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 pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 16:45:47 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that that was not an off the cuff tweet. It was thought out, he presented a statement he knew was going to provoke question, and then clarified it by mentioning Javier Guerra. Smashing that into the "Gammons is old and sucks at technology" is lazy and not fitting with the narrative. I don't think it's a stretch to think that the Sox rank their prospects differently than Baseball America or Sox Prospects or other outlets. And yes, maybe internally, they consider guys like Owens as prospects still, so maybe it's a technicality that Margot is not in the top 10 gammons was discussing. However, when I look at Margot, I see a great defender with a platoon bat, and not the side of the split that favors him facing 65% of pitcher's in the league. I don't know how the Sox rank their prospects. I'm assuming it is an always fluctuating combination of utility at present, future ceiling, and ability for them to go out and replace that guy on the open market. If they see Margot as a lefty-masher 4th or 5th OFer, then I've seen them grab those guys often on short deals (Young, Ross, Gomes, etc-- what those guys lose in defense compared to Margot they make up in ML offense.). I don't think it's a stretch to think their top 10 might have been something like: Moncada, Espinoza, Benintendi, Kopech, Devers, Johnson, Guerra, Travis, Light, Marrero. To be clear, I'm not "smashing this into" saying he's old and sucks at technology. I'm saying he doesn't express himself well on Twitter and that he historically is not a reliable source on Red Sox minor league information. For what it's worth, if the Red Sox internally value Pat Light and Deven Marrero ahead of Manuel Margot, they're very, very wrong. Like I said, I think the likeliest thing, if he's not mistaken, is that Margot was a near-miss on a list that still includes guys we consider to have "graduated." I'm dropping it because at this point I think we'll be going in circles. Hubris.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 16:05:10 GMT -5
I know salaries will only go up in the next 3 years but I think that 4/127 for Price's age 33-37 seasons is still going to be the top salary of an ace at that time. He is known as a great teammate everywhere he has been and I can definitely see a scenario where he loves being on the Sox and decides to not exercise the opt out. At the time of the opt out many other good starters will also be hitting free agency like Harvey, Kershaw and others. If he does opt out then the Sox will free up that 30 million to spend on someone else. I think the opt out is good for both sides People said this about Greinke, Arod, Burnett, CC, etc. Wells was one who it didn't work out for, but that's cause he became a shell of himself. Make no mistake, this opt-out was not put in by the Red Sox. This is something the player and the agent INSISTED on, because they believe that the client, if he pitches to his career norms/potential, can go out on the open market and further improve his earnings. If Price is Price for 3 years, he will opt-out. 3 years ago people doubted Greinke could do better than 3/77 if he opted out. That's basically 26 mill per year. Pretty near league tops at the time. Now, he seems like a lock to get 5/150, and realistically we might see something like 6/180 if he gets the Dodgers and Giants battling. Health is a huge determining factor, so any assurance goes out the window. But it's not crazy to think that Price opting out is very very realistic.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 15:59:14 GMT -5
The real downside to the team is that in the event that the last 4/$127m would have been net beneficial for the team, they won't be able to get any upside from those years because Price opts out. Remember, there's a big difference from predicting what those last four years will look like now and predicting what those last four years will look like after the 2018 season. Presumably, if he does opt out, he has been healthy and productive in 2016-18, and the Red Sox would probably be willing to sign a healthy and productive 34-year-old David Price to a 4/$127m contract in 2018. Older pitchers can still be worth substantial contracts if they're healthy and productive-- think Greinke or Lackey this year. Remember, the only scenario where Price opts out is if he thinks multiple teams will give him more than 4/$127m (and lose a comp pick) in free agency. If that's the case, almost by definition, the Red Sox would be better off if he was still on his original contract. To think otherwise, you have to think that (a) there's a huge gap between how other teams would value a 34-year-old Price and how the Red Sox would value him and (b) that there's no way the 2018 Red Sox would be willing to exploit that delta by trading him. Reasonable reply and fair points, jmei, and since opt-out related discussion appears to have run its course and will only go around in circles from here, I will not belabor the point any further. Those poor Red Sox will have to figure out what to do when Price opts out. I guess they can soothe their tears using the money towards 1 of Jose Fernandez, Matt Harvey, Josh Donaldson, Bryce Harper, Andrew McCutchen, etc.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 15:55:14 GMT -5
