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 swingingbunt on Nov 16, 2017 16:40:44 GMT -5
Stanton + Belt - Bradley will add ~$34.6M to the payroll which I have at right at $200M, so it certainly wouldn't "blow past" the $237 mark (admittedly it would limit the team). As for Belt: he is a first baseman. He's fine there. If I trade for him then I don't think about Hosmer and I put Hanley at his actual position. I'm honestly curious why your confused by this. But speaking of confused: thats what I am about a few things in your post. Neither Martinez or Hanley are full time first baseman, and any plan A that ends with the phrase "see what happens" is a bad plan. We "saw what happened" with Hanley in left. We "saw what happened" with relying on him to platoon at first last year. So no, I'm not buying stock in just "seeing what happens" with sticking an extremely high priced free agent, who is already a poor fielder, at a brand new position. Something else I'm confused about is your backup plan for 1B. The financial gap between your plan and mine is ~8.6M. How are you going to convince a capable 1B looking for a starting job to take quite a bit less than that, while also admitting to them that they aren't going to be used unless Hanley doesn't work out? It just doesn't make sense to me. Lastly, my plan doesn't block any prospects anymore than yours does. In fact, mine puts Belt at 1B for less time than your plan puts Martinez at DH. But, to answer your concern, adding Belt doesn't preclude the same backup guys from working their way into the roster. They can still fill in for Hanley just like your plan does (although I guess I'm not nearly as high on those prospects as you are to think that they can be a significant contributor before the end of this, or even next, season). Are you getting Stanton for free? I would bet one or more of Chavis, Travis and Ock are gone in a trade for Stanton, along with some pitching like Mata or Groome. Chris just posted 4 hours ago in the Stanton trade thread 206.52 million is the current number. So your moves do in fact move you right buy that number. I'm confused because you think we had a platoon at 1B last year. Moreland was our full-time 1B guy last year. Ramirez has played a full season at 1B when healthy. Reports have said he should be fully healthy and his shoulders won't stop him from playing 1B. This is 1B even Ramirez was only below average there. We watched Napoli become a good 1B after being a poor catcher. Ramirez was way worse in the OF than Martinez and was just fine at 1B. I don't get the worry. A guy that has played the OF is going to be a better athlete than a lot of 1B guys. They are at 1B because they can't play anywhere else. Santana is another guy that went from crappy catcher to above average at 1B. It happens all the time. Duda hasn't been awesome lately and those guys haven't been getting paid a lot. Look at last year. Look what Moreland got. If you wanted more room for in season moves don't sign an insurance plan. It's more of a luxury than anything else. As I pointed out we have great depth ready or near ready to help. Moreland made what, $5M last year? And that was with a promise to actually start to build value. Again, under your plan if the Sox somehow convince a player to come here with no promise of actually starting then, at best, you're saving $3M off my plan. So let's not pretend that it's something it's not. And your plan with no insurance? Again - No way in hell I would sign up for that. (And truthfully my "plan" includes the cost of Belt too - which really has nothing to do with the Stanton vs. Martinez debate. Stanton and Martinez will roughly have the same AAV and my point this whole time is that Stanton is the better overall player) As far as the platoon comment, I was under the impression, and I didn't think this was a controversial take, that the original plan last year was to have Moreland play 1B against righties with Hanley as the DH and have Hanley play 1B against lefties with Young serving as the DH. If I was alone in thinking that then I apologize for stating otherwise. And at that I'll let you have it, at this point it seems obvious we won't be changing each other's mind on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 16, 2017 14:35:14 GMT -5
Ideally someone that JBJ brings back in a trade with Belt being my ideal candidate, but by trading JBJ you would save enough money to be able to sign a first baseman with no trouble if need be. So I'll ask you the same question. Who plays 1B after you get Martinez? If your answer is Hanley then that's just not an idea I'll ever get behind - and if you answer someone besides Hanley then what exactly will we be doing with our $22M player that will be pissed off that he isn't at least given the opportunity to try and vest his option? So you are blowing past the 237 million mark? Belts contract is 14.5 million a year on average. Stanton is 25 million, take away Bradley. You are adding like 35 million. Those moves alone get you over. Trading Bradley saves you like 5 million, so your options are rather limited. You can't sign Hosmer or any other guy that you most likely want if you plan to stay below 237 million. What are you doing with Hanley If you get Belt? I keep Hanley and add a guy like