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 burythehammer on Aug 10, 2015 20:01:24 GMT -5
The Phillies can screw up anything, huh.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 10, 2015 17:15:20 GMT -5
Adjust for BABIP and he's easily been the best. His K rate is at least three percentage points lower than any one of the eight guys ahead of him there, in case you think his batting average means anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 10, 2015 6:54:56 GMT -5
Unless they plan on being much more aggressive with him next year I would be very surprised. He seems like the rare exception type of guy who they could have skip High-A altogether. If that happens it doesn't seem so unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 9, 2015 4:57:09 GMT -5
Get ready to be extremely surprised then. Carl Crawford got 7/142 entering his age 29 season, and that was four years ago. And he was three years older than Heyward. Yeah offense still gets paid more, but if anything, teams are buying more into defense as time goes on, so I see no reason to believe he'll get less than what Crawford got, and I think he'll get significantly more. You don't think a team like Houston views Heyward as a star caliber player? They seem like an obvious fit to me, assuming that they're ready to start spending significantly on the big league roster. His wRC+ the last four years: 121 120 110 116 I wouldn't call that "wildly inconsistent" and while health is a concern he's probably going to play 140 games for the third time in those last four seasons. His power numbers have been wildly inconsistent, that's primarily what I was talking about. I really don't buy Crawford as a great comparison. He'd been to multiple all-star games and had a much higher profile than Heyward does at this stage. I'm not debating the guy's value, I just don't think that GMs weigh advanced stats into contract offers as much as all of you seem to think, especially when the traditional ones favor their argument. It's more a question of leverage, and GMs can point out a bunch of question marks to drive his price down. Injury, power/lack thereof at a corner OF, and he's never hit for a particularly high average. Doesn't matter if Houston thinks he's a star or not, if they don't think others will pay him like one, then they won't offer him that kind of money. Anyway, as I said, we'll see in the offseason, and I don't feel like making the same points again. It will be interesting to watch unfold because it'll give us some indication of how heavily advanced metrics are being weighted by clubs in negotiations, and how much they'll still turn to traditional numbers if it favors their argument. If you think GMs value all-star game appearances and how "high profile" a guy is over their actual performance and how they project going forward, I don't know what to tell you. I think you're clearly projecting your own lack of faith in advanced metrics onto baseball front offices. The vast majority of them value players in a way that says Heyward is a star, which is why he'll get paid like one. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 9, 2015 4:33:31 GMT -5
Effortless. And that was a bomb. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 8, 2015 12:15:48 GMT -5
I think Dr Andrews has a standing appt for all the flame throwers. Its really great the Espinoza has a 97+ FB (with movement?) now somebody should tell him to pitch in the low 90's so he can work on a mix of pitches, command and all that good pitching stuff before there was a radar gun. People moaned how Owens FB was 88-91 in the minors. Was anyone surprised it was 93 for the MFY? Ignore the radar gun keeps Dr Andrews away (no offense Dr A) Guys who don't throw hard get Tommy John. Guys who throw hard get Tommy John. I'll take the guy who throws hard. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 7, 2015 15:21:49 GMT -5
For reference, the fastest average FB for a starter in MLB this year is 96.3 (Eovaldi)
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 6, 2015 17:02:08 GMT -5
The Red Sox are trolling you.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 5, 2015 14:47:46 GMT -5
I don't doubt that you're right jmei, but at the risk of going in circles, I see no downside to losing as many games as possible in these last two months. Agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 5, 2015 13:44:55 GMT -5
I didn't say marginal improvement, I said marginal increase in chance of getting a great player, which if they did would FAR outweigh any benefit to a few guys playing well down the stretch in meaningless games.
I already said, I am rooting for all of those guys to play well. And then in the late innings when we have a lead, I'll be rooting for bad luck/the bullpen to blow it every single time. And you can't give me any argument against that other than the "winning culture" thing, which is a joke anyway when you're talking about a last place team. I know that's anathema to some people just in terms of being a fan, and I totally get that, but for me it's the only way to look at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 5, 2015 13:28:47 GMT -5
Well, Heyward does have a 27 home run season of his own and multiple 5+ WAR seasons, and he'll be considerably younger than any of those players were (he's on pace for four 5+ rWAR seasons, which is pretty impressive for a player yet to turn 26). You're right that those players were probably more highly regarded when they reached free agency than Heyward is, but between his age (including the fact that GMs are more conscious of aging curves these days) and inflation, I think he'll get least $130m+ guaranteed (assuming he opts for a true long-term deal and not a Porcello-esque short but high AAV deal). ADD: or what he said. I get the argument, I just think that there's a reason that you rarely see WAR cited when contracts are announced. People still emphasize offensive performance, especially at the corner spots, and even if he's 26, he's been pretty wildly inconsistent offensively and injury prone. I wouldn't argue that he might well produce that value, and it's true that he's a somewhat unique case given his age, but unless he signs and 8 or 9 year deal, I'd be extremely surprised to see him get that kind of money. Get ready to be extremely surprised then. Carl Crawford got 7/142 entering his age 29 season, and that was four years ago. And he was three years older than Heyward. Yeah offense still gets paid more, but if anything, teams are buying more into defense as time goes on, so I see no reason to believe he'll get less than what Crawford got, and I think he'll get significantly more. You don't think a team like Houston views Heyward as a star caliber player? They seem like an obvious fit to me, assuming that they're ready to start spending significantly on the big league roster. His wRC+ the last four years: 121 120 110 116 I wouldn't call that "wildly inconsistent" and while health is a concern he's probably going to play 140 games for the third time in those last four seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 5, 2015 13:14:52 GMT -5