Counting down the days until I'm b*tching about Farrell starting him against RHP. This is who we should have signed in 2014 instead of Grady Sizemore. And so it begins: @jtomase 15m15 minutes ago Farrell views Young as 4th OF to play mostly against LHP, but says he will get some looks against RHP, too. Sox like athleticism in OF. Let's not make a huge deal out of this. This is simply Farrell saying "We're going to do what gives us the best chance to win with how the roster is currently constructed." In 2015, Young actually produced a higher OPS against righties than Castillo. Not by much, but it still would have been a slight improvement. If Castillo starts mashing, they will play him. Let's just relax.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 15:44:49 GMT -5
Gammons has and always has had, more insight into the Sox thinking than anyone else. Their thinking is not parallel to Sox Prospects. Their rankings have utility for present and future balanced. For all we know, they viewed Margot as Chris Young without the same power ceiling. I also think they value some guys much higher than we might. For example, I would bet that Pat Light is in their top 10, even though he's a reliever. I'd argue that since Theo Epstein left, he has not had nearly as much insight. Also, he has at many times been way, way off when discussing Red Sox minor leaguers. See, for example, his trumpeting of Edgar Martinez as the team's future closer long after his prospect status had reached an apex, or suggesting that the Red Sox might call up then-Salem catcher Tim Federowicz for the playoffs in 2010 because he was so good defensively. Gammons is a no-doubt hall of famer and a guy I have respected, idolized, and wanted to emulate for a long, long time, and I hate that I'm basically running him down right now. But I refuse to believe that an internal list of the club's top 10 prospects, in the traditional definition of the term and using a traditional ranking method, existed that Margot was not on, and I don't think his track record either on Twitter and with regard to Sox minor leaguers is strong enough that we assume his tweet stating as much is correct. All I'm saying is that that was not an off the cuff tweet. It was thought out, he presented a statement he knew was going to provoke question, and then clarified it by mentioning Javier Guerra. Smashing that into the "Gammons is old and sucks at technology" is lazy and not fitting with the narrative. I don't think it's a stretch to think that the Sox rank their prospects differently than Baseball America or Sox Prospects or other outlets. And yes, maybe internally, they consider guys like Owens as prospects still, so maybe it's a technicality that Margot is not in the top 10 gammons was discussing. However, when I look at Margot, I see a great defender with a platoon bat, and not the side of the split that favors him facing 65% of pitcher's in the league. I don't know how the Sox rank their prospects. I'm assuming it is an always fluctuating combination of utility at present, future ceiling, and ability for them to go out and replace that guy on the open market. If they see Margot as a lefty-masher 4th or 5th OFer, then I've seen them grab those guys often on short deals (Young, Ross, Gomes, etc-- what those guys lose in defense compared to Margot they make up in ML offense.). I don't think it's a stretch to think their top 10 might have been something like: Moncada, Espinoza, Benintendi, Kopech, Devers, Johnson, Guerra, Travis, Light, Marrero.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 14:31:35 GMT -5
Agreed. And to me it does make sense (apologies to CH) that Margot might not be valued, internally, as a top 10 prospect, if as it appears now, his RHH bat may not play against RHP. Intuitively, one would expect that the internal proprietary method of valuation should be intended to differ greatly from other teams' methods, and therein would lie its bargaining advantage (if accurate). Who else of repute is taking the stance that Margot, who BA just ranked #2 in the Padres system, was not regarded internally by the Red Sox as one of their top 10 prospects? Honest question. EDIT: Actually, the only way this makes sense is if he's using some broader definition of "prospect" that would include guys who recently graduated like Rodriguez, Swihart, Owens, etc. Then I could MAYBE buy those three, Guerra, and