Duda for insurance. Even a guy like Mark Reynolds would be bad insurance. I want Hanley chasing that option, he could have a big year. I would also try Martinez at 1B and see what happens. You have Travis, Chavis and Ock for insurance. If you get Martinez I don't want to lockdown 1B and DH for years to come. Chavis, Ock and Travis playing one of the positions down the road will allow you to resign players like Betts, Bogaerts, Sale, Pomeranz, Kimbrel, etc. Who are you trading for Stanton? Stanton + Belt - Bradley will add ~$34.6M to the payroll which I have at right at $200M, so it certainly wouldn't "blow past" the $237 mark (admittedly it would limit the team). As for Belt: he is a first baseman. He's fine there. If I trade for him then I don't think about Hosmer and I put Hanley at his actual position. I'm honestly curious why your confused by this. But speaking of confused: thats what I am about a few things in your post. Neither Martinez or Hanley are full time first baseman, and any plan A that ends with the phrase "see what happens" is a bad plan. We "saw what happened" with Hanley in left. We "saw what happened" with relying on him to platoon at first last year. So no, I'm not buying stock in just "seeing what happens" with sticking an extremely high priced free agent, who is already a poor fielder, at a brand new position. Something else I'm confused about is your backup plan for 1B. The financial gap between your plan and mine is ~8.6M. How are you going to convince a capable 1B looking for a starting job to take quite a bit less than that, while also admitting to them that they aren't going to be used unless Hanley doesn't work out? It just doesn't make sense to me. Lastly, my plan doesn't block any prospects anymore than yours does. In fact, mine puts Belt at 1B for less time than your plan puts Martinez at DH. But, to answer your concern, adding Belt doesn't preclude the same backup guys from working their way into the roster. They can still fill in for Hanley just like your plan does (although I guess I'm not nearly as high on those prospects as you are to think that they can be a significant contributor before the end of this, or even next, season).
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 16, 2017 8:18:24 GMT -5
Who plays 1B or DH after you get Stanton? Ideally someone that JBJ brings back in a trade with Belt being my ideal candidate, but by trading JBJ you would save enough money to be able to sign a first baseman with no trouble if need be. So I'll ask you the same question. Who plays 1B after you get Martinez? If your answer is Hanley then that's just not an idea I'll ever get behind - and if you answer someone besides Hanley then what exactly will we be doing with our $22M player that will be pissed off that he isn't at least given the opportunity to try and vest his option?
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 16, 2017 1:38:14 GMT -5
And Martinez has never had a year as good as Stanton even though he's quite a few years older. As far as JDM being the better hitter, Steamer has Stanton with 30 more points of wOBA for next year, so it's a pretty big stretch to say that he's the worse hitter just because his average is lower. But the truth is that JDM is going to have to remain an elite hitter during his decline years to even get close to earning his pay. Stanton, being by far the better fielder and baserunner has much more room for error to live up to his AAV than does JDM. As far as the cost to aquire Stanton: I'll believe it when I see it that it will take what you think to acquire him. Yes, trading Bradley seems to be a must, but he's much more likely, imo, to be traded for something of value than for prospect filler in a Stanton trade. Last 4 years of offensive bwar Martinez 4.3, 4.6, 4.0 and 4.7, Stanton 5.9, 2.7, 2.1 and 6.5. That's 17.6 for Martinez and 17.2 for Stanton. Who's is better? The consistent guy or the guy with up and down years? For this team I prefer the player that doesn't have up and down years. I feel this team needs more of a high average hitter because of the makeup of the team and its streaky hitters. Thats not what I think, just an idea from a poster. I have no clue, but it will cost a good amount . I will change my opinion if it cost Travis and Beeks. Then flip Bradley for a 1B/DH. So trading Bradley allows us to not gut our system. How long will you keep pretending like defense and baserunning don't count? In the same four year stretch that you're citing, JD Martinez has been worth 5.2 less in defensive bWar than Stanton and according to FanGraphs' baserunning metric he is another ~1 win worse. With all of these numbers happening before Stanton's peak age even get started, it's not really hard to see that he will easily be the better player (and almost assuredly the better hitter) going forward. Having said all these things I'll again repeat what I said before: I will not be heartbroken whatsoever if JD Martinez is on the Sox on opening day. Hell, I'll even admit that it's by far the more likely scenario. But he's absolutely not the better overall player than Stanton - and I will always prefer the better overall player when the AAV is as close as it will be.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 16, 2017 0:03:46 GMT -5