The season is over and they still haven't moved Hanley, or even tried him, at another position. Until they do it's a mistake to just assume that they will or that they won't consider him as an OF when building the team in the ofseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 5, 2015 13:04:25 GMT -5
Worth noting that the typical difference between the fifth pick in the draft and the tenth pick in the draft is pretty minor. Yes, every once in a while you miss a stud by a couple picks. But more often than not, there's not a huge difference in the kind of player you'd get between #5 and #10. The flaw here is that you're overlooking the fact that there is close to zero long-term benefit to winning games when you are in non-contention. Certainly not enough benefit to outweigh even a marginal increase in chance of getting a better player in the draft. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 5, 2015 6:28:01 GMT -5
This team would be far better off having a great final two months - where Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Bradley, and Castillo all impress; where Sandoval returns to his old form, Papi hammers lefties, and Hanley learns to play defense (either 1B or LF); and where the pitching shows promise - then they are getting a top 3, 5, or even 10 pick. Personally, I want them to do all of these things while losing as many games as possible. Not easy of course, but I see zero benefit to actually putting more Ws on the board. No, a single player isn't going to "turn the franchise around" (I don't believe our situation is that dire anyway), but when you're in the top 10 you have at least a decent chance of getting a franchise player. If we miss that guy by one pick we'll look on that five years from now as a hell of a lot more important than some feel-good stuff about having a winning culture or whatever (not accusing chavo of saying this). It's not like two months of good performance for most of these guys is going to change their projections significantly. The best it could do is, again, make us feel better or maybe help their trade value. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 3, 2015 17:41:59 GMT -5
My God, Cafardo is absolutely nauseating. Carrying the water for his cronies as usual. It's amazing the Globe can employ the main beat writer who is straight out of the 1970s and is so out of touch and so out of time. And absolutely clueless. Even the beat guys that are ostensibly "respectable" baffle me. I heard Mcadam on TV last night saying that Joe Torre would be a good choice. Joe Torre just screams progressive to me, I don't know about you guys. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 2, 2015 4:27:57 GMT -5
I don't think it's telling. Who says he's being forced out? I'm literally waking up to this news but I don't believe even Shaughnessy is pushing the narrative that Larry's been "fired"? And that is literally exactly the agenda Shank would want to push ("The nerds have won", etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 1, 2015 13:19:08 GMT -5
Yeah, like I said in the other thread, his numbers are intriguing but I'm very curious to hear if the scouting takes on him support the power numbers and the walk rate. Clearly has to cut down on the swing-and-miss but a 25% k rate for an 18 year old in short season is not abysmal, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 31, 2015 19:56:21 GMT -5
Luis Basabe is becoming more intriguing to me by the day. Hopefully we get some more scouting takes on him before the season is over.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 31, 2015 12:00:30 GMT -5
I just don't buy that the Red Sox are that eager to get out from under deals they literally signed less than a year ago. I think it's a case of fans/media collectively projecting.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 31, 2015 10:36:08 GMT -5
Ross is better than I gave him credit for. Didn't realize he had the groundball rate to go with the Ks. Ross is 28, not 30. What I meant was the first year of his next deal will be his age 30 season. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 31, 2015 8:26:15 GMT -5
Dave Cameron had Carrasco at 39 on his recent trade value list, so any deal for him would have to hurt. Quick back of the envelope work says he's worth about 80m in surplus value. That seems like a lot, and Cameron thinks his value would be depressed a bit because he's a peripherals guy and the track record of being elite is very short. So maybe more like 60-65 million? So something to the tune of Owens/Johnson, Margot and Guerra. I would do that, but I think it might be light. If they demanded Devers instead of Margot I would say no to that. What do we think? Also, I'm not a big fan of Ross. Only under control for one more year and then he's already 30. And he's just not that good. Doesn't seem to fit our MO. I think any significant piece you want, Devers is the first ask, or Moncada since the money's already been (or will be in the next few months) paid and he's just MLB minimum going forward. What's "significant"? They're not giving up a top 10 hitting prospect for one year of any player. If it's a guy like Carrasco, yeah, it's something to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 31, 2015 8:23:59 GMT -5
Ross is better than I gave him credit for. Didn't realize he had the groundball rate to go with the Ks.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 31, 2015 8:19:31 GMT -5
Dave Cameron had Carrasco at 39 on his recent trade value list, so any deal for him would have to hurt. Quick back of the envelope work says he's worth about 80m in surplus value. That seems like a lot, and Cameron thinks his value would be depressed a bit because he's a peripherals guy and the track record of being elite is very short. So maybe more like 60-65 million?
So something to the tune of Owens/Johnson, Margot and Guerra. I would do that, but I think it might be light. If they demanded Devers instead of Margot I would say no to that. What do we think?
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 29, 2015 13:07:25 GMT -5
Nick (Right Field): Do you think Devers will develop enough power to profile at 3B or another corner spot? And how have you liked his progression this season?
Ben Badler: He already does. It’s plus power right now, he’s just an 18-year-old going against older, more experienced pitching, so he’s still learning to fully tap into it. With how big he’s going to be, we could be talking about him growing into 70 power once he fills out.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 29, 2015 13:00:03 GMT -5
Wow, so no one prefers constantly being in contention and winning division crowns every year verse winning a couple more World Series and being out of the playoff race in other years. We were constantly in contention for the first eight years of that period. It's not an either/or. We've had both. There is no rational argument for the Braves side. |
|
|