the site's current top 6 pushed him down to 11. Heck maybe they were even super bullish on Travis. But using a traditional definition of prospect, I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that Margot was not regarded as one of the 10 best prospects they have. And while I agree that most of his Twitter issues are of the variety you describe, I point out the whole thing yesterday comparing bringing events to Fenway with signing Price. It's not like forgetting Margot would be beyond the pale for him. Gammons has and always has had, more insight into the Sox thinking than anyone else. Their thinking is not parallel to Sox Prospects. Their rankings have utility for present and future balanced. For all we know, they viewed Margot as Chris Young without the same power ceiling. I also think they value some guys much higher than we might. For example, I would bet that Pat Light is in their top 10, even though he's a reliever.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 13:58:17 GMT -5
That's interesting about the improvement in splits ... have you seen more on that? I'd like to look into it a little more. Also, where did Gammo say that about the Top 10? Was it in print? Gammons said that in a tweet. Based on the fact that Gammons on Twitter is... Gammons on Twitter, I'm going to assume that he's mistaken. I could buy that they valued him as the 8th best of their top 8 prospects or something, but there's no way I buy that some combination of two of Deven Marrero, Michael Chavis, LAX Basabe, Trey Ball, Wendell Rijo, and so forth was more highly regarded internally. A lot of people are taking this stance and I'm not quite buying it was a Gammons mistake. His mistakes are butt-tweeting and the like. This was very clear and thought out. He said "one top 10 prospect" and then took the time to clarify in parenthesis who that was. It's not fitting with his nature or his previous tweets that he would suddenly forget Margot existed. This was a thought out tweet with real insight into sox thinking.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 2:31:10 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox needed to make this move so am fine with it. I actually like it when considering the new CBA (approaching) and inflation. Fine with the opt-out. And its going to be extremely fun watching Price pitch gems while Mookie and Xander tear it up next year. Mostly, I am happy we get to keep the 12th pick. Expecting maybe one more reliever signed, a trade of a starter, or Kelly to the BP. I think Dave Dombrowski semi-relaxed and content with his current team is a pretty dangerous thing to have at the winter meetings when everyone else is scrambling around to fill holes before tickets go on sale.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 2:00:30 GMT -5
If you put a lot of thought into how players compare to players 30+ years ago, you showcase yourself as a pretty big idiot.
We can be nostalgic all we want, but the speed and strength of games is far and away better now, it's just completely useless to compare. I cringe whenever I hear people say something stupid like Babe Ruth or Ted Williams would dominate the game of baseball today. No, no they wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 1:52:22 GMT -5
No because the two have nothing to do with one another and I don't understand why people think they do. So is it your assumption that DDo has no plan, and is making moves randomly? People need to realize that Margot and Guerra weren't flawless players. Gammons tweeted this out today: "So for one(Javier Guerra) of what they considered their 10 top prospects and $217m David Dombrowski put an alpha and omega to Sox pitching" Why do the Sox not view Margot as a top 10? Probably cause he showed a complete inability to hit right-handed pitching this past year with the move to AA. Guerra's power was intriguing, but it's also built with a dead pull swing to RF. Not Fenway friendly.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 1:27:02 GMT -5
Are they braves really infatuated with aj pollack? What am I missing? Miller should get them more than pollack. In this case, you're missing everything. AJ Pollock is a fantastic player. 8th in the MLB for position player WAR, and under control like Miller for 3 years. If you're comfortable trading 3 years of AJ Pollock for Shelby Miller, you should be comfortable trading 4 years of Xander Bogaerts for Shelby Miller.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 1:14:01 GMT -5