And I completely disagree with this. We need the best player, and that's what Stanton is. Don't get me wrong, I won't be heartbroken if JDM is in the team next year, but he was was less than 4 fWar this year for a reason. His baserunning and defense limit his upside and delegate him to strictly DH duties for the next half dozen + years and his AAV hit will almost certainly be the same or higher than Stanton's. I won't even go into the fact Stanton hasn't been close to as good as he was last year for his career. Martinez in my opinion is the better pure hitter. His average shows this. Nevermind Baseball Refrence has Martinez with a higher ops projection next year. We really need the best hitter with so many of our hitters being so inconsistent. Baseball is a team sport. It's really about the best collection of talent, not just the best player. If you can have Martinez, Bradley and Chavis or Stanton, which is better? Stanton cost you assets and means you have to move an OF. With some saying Bradley and flip the return plus Chavis for Stanton. And Martinez has never had a year as good as Stanton even though he's quite a few years older. As far as JDM being the better hitter, Steamer has Stanton with 30 more points of wOBA for next year, so it's a pretty big stretch to say that he's the worse hitter just because his average is lower. But the truth is that JDM is going to have to remain an elite hitter during his decline years to even get close to earning his pay. Stanton, being by far the better fielder and baserunner has much more room for error to live up to his AAV than does JDM. As far as the cost to aquire Stanton: I'll believe it when I see it that it will take what you think to acquire him. Yes, trading Bradley seems to be a must, but he's much more likely, imo, to be traded for something of value than for prospect filler in a Stanton trade.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 15, 2017 21:58:48 GMT -5
I really think JDM is the backup plan and that Stanton is the #1 target. I kind of agree with it considering how short the window is now. I'd also get the best offer for JBJ and move Mookie or Benintendi to CF. We could use part of the return for JBJ to get Stanton. I'd also consider some kind of trade centered on Benintendi if the Marlins would add a nice prospect and Bour. I hope you're wrong. Stanton as the back-up plan make so much more sense. We need the best overall hitter, not the best power bat. Martinez is going to give you that and he costs only money. Then adding Benintendi so we can get Bour? Just sign Martinez and trade Bradley for a 1B guy or pieces to get one. Better yet don't move Bradley. Just sign Martinez and Duda. If you have Hanley we don't need a beast, just insurance and depth. Someone like Duda. All this Stanton talk and all that money. You should almost look at Cabrera for DH. I'm only have joking. And I completely disagree with this. We need the best player, and that's what Stanton is. Don't get me wrong, I won't be heartbroken if JDM is in the team next year, but he was was less than 4 fWar this year for a reason. His baserunning and defense limit his upside and delegate him to strictly DH duties for the next half dozen + years and his AAV hit will almost certainly be the same or higher than Stanton's.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 13, 2017 22:24:08 GMT -5
There's simply no reason to believe Ohtani won't be signing with NY. I haven't been as sure of anything since I predicted Moncada would sign with them as well.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 13, 2017 17:55:55 GMT -5
You spent only 4 words on what makes your entire plan possible, and it's the thing that is also least likely to happen (and would basically void your plan). Everything after "if you trade Hanley" was negative consequences of the plan I was criticizing. As I stated in the next paragraph, it makes the team worse. Not going to lie, I read your first post where your plan was to DH JDM, so I assumed you would be trading Hanley. So when I read those words I skipped the post and went straight to making an ass out of myself. Apologies.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 13, 2017 11:35:17 GMT -5
Anybody think DD would use JBJ as a deal sweetner to facilitate some kind of salary dump? Price or Hanley? Over the last 4 years Price has been worth $35M per 32 starts, and he's making $31M. Last year he was worth exactly the same amount, $35M, if you project his IP to 192 total (6 IP per 32 starts). He projects to be worth more than his salary. If you trade Hanley, then you have to acquire a platoon 1B, and he has a pretty good shot of being worth $16M or $18M of his $22M contract starting 50 - 60 games at 1B and 40 or so at DH. You could use the money you save (which will be less than his likely value) to get a better 1B than Mitch Moreland -- maybe even Hosmer -- but then you've committed extra money long-term, plus you've downgraded Hanley's bench spot to either Swihart or Marrero. Trading either Price or Ramirez makes the club worse, so I think the answer is no, they're unlikely to give away JBJ to make the club worse. You spent only 4 words on what makes your entire plan possible, and it's the thing that is also least likely to happen (and would basically void your plan).
