn't a non-contender take a chance on him for a lower price (#3) or for nothing (#4)? The answer is that at least one would, not to mention the bonus PR from rehabbing a Navy pilot (Nats, anyone?). I would say there would be a minor bidding war if Chaim lets it get to #3. But he won't. If some jackass sitting on his couch can figure this out, Chaim can certainly figure this out, so he's going to nip it all in the bud and trade Song's full rights to PHI for a price they'll be willing to pay (#2a). Sorry, Noah's not coming back. Unless... Unless Chaim turns the tables and trades for Song's Rule 5 rights from PHI (#2x). I'm not sure if there's a precedent for this and I don't know if it means that BOS would need to keep him on their 26-man roster all year (I'm inclined to think they would). Of course, it also means that BOS would have to outbid everyone else. Still not a great look... and almost certainly not happening. He's not coming back. N.B. If PHI really likes how Song looks in Clearwater (and they're the only team with eyes on him right now), they might be able to work a 7-man bullpen while Song rehabs by rotating guys with options through the 7th spot. Only 4 out of 12 RPs on their 40-man roster (not including Song) are out of options.
Beyond the factual errors which Chris and others have already flagged, we can look at this as an empirical question. All of these dynamics apply to any Rule 5 draft (other than the Navy pilot PR stuff, which I don't put any weight on). Yet most Rule 5 picks are returned, with only a few claimed on waivers and kept by the claiming team, traded and kept by the acquiring team or traded by the original team to the drafting team. You can go check the list and look for yourself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_5_draft_resultsADD: I will happily put some (trivial) stakes on this. I'm willing to bet that Song will be returned to the Red Sox before the end of the season. Loser has to use the winner's choice of avatar from the last day of the 2023 World Series until Opening Day 2024. If anyone is willing to take the other side of that bet (i.e., that Song will not be returned to the Red Sox before the end of the season), just let me know.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 28, 2023 7:08:10 GMT -5
Great to hear all these personal stories of how your atheltic skills have not faded, but I don't think anyone's amateur experience throwing a frisbee or playing pool or throwing a nine-inch ball through an eighteen-inch hoop is very relevant to mlb pitching. Muscle memory is a wonderful thing, but if the muscles and ligaments have changed, you're not going to get the same result. Agreed. There’s a big difference between enough muscle memory to be able to pick something up adequately and enough muscle memory to compete at the highest levels of the sport, a level that you were several years away from when you last played, with just a month of prep.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 27, 2023 14:01:44 GMT -5
I haven't heard anything remotely like Longenhagen's take on Mayer having to move off of SS from anyone else. Is he on an island with that? There were some isolated pre-draft questions about whether he might outgrow SS at some point. See, e.g, here. But the overwhelming consensus was that he was fluid/smooth enough not just to stick at shortshop but to potentially be a plus defender there. ADD: Longenhagen has at least been relatively consistent about Mayer's defense potentially being an issue. In February 2022, he said: "Evaluators looking to nitpick Mayer’s game point out fringy home-to-first times and an awkward running gait. A knee-jerk reaction to those nits might lead you to question his ability to stay at shortstop, but he quickly sets aside those concerns once he takes the field, as his instincts, first-step quickness and strong arm make up for the lack of twitch." And, as a reminder, here's what he said a few weeks ago: "As far as defensive projection is concerned, a boxy frame, medium straight line speed, and an awkward running gait push and pull against Mayer’s defensive instincts, first-step quickness, and strong arm. He’s already noticeably thicker now than he was in high school, though that’s probably part of where the power is coming from. He’s likely to move off shortstop eventually, but it probably won’t be for a while; the longer he stays there, the more margin for error the hit tool component, which we’re a tad apprehensive about, will have as he begins his big league career."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 25, 2023 19:08:03 GMT -5
Never could've seen that one coming... They better clean that up before the regular season. The clock should be a timer inside the ump's pocket (maybe the crew chief's pocket, rather than necessarily the home plate ump's) that vibrates when there's a violation so that only the ump is aware and he has the discretion to call or not call violations based on the situation. That way you could avoid the inevitable messes like that one. This is a terrible idea. Can you imagine the amount of “the game is fixed!!” discussion if the umpire explicitly got to decide whether the situation warranted a play clock violation?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 25, 2023 19:02:36 GMT -5
There’s a big difference between stashing a promising low-minors arm (think Jason Garcia) and stashing a promising low-minors arm who hasn’t played organized baseball in three years. The odds of Song sticking on a major league roster all year round to zero.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 24, 2023 10:34:49 GMT -5
I'm seeing folks on Red Sox Twitter speculate on who it is, which just seems kinda spiteful and unnecessary. It feels like this story has been taken from "some veterans told Casas to cut out some stuff they thought was weird" and been blown out of proportion into "Casas was shoved in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds." Idk, spiteful and unnecessary or not, I'd like to know who it was so I can boo them whenever they come back to town. The likes of "Are you f---- kidding me" or "Don't do that, it's weird" in reaction to harmless eccentricities is middle-school-bully-level bs that I don't stand for. And in the end he's forced to act like he was in the wrong so as to restore the harmony that he didn't break in the first place, like give me a break. Eh, "pro athletes act like middle school bullies" should sadly not be all that surprising.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 24, 2023 10:12:34 GMT -5
The bottom line is, a prospect's value is largely measured by what they can get you back in a trade, even if 95% of them are never traded. If you're considering two kids at pick 150 and you can make a case that one of them will be more likely to work into a deadline trade in the next year or two than the other, all other things being equal, why wouldn't you pick the former?