I wasn't happy when the Sox lost Lester. I would have given the guy his $150 million over 6 years or at least not lowballed him on the initial offer. But as of now, I don't care anymore. I'd rather have Price at his deal, even at seven years at more annual money than Lester. He's simply a better pitcher. I was worried that if the Sox did shell out the money it would be reactionary, such as trading too much in talent for Cole Hamels or being forced to choose between Cueto (who I do like) or Zimmermann. Instead the Sox were choosing between Price or Greinke, the top of the line. The last time the Sox got an ace and a closer in the same offseason, they did it the reverse way. The got the starter first via trade and then the closer via free agency. With Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke aboard, the Sox only improved 3 games in the standings, although both were excellent, but their truest impact came in that post-season of 2004. Here's hoping the Sox get bigger long-term improvements out of Price and Kimbrel, and get a bigger jump in the standings (along with maturation from the younger players) and some impact in the post-season. interesting Lester factoid, not to draw any grand conclusions from, but just to mentally chew on: Sox were worried about him controlling the run game in 2014, gave up 16 stolen bags in 32 starts (between 2 clubs) Word gets out, and what happens in 2015? 44 stolen bases allowed.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 1, 2015 19:41:30 GMT -5
David Price has helped countless pitchers while in Tampa Bay. Ask Alex Cobb, Matt Moore, and especially Chris Archer. I can see Eduardo Rodriquez really blossoming over the next year or two, just because Price is there. Love the signing, and like the op-out. After 3 PRIME years of David Price anything can happen, including Anderson Espinoza being a real "beast" at this time. Dombrowski has delivered! In does sort of make the Winter Meetings less important, but I'm fine without the stress of checking every few moments if the Sox had done something. Gives DD a lot of time and flexibility to look for trades to reinforce the pen and possibly move Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 1, 2015 17:43:20 GMT -5
Any word yet on the 40man moves for Young and Price?
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 1, 2015 15:04:23 GMT -5
I wouldn't make too much of one season's splits, especially for guys like Shaw who didn't play all that much. But I've lost track ... did Shaw go anywhere to play leftfield this winter? Not sure if he ever played it. I know they were reports of them wanting to see if he could play some 3rd and left as well. Also why he's the last option on the depth chart there. Seems like it's more of a "get him some looks in spring training in case his bat plays so well we force him into lineup"
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 1, 2015 15:01:58 GMT -5
If we're trading with the Braves, I'd rather go for broke in order to get Freeman. I'm also not sure if we'd go after Miller if we sign Price, but if we trade for Miller we can use the money saved to either sign an OF to replace JBJ, or sign a decent reliever. Depends. It's pretty clear Miller isn't the "ace" DD is looking for. So it's a little bit of a wonky fit since JBJ would probably go, but you'd still be spending money on a FA Ace. So DD would have to be pretty confident he can get an OF-er for the likes of Buch or Miley or Kelly. I also wouldn't give too much stock to that report. It simply said someone familiar to the Braves way of thinking said Red Sox could be a match, simply cause they're looking for pitching and have chips.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 1, 2015 14:45:41 GMT -5
JBJ and Owens for miller, sign heyward and maeda, pass on Price, wait 2-3 years to break the pitching bank on Otani. i would also offer Cueto 3/90 and point out the payday greinke is getting at age 32. Long shot tho. Pointing out the payday Greinke is getting is not going to convince Cueto to take less years lol. "He's getting 5 years at 30 million!" is going to make Cueto want 7 years
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 1, 2015 14:37:18 GMT -5
I don't think it was. Hill wanted a guarantee for a spot in the rotation. That wasn't something the Sox were going to do. It wasn't about money since neither broke the bank. Yeah, people keep mentioning Hill like he was something the Sox cheaped out on. I'm sure they would've loved him for that Chris Young swing-man role, but he was always going to someone who guaranteed him a spot. 2/13 for Young is actually under what I expected. I thought he might get 2/15 signing early. Hopefully he follows the Cody Ross/Jonny Gomes role and assaults the monster. I'm not 100% sure they're done with the OF though, but who knows. Betts, JBJ, Rusney, Chris Young, Shaw, Holt all hit lefties better than righties last season, though Shaw's previous splits favors him against righties. Should be interesting though to see what else happens. Dombrowski seems to have laser focus on his plan, not a whole lot of smoke & mirrors like we're used to seeing with Cherington & co
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 1, 2015 0:43:16 GMT -5
Yeah wow, they came outta nowhere for him. 7/225.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 18:51:34 GMT -5