|
|
|
Boras
Nov 9, 2017 20:51:58 GMT -5
via mobile
jimed14 likes this
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 9, 2017 20:51:58 GMT -5
I don't even begrudge Boras or the players he represents. They're simply taking advantage of the system that they all put in place to give the most benefit to the elite players and screw everyone else, just like everywhere else in life. Everyone would do the same, except Dustin Pedroia, David Ortiz and Jason Varitek. And on top of that, there is nothing more annoying than seeing players who don't belong in the majors making $20 million a year while guys in the minors have to eat ramen noodles and sleep on mattresses older than they are if they're not sleeping on the floor. While some of the minor league rules need adjusting, like 25 dollars for food per day. They don't have to eat ramen noodles everyday either. They should be paid for spring training and always have a place to stay paid for by the team. Even if it's a one star type place. I would love to see them basically double the current rates on top of that. At the same time the lawsuit demanding a living wage of like 45,000 to 60,000 a year is crazy in my opinion. The idea of a living wage is basically dead in this Country and I see no reason why minor leaguers should get one for 6 months of playing a game. Nevermind look at the money given out in the draft and international market. In no way are all minor leaguers equal. 17 players taken in the draft got over a $100,000. When you average that out over the average minor league career the numbers look a lot better. Some got a lot more. While only 8 players got $5,000 or less out of 43 players. Then if you make the majors you move into the what top 10% income bracket in this Country even if you make the minimum. It's really hard to feel bad for players getting paid to play a game. You're not the first person to demean players by referring to what they do as only "a game," but you should at least be honest about it. From when players report to spring training to their last game, it is already much longer than 6 months, and that doesn't even mention that in order to hone your craft enough to make real money, player's have to put in a full year of work. While firmly standing in my soap-box, I'll just add that the quality of baseball is dependent on prospects incrementally increaseing their skills when they increase levels in an organization. Baseball needs as many warm bodies in all minor league levels as possible in order to maxmize the potential of the players who will one day be stars. Up until now baseball has gotten away with the low levels being glorified sweat shops (minus the one or two people on each team who actually got a signing bonus), but luckily Boras, and a few other people in the industry are starting to shed light on the inequity of the situation. While you say that a living wage is "dead," (I don't agree with that but this isn't the place to discuss it), the truth is that without the minor leagues the entire sport is dead. And if players are that important to the sport (and they are) then they should be paid like it.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 8, 2017 18:56:39 GMT -5
F cancer.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 8, 2017 9:35:43 GMT -5
During his prime, Doc had more CG than most organizations. One of my favorite non-Sox players to watch.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 6, 2017 19:08:22 GMT -5
Calling it now, if Rusney gets to start for another team next year, he'll be an all-star within 3 yrs Smart man. Never said "MLB team."
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 6, 2017 18:32:21 GMT -5
The Cardinals one billion dollar TV contact starts in 2018. I don't think they're going to shy away from Stanton's contact.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 5, 2017 14:55:45 GMT -5
You cited Guererro's atypical, worst-by-far, final season for walks as though it made Rusney's 11 walks look less bad. It doesn't. That was a terrible argument Now you're suggesting that 11 walks is not so bad because it's only 15 less than 26? That doesn't work either. Guerrero shows that bad ball hitters can be awesome. And an extra 15 walks for Rusney in 2017 would have given him a league average walk rate, which I gather is your starting point for an awesome season. Guerrero was successful without taking walks because he had absolutely elite skillsets in other areas. I'm not saying Castillo can't find a role in MLB (although I don't think he'll ever get the chance to), but he simply doesn't possess an elite skillset to be even a fraction of the worth as someone like Guerrero.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 4, 2017 0:12:06 GMT -5
"I don't know what an updated MRI is gonna show, and I'm not risking $67 million to find out" is probably a prudent decision. I know these are two big ifs... but if the baseballs are back to normal and if his elbow holds, he's at least a reliable #2. He's not repeating a 21.2% HR/FB ratio - his xFIP was 3.43. He's always had a slightly higher than normal HR/FB than the usual 10% (he's a RHP in Yankee Stadium, after all), but if I'm the Yankees I'm happy to have a guy with those peripherals coming back. If Tanaka's agent didn't get him to do an MRI before making this decision then he really shouldn't be an agent. I don't think it's a leap at all to say they did their own MRI and saw that his elbow is in horrible shape.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 2, 2017 7:50:40 GMT -5
Not really a fan of the move. His FO run in Arizona was a disaster. But I suppose he won't do much damage as an advisor. I worry about the pedlium being shifted too Old School. Was it (I'm genuinely asking)? I know the Miller deal was bad bad, but the DBacks made the playoffs this season so it doesn't seem like he set them back THAT far.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Oct 31, 2017 23:02:25 GMT -5
Swihart played the OF until his senior year in high school, so it wasn't completely new to him - then he played it so well in the majors that he got hurt after 13 games. I tend to agree with Chris on this one - him being incredibly versitle is mostly based on his pre-draft scouting reports ("Buster Posey Starting Kit"), and not so much on who he actually is.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Oct 29, 2017 23:01:00 GMT -5
Yeah, MLB is going to have to answer some tough questions about how they turned the playoffs into the home run derby
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Oct 29, 2017 17:25:23 GMT -5
I don't really know what to say about this one, except "Where do I sign up?" This article came across my Feedly today, " Kansas City Royals Should Trade Whit Merrifield to Boston Red Sox," and here was their suggestion: Red Sox get: 2B, Whit Merrifield RHP, Kelvin Herrera LHP, Ryan Buchter Royals get: 3B, Michael Chavis Utility, Brock Holt RHP, Austin Maddox They go into their reasoning in the article, but I'll let you click over to get the specifics. Either way, am I the only one that says yes to this trade as quick as humanly possible?
