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 Nov 30, 2015 14:08:36 GMT -5
I'm gonna go out on a limb and expect much more than 2/12 for his contract. Doubt he gets full playing time, and assuming Dombrowski is comfortable paying a premium for having him as a 4th OF.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 12:07:02 GMT -5
I don't think they care much about salary relief on what could be a 1 year deal. I think for them to trade Buchholz it'd have to be because they feel their rotation is better without him, or they're getting something of real major league value in return (i.e. an outfielder). I just don't see them weakening their major league roster when there's no long term impact (read: multiple years) of salary relief involved. He's a potential impact starter on a really team friendly deal they can walk away from at any time. We have generally soured on the guy, but he's a guy most teams would covet in the current scenario. Why not capitalize on your last sentence? Your making my point (in my best Big-O impression). Because you'd be worsening your current team.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 4:15:16 GMT -5
I can't really imagine any good scenario in which the Sox trade Buchholz during the season. If he's producing and the team is fairly competitive, they probably wouldn't dump him, and if he's hurt, I'm not sure who gives us enough to justify trading him. You'd have to see some insane performances from Owens/Johnson/Kelly for them to start dealing SP depth around the deadline (assuming they're in the hunt) Agreed. The only way I see trading a SP is if it is a corresponding move to signing David price to create some salary relief. Not sure this would be a requirement to a signing, but it may be.. I don't think they care much about salary relief on what could be a 1 year deal. I think for them to trade Buchholz it'd have to be because they feel their rotation is better without him, or they're getting something of real major league value in return (i.e. an outfielder). I just don't see them weakening their major league roster when there's no long term impact (read: multiple years) of salary relief involved. He's a potential impact starter on a really team friendly deal they can walk away from at any time. We have generally soured on the guy, but he's a guy most teams would covet in the current scenario.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 2:24:53 GMT -5
I can't really imagine any good scenario in which the Sox trade Buchholz during the season. If he's producing and the team is fairly competitive, they probably wouldn't dump him, and if he's hurt, I'm not sure who gives us enough to justify trading him.
You'd have to see some insane performances from Owens/Johnson/Kelly for them to start dealing SP depth around the deadline (assuming they're in the hunt)
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 1:46:17 GMT -5
I could care less if this team loses a few regular season games. Just need Gronk, Edelman, Amendola, Collins, and Hightower healthy for playoffs.
Officiating was reallllly sketchy. I don't like to bitch about it at all, but lots of plays had me wondering wtf was up. It happens. Rather it happen now than in February.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 23:16:47 GMT -5
Oops, forgot Kazmir is unqualified. He'd make a great 4 on this team if he signed a relatively cheap deal. He's someone who would have a lot of in-season value if Owens/Johnson/Kelly pushed their way into the rotation. Buchholz and Miley are in that category, too. Hopefully the Sox get Price or Grienke, have Rodriguez-Buchholz-Porcello-Miley-Kelly-Owens-Johnson to fill 2-8, and can deal from excess to add to their low-A prospect inventory, maybe with a middle-of-the-order potential bat and afew power arms. They're not dealing established talent to restock low-A inventory. They can load up on low A guys in the next draft regardless. And A ball is the only place they have inventory currently.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 22:59:52 GMT -5
Cueto rejects 6/120 from Diamondbacks
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 19:09:56 GMT -5
I had a nightmare last night that the Sox signed Price for 8/$240M. Woke up in a cold sweat with a knot in my stomach. Yes, this really happened. Apparently I know my limit. Something like 7/$210 in real money (not Scherzer Funny Money) is livable for me. There's not much difference between 7/210 and 8/240
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 18:44:48 GMT -5
Umm... can they keep the godawful Mark Trumbo? I'd rather keep Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 18:06:42 GMT -5
For everyone saying the Sox need to move quickly on Price, it's not always that easy. Price's best option may be holding out how Scherzer did last year when he signed January 20/21st. Maybe the glut of starters on the market will change things, but you never know. I felt that the market for Scherzer was a lot tougher to predict, he didn't have that obvious fit besides the Nats connection to Boras. This year some big market teams are desperate for frontline pitching and are also willing to act quickly. If Dombrowski hands out a huge contract, he is likely gonna do it within the next few weeks...and then Price can take it or leave it. Would he reject the Scherzer-deal just because he might get more in january? I definitely think the Sox want to sign someone before tickets go on sale. All I'm saying is that none of us know the inner workings or what everyone's strategies are. Price & co might feel like Sox will continue to bid higher and higher the more time goes on and the more uncomfortable they get.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 16:22:52 GMT -5