Because Mookie hasn't taken any infield work in quite some time. He'll easily get his full playing time in the OF. Brock Holt will spell Pedroia in the few games Farrell convinces him to sit out. Rutledge/Marrero will be at AAA and will come up if Pedey is DL'd. It's just not a likely scenario you move your best OF-er to the infield to give Pedroia rest. Pedroia is signed long term, they don't benefit from screwing with Mookie. Mookie is a 300 bowler and immensely talented. You shouldn't be so worried about his ability to multi-task, if needed. It may never come up, but I think your selling him a bit short here. Then there is the possibility of injury....regression..etc..etc. It's not that far fetched, even if less than ideal. Also, the 40 man doesn't show Rutledge as available. Has he resigned a minor league contract? In no way am I saying Mookie can't do it. The scenario in question was to give Pedroia a few days rest. It's just not something that happens to spell a player a few games rest. Brock Holt needs the at bats as badly as Chris Young does. Now, massive injury, you'd probably still see Marrero or Rutledge or Holt take the most time at 2nd. Mookie MAYBE, if they were desperate, but it also predicates on the notion that JBJ, Castillo and Young are all raking. Which isn't hugely likely. Rutledge cleared waivers and was assigned to Pawtucket.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 18:24:23 GMT -5
Yeah that's probably not likely to happen whatsoever. Why, please? Because Mookie hasn't taken any infield work in quite some time. He'll easily get his full playing time in the OF. Brock Holt will spell Pedroia in the few games Farrell convinces him to sit out. Rutledge/Marrero will be at AAA and will come up if Pedey is DL'd. It's just not a likely scenario you move your best OF-er to the infield to give Pedroia rest. Pedroia is signed long term, they don't benefit from screwing with Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 17:52:46 GMT -5
The Indians still have not fixed any of their issues. I know it's still very early, and there are alternatives out there, but a deal around Bradley and Castillo sure looks good for both sides. Sox adding a mid level piece It would give DDo room to negotiate if the Price talks get silly. Having Carrasco is a decent enough upgrade that he could start the season with Carrasoc, Buchholz as his 1, 2 and have a decent chance at the post season. It also gives him another piece to hold in front of Price, by way of, "we are building a powerhouse, join us." If however he were to still sign Price, he'd have to have a spot to deal Buchholz. Or alternatively, and maybe desired, they start the year with ERod in AAA, Kelly in the pen, then after Buchholz has reestablished value, he's dealt and ERod promoted. In the end they will have traded Buchholz, Bradley, Owens and the SD prospects for Carrasco, Kimbrel, and the Buchholz prospects. Assuming the returning prospects slot into areas of need better than Margot or Guerra, this could shake out quite well, with both the Boston team, and the ML system improved. It probably is time to take Dombrowski at his word, something you suggested earlier. A few of those words revolved around Bradley, how much he thinks of his skills as a defender, and how important those skills are across the board. I see another easy way for Young to get at bats. Pedroia needs to be browbeat into taking time off once in a while. When that happens you move the all-star second baseman in waiting - Betts - into the infield and play Young as part of the outfield trio. The team has started making this noise, that Pedroia needs to take it easy on himself, and I'll bet they follow through now that they can. Yeah that's probably not likely to happen whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 17:48:09 GMT -5
There are too many offseason threads. This has nothing to do with JBJ trade rumors anymore, like has happened in a few other threads. Maybe someone will give you a hall monitor sash and deputize you as a moderator
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 17:39:38 GMT -5
No joke. Rutledge also should bave been kept over Coyle. Rutledge cleared waivers and was outrighted to Pawtucket. So, there ya go. Not really all that shocking
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 14:16:37 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of Chris Young. But, I do see how he'd fit as an insurance policy against Bradley's streakiness and Rusney going on the DL. That being said, it'll be interesting to see the premium payment on this insurance policy. We've always signed this type of guy who sends a ton of fly balls at the monster. Gomes, Cody Ross, etc. Makes a good amount of sense, and high dollars on short years to sway depth pieces is a fantastic advantage big money clubs have over smaller markets.
|
|
|