Strong disagree. A prospect's value is largely measured by their projected major league value. Different teams project major league value differently (for instance, different risk tolerances around pitchers vs. hitters, projectability vs. current talent, positional value, etc.), but I do not think any team drafts based on how they think other teams project major league value. They all draft based on how they project major league value. ADD: by way of example, no team drafts a guy who is low on their draft board but whom they think might be higher on other teams' draft boards.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 19, 2023 10:50:10 GMT -5
Let's stay on topic. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 17, 2023 12:08:20 GMT -5
Remember that minor differences in where guys hit in a lineup don't really move the needle (just a handful of runs a year, if I remember correctly). From that lens, I don't get too fussed about whether Devers hits second or third or fourth. As long as some permutation of Devers, Yoshida and Turner are in the top four (which feels like a near certainty), their exact order doesn't matter much to me. They do lean a little LHH heavy in general, though. With Story out, of their top five hitters, four (Yoshida, Devers, Casas, Verdugo) are lefties, and the one RHH who cracks that list is 38 (Turner). (I suppose you can include Kiké in that group and call it four of six, but even in his breakout 2021 season, he was more of a good but not great hitter.) So will either have to risk being susceptible to LOOGY-types or forcing guys like Kiké, Arroyo and their catcher to hit higher in the order than they naturally would. Adam Duvall channeling 2012 Cody Ross would be very big. They really need either him or Hernandez to pop and be a legitimate middle-of-the-order hitter, otherwise they're going to be running out a lot of LHH in the meat of their lineup.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 17, 2023 12:06:35 GMT -5
Eh, they have a lot of names for the rotation, but I think a reasonable pessimistic (call it 30th percentile) projection for a good chunk of their starting pitching depth is either hurt (Sale, Kluber, Paxton), in the bullpen (or at least on an innings limit) (Whitlock, Houck) or replacement level (all the AAA guys). Yes, in theory, they have enough options that it's hard to imagine them all performing below expectations, but it often takes a while before it's clear that the guys you're giving innings to are just not that good. Let's say a few starting pitchers get hurt and they give starts to Crawford and Wink. Would not surprise me if those guys put up, say, a combined 20 starts of replacement-level performance before they yanked them in favor of, say, Mata and Walter. And by that point, those 20 bad starts might have already sunk the season.
ADD: call it the Travis Shaw effect. In theory, having an extra layer of depth in Travis Shaw only helps. In practice, he somehow gave them -0.6 WAR in (checks notes) 19 plate appearances over seven games (!) last year. Not a perfect analogy in the sense that Shaw is an over-the-hill veteran and their depth is more injury risks and fringy fifth starter types, but you get the point. So in this scenario 3 or 4 of their top seven starters (Sale, Paxton, Kluber, Pivetta, Bello, Whitlock, Houck) are on the IL at the same time. And the replacements (Crawford and Winckowski) are... replacement-level. And this happens before other replacements (Mata and Walter) are ready. And presumably their remaining healthy starters are not good enough to compensate for the poor performance of the replacements. This is not *wildly* implausible; indeed it's not far from what they actually went through in the middle of last season (though they started with less depth then). But it's clearly one of the worst plausible outcomes. By the same token the Yankees will be in trouble if Cole and Rodon miss significant time...