For everyone saying the Sox need to move quickly on Price, it's not always that easy. Price's best option may be holding out how Scherzer did last year when he signed January 20/21st. Maybe the glut of starters on the market will change things, but you never know.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 13:45:51 GMT -5
Zimmerman off board to Tigers is most likely a bad thing, simply because it added another suitor to the limited pool of FA arms. Dodgers were heavily linked to Zimmerman the last few weeks, so that would have been really great for Sox fans, taking them out of the bidding for Price/Greinke.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 11:56:12 GMT -5
There are always exceptions, but I'm pretty much against signing FA starting pitchers. The contracts have gotten so outta whack that it's nearly impossible to get fair...let alone good...value when you sign a FA starter. There's usually a reason the guy made it to free agency as opposed to signing a long-term extension - he knows he has one payday left - and you rarely hear of a quality 25-year-old being on the open market. A quality 25 year old doesn't hit the open market because the way rookie control works, he'd have to be a full time regular at like age 19.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 11:49:48 GMT -5
Zimmerman to Tigers.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 3:36:01 GMT -5
Anything south of 225 for Price over 7 years is gravy in my book. Or under 165 for Greinke over 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 3:32:02 GMT -5
If you'd like to continue the conversation by actually using reasoning related to the issue at hand, I'll gladly reciprocate. I'm assuming this response though was your way of slowly backing out of the conversation. More like that you're a broken record, regardless of who you are trying to have a "conversation" with. Now proceed to your next diatribe about everyone's reading comprehension. forum.soxprospects.com/post/176225forum.soxprospects.com/post/178541Yeah, it's true some people can't seem to read on here. Case in point, you supplying a John Henry quote that in no way supports a point you're trying to defend. It's really shocking you couldn't read that quote and deduce what he was actually saying, and then at that point it's just kind of sad to see someone flailing around so badly. If you need me to explain anything else to you, or translate any more quotes you're not quite grasping, I will gladly do so. Always willing to help out someone in need.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 2:22:26 GMT -5
I think it's funny how much stock people are putting into Hanley's physique and the whole "he got too yoked" storyline.
If we want to rank why Hanley sucked, here's the breakdown in order of most influential to least influential:
1. He's a career infielder, trying to play outfield. 2. He's not a max effort guy, not the hardest worker, he quits when he's bad at something. 3. His shoulder was really really hurt. 4. He's allergic to outfield grass. 5. The Green Monster made him claustrophobic. 6. He put on too much muscle.
Will slimming down make him more athletic? For sure. But it won't have nearly the effect on him that moving him back to the infield, and getting him healthy will have.
My point being: Let's relax on Moncada. And also let's pretend we've all worked out before and know that how we look mid-workout, with a full pump going, is not how we look an hour later after we've deflated haha
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 2:08:41 GMT -5
Punting a draft in a year in which their IFA single-player max bonus is 300K would basically leave a complete hole in the system unless they stumbled into a few incredible value picks. If they don't trade anyone else from the farm, and use the excess created from additions to the rotation, it's semi-reasonable, although they'd be adding a lot of payroll, which would hurt their ability to extend Betts, Bogaerts, etc in 2-3 years, unless Samardzija was on a 2-year (and could maybe be offered a QO, if performance dictated...). Still, I'm not a huge fan of the idea. I get what you're saying about the value of that pick, and I agree, it's best they avoid losing it if they can, but I don't really think "complete hole" is the right term. Moncada, Devers, Espinoza, Benintendi, Kopech, Chavis are all fairly significant pieces that are in the low minors and will probably all start somewhere in A ball, and all of those guys would be top 10 guys in most mlb systems. So yeah, it sucks to lose a chip, but the relative strength of their system, and the lower levels, still has the Sox fairing quite well. It is far far far more likely that the Sox will feel the impact of losing Margot more than they ever will that 12th pick if they do indeed lose it.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 1:52:27 GMT -5
Congratulations. It only took you an hour to regurgitate the same retort you always resort to when you've been hosed with a fact you were clearly unaware of. I'm legitimately confused as to how that quote could be referencing anything besides the financial aspect of the bidding. It can also be directly applied to the Moncada situation, as they outbid everyone by $6 million. The only difference there was that the tax on overage. That's all it is. Losing Abreu changed how they approached bidding in these international situations. That was the only connection between Abreu and Castillo. People want to read that Henry quote and think the Castillo signing was some knee jerk reaction to losing Abreu, which makes zero sense. It's not like they were like "WE NEED A PLAYER FROM CUBA AND WE MISSED ON THAT ONE SO WE NOW HAVE TO ADD THIS GUY."