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Oct 26, 2017 23:41:52 GMT -5
It looks like we lose some best available positional coaches due to Alex Cora focus on his job with Houston until the World Series ends. He might lose them to other teams that fill in coaching staff. Can't he get announce his staffs before Washington & NYY would steal them away for their new upcoming manager's staffs? What's request 1st language for this Red Sox team as communication methods? Spanish? I don't get it if Alex gets most staffs that comes from PR (WBC) when most of them were American players on a 25 man roster. I'm confused by your last paragraph. What's your concern with the coaches being bilingual? That team meetings will be in Spanish only?
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Oct 24, 2017 19:21:38 GMT -5
I heard that same interview. I was surprised to hear the Cubs are that much higher on Schwarber than those other players. Not sure if they are higher on him so much as they think the value is better elsewhere. It makes more sense to trade Baez than sell low on Schwarber if they think Schwarber is a good bet to bounce back, because they'll get more for Baez. I believe the reporter being interviewed said something along the lines of "Cubs fans would rather trade their first born child than trade Schwarber." Hyperbolic, obviously, but I was surprised to hear they liked him that much.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Oct 24, 2017 13:07:06 GMT -5
I heard a Cubs beat writer on MLB radio the other day who said they absolutely love Schwarber and he'd be shocked if he were traded. He did say he expected one of Russell, Baez, Happ or Almora to lead a deal for a controlled starter. I heard that same interview. I was surprised to hear the Cubs are that much higher on Schwarber than those other players.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Oct 23, 2017 8:16:12 GMT -5
If the Sox plan to contend for another postseason how will they do so without a closer? Got anybody as good as or better than Kimbrel in mind? And why would Colorado want a 34 yr. old guy carrying a bad salary and coming off shoulder surgery? Btw, would love McMahon. But he could be a future star in Denver. Both Davis and Holland are available, and if the Sox grab one of them (they would also have enough money available to re-sign Reed or someone similar), I think they can get enough value to make up for the loss of Kimbrel. As for the Rockies: they just gave a whole season of at bats to Mark Reynolds (who was terrible in the second half) and are losing their own star closer*. That might be enough incentive for them to take a chance on Hanley coming back from surgery. *If the Rockies can convince Davis or Holland to go to Colorado then my proposal is mute, but historically they've had problems getting pitchers to agree to go there.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Oct 23, 2017 0:43:09 GMT -5
As much as I want to get on board the JD Martinez wagon, I just don't see how he fits with the way the current roster is constructed. He's not a first baseman, so it seems that without moving either JBJ or Hanley, then he has no fit on the team. And if he is signed, then the Sox would need to also get a competent first basemen, which would already put them close to the $240 million mark without even thinking about adding any bullpen guys.
So why not this trade with the Rockies?
Rockies get: Hanley ($44 Million Owed, ~$22 AAV) Kimbrel ($13 Million Owed, $13 AVV)
Sox get: Ian Desmond ($60 Million Owed, ~$14 AAV) Ryan McMahon (Minimum)
-------- Desmond might be one of the few contracts that are worse than Hanley right now, but at least he has some positional flexibility. McMahon would give the Sox a first basemen to plug in, but more importantly, it would open the DH position for JD. The trade would create a huge hole in the bullpen, but the Sox would be saving enough money in the deal to have no problems going out to get a couple pieces.
Let me know what you think!
|
|
|