I don't think it's that implausible. My median projections of Sale and Paxton are that they are on the IL, so you just need one more starter to get injured (not hard to imagine). My median projections of Crawford and Wink are that they are sub-one win players and that they are first in line for starts. So, on a team-wide level, call this a 30th percentile outcome that they have a replacement-level starting pitcher for a decent chunk of the season. That's where the downside variance comes from. ADD: keep in mind the context of the conversation. I am expressing caution about their ability to (and I quote) "mix-and-match" through injuries or underperformance. It never works out as well in practice as it does in theory because there's a difference between having a lot of options and having a lot of good options. They have a lot of guys who could be good starting pitcher depth, but those guys could also be replacement-level guys. Ditto for whichever one of SS/CF that isn't covered by Kiké, 2B if Arroyo gets hurt, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 17, 2023 11:39:53 GMT -5
Remember that minor differences in where guys hit in a lineup don't really move the needle (just a handful of runs a year, if I remember correctly). From that lens, I don't get too fussed about whether Devers hits second or third or fourth. As long as some permutation of Devers, Yoshida and Turner are in the top four (which feels like a near certainty), their exact order doesn't matter much to me.
They do lean a little LHH heavy in general, though. With Story out, of their top five hitters, four (Yoshida, Devers, Casas, Verdugo) are lefties, and the one RHH who cracks that list is 38 (Turner). (I suppose you can include Kiké in that group and call it four of six, but even in his breakout 2021 season, he was more of a good but not great hitter.) So will either have to risk being susceptible to LOOGY-types or forcing guys like Kiké, Arroyo and their catcher to hit higher in the order than they naturally would.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 17, 2023 11:13:29 GMT -5
Eh, they have a lot of names for the rotation, but I think a reasonable pessimistic (call it 30th percentile) projection for a good chunk of their starting pitching depth is either hurt (Sale, Kluber, Paxton), in the bullpen (or at least on an innings limit) (Whitlock, Houck) or replacement level (all the AAA guys).
Yes, in theory, they have enough options that it's hard to imagine them all performing below expectations, but it often takes a while before it's clear that the guys you're giving innings to are just not that good. Let's say a few starting pitchers get hurt and they give starts to Crawford and Wink. Would not surprise me if those guys put up, say, a combined 20 starts of replacement-level performance before they yanked them in favor of, say, Mata and Walter. And by that point, those 20 bad starts might have already sunk the season.
ADD: call it the Travis Shaw effect. In theory, having an extra layer of depth in Travis Shaw only helps. In practice, he somehow gave them -0.6 WAR in (checks notes) 19 plate appearances over seven games (!) last year. Not a perfect analogy in the sense that Shaw is an over-the-hill veteran and their depth is more injury risks and fringy fifth starter types, but you get the point.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 16, 2023 6:59:13 GMT -5
1) Marcelo Mayer 2) Miguel Bleis 3) Luis Perales 4) Eddison Paulino 5) Kevin McGonigle
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 13, 2023 16:49:38 GMT -5
It really does illustrate the pros and cons of all of these outlets doing top 100 lists and/or org rankings. Pros: you will definitely get clicks and "engagement." Cons: even if you largely copy other lists, you will inevitably get stuff wrong that will get you yelled at (but maybe that's a pro; see point 1 above). Given the subjective nature of these lists, wrong seems like the incorrect word. If they fully copy-paste, it would match other publications, would that be getting it right? Nothing wrong with disagreeing with other lists as long as they can back it up. We can greatly disagree with some of these lists, but the group-think/copy-paste seems to be as much an issue as the disagreement/click-bait. They literally included a player who is not part of the Red Sox organization in the Red Sox top prospects list. I don't know how to describe that other than calling it "wrong." More broadly, I don't have an issue with having a contrary point of view backed up by direct or indirect scouting looks or analysis. It's stuff like outdated information (particularly carryovers from last year's list), forgetting to include certain prospects (which happens just about every year), etc.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 13, 2023 11:59:50 GMT -5
It really does illustrate the pros and cons of all of these outlets doing top 100 lists and/or org rankings. Pros: you will definitely get clicks and "engagement." Cons: even if you largely copy other lists, you will inevitably get stuff wrong that will get you yelled at (but maybe that's a pro; see point 1 above).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2023 8:10:59 GMT -5
Pritchard was hoping he’d get traded (per the Globe):
“I definitely was expecting and hoping [for a trade],” Pritchard said. “But you know, I [have to] look at the good things. We’re the best team in the NBA right now and we have a great team with really great players, so for me it’s an opportunity to learn and to keep growing.”
I continue to maintain that he’s trade bait sooner or later. Maybe the right deal wasn’t available this deadline, but hard to imagine that he’s more valuable to you as emergency guard depth than he would be in a trade.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 9, 2023 6:22:12 GMT -5
KD to the Suns—wow.
ADD: initial take: there’s some risk for Phoenix since Durant and Paul are older and the picks are all unprotected. But having Booker and Ayton helps mitigate that and they massively upgraded on the court. KD indicating that he wanted to go to the Suns was important, since I think the Nets would have otherwise been able to get more present talent and/or just more picks from teams like Memphis or New Orleans.
|
|
|