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 1:48:20 GMT -5
Lol. It's hilarious how bad your reading comprehension is. Congratulations. It only took you an hour to regurgitate the same retort you always resort to when you've been hosed with a fact you were clearly unaware of. Sorry buddy, but you read my response and realized you had nothing to defend your point with, because it was flat out wrong. If you'd like to continue the conversation by actually using reasoning related to the issue at hand, I'll gladly reciprocate. I'm assuming this response though was your way of slowly backing out of the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 28, 2015 23:34:53 GMT -5
Not trying to sway off topic but add in what is hopefully an improved swihart/Vazquez, and a middle of Xander and Petty and are overall defence may be pretty good. A lot will depend on how 1B goes. Also I wonder how much of an impact good defence and a young promising team has when it comes time to trying to sign top FAs (aka David price) I've wondered if getting Kimbrel early was part of DDo's plan. "Oh, by the way, we've got the best Closer in the game to finish your wins" Not going to seal any deal, but it has to help Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 28, 2015 23:25:43 GMT -5
I don't think Votto's contract will be that detrimental in his last few years as it may seem today. By that time, 20M AAVs will be very common. I'd love him here but his trade value is kind of a mystery to me. I think it's largely a mystery to everyone. After Chapman is gone, he's largely the only guy selling jerseys and putting people into seats. Reds would want HUGE return and also would want to dump his contract, so gauging his trade value is pretty tough. You need a team deep in talent that's also willing to take on huge payroll, and I guess the Sox could be that team, but I also don't think the Reds have much reason to trade him.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 28, 2015 22:44:27 GMT -5
1. The reactionary Abreu narrative was always a bum one. Losing Ellsbury and finding someone who they viewed as a similar talent for 1/2 price was the reasoning behind the Castillo signing. Not because they lost out on Abreu. How does that make any sense? Wahh we missed on a 1st baseman, we have to go sign an outfielder now! Big fat zero wrong: fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/08/29/john-henry-missing-on-jose-abreu-pushed-rusney-castillo-offer/"When asked if the Red Sox missing out on White Sox slugger Jose Abreu by a mere $5 million when bidding for the first baseman last year led to surprisingly high offer of seven years, $72.5 million for Castillo, Henry wrote: 'Yes, the financial aspects were impacted by coming close on Abreu. The White Sox did their homework.'"Lol. It's hilarious how bad your reading comprehension is. Losing Abreu didn't make them go out and sign Castillo. Losing a 1B didn't make them turn around and sign an outfielder. I'll break it down simply so you can understand it easier, and let me know if you want me to simplify it any further. Henry's quote is about the financial aspect of bidding against other teams in a closed bidding environment. They missed out on Abreu by only a few million, a player they really wanted. So when they liked Rusney Castillo, they knew they had to bid strongly so they didn't miss out. Tons of people with poor poor poor reading comprehension see that quote and think Rusney was a reactionary move, a la, "we didn't get abreu, so we need Rusney!" He wasn't. Bidding 72.5 instead of say, 60 or 65, was, but realistically, this isn't a huge difference at all anyway so who cares. Losing out on Lester, and signing a bunch of garbage in the meantime, IS directly proportional to having to go out and sign David Price.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 28, 2015 22:14:09 GMT -5
Not surprising. Shopping Hanley falls under the umbrella of due diligence, low percentage plays DD is exploring, just like the previous reports from Cafardo that Sox were eyeing Chris Sale and Sonny Gray.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 28, 2015 22:05:15 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox owners realized that they made a mistake by not signing Lester and are now willing to pay the going rate to get a bona fide ace. You mean the same way they realized that they made a mistake by not signing Abreu and then were willing to overpay for Castillo? How's that working out so far? This is not even a worthwhile comparison for 2 reasons: 1. The reactionary Abreu narrative was always a bum one. Losing Ellsbury and finding someone who they viewed as a similar talent for 1/2 price was the reasoning behind the Castillo signing. Not because they lost out on Abreu. How does that make any sense? Wahh we missed on a 1st baseman, we have to go sign an outfielder now! 2. Price is about as known commodity as you can get. He's not some mystery international signing half-measure. We know what his immediate impact will be.
|
|
|