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 fenwaythehardway on Nov 7, 2019 11:15:35 GMT -5
Sticking to my guns from years ago, package him, middlebrooks, and others for Stanton. Willing to bet that gets a deal done. No way! Didn’t you hear that middlebrooks got contact lenses? Now that he can see his strikeout and lack of contact will disappear. Trust me. What's funny is that his early career strikeout and swinging strike rates are like league average now. I do wonder if Middlebrooks came along just a few years too early. Paul DeJong is extremely Middlebrooks-esque in his K/BB numbers, but with way more fly balls.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 7, 2019 8:16:36 GMT -5
mlbtraderumors predicts Bumgarner to get 4/$72M so we'll see about that. They had Abreu at 2/$28M. The difference between Madison Bumgarner and Dallas Keuchel is.... ?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 6, 2019 17:11:58 GMT -5
Not sure if I've seen it discussed, but the following players received qualifying offers: Jake Odorizzi Marcell Ozuna Anthony Rendon Jose Abreu Josh Donaldson Madison Bumgarner Zack Wheeler Will Smith Stephen Strasburg Gerrit Cole Smith and Abreu have to be considering accepting, right? Possibly a few others too? Wheeler and Odorizzi just grabbing a one-year pillow and hitting FA in a year without a QO attached seems like a good idea. I've always heard that the White Sox love Abreu and his presence as a mentor/leader in the clubhouse so if he's thinking about the QO at all, they probably work out some 3/40m type deal instead. And come to think of it, Madison Bumgarner is probably the same situation.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 6, 2019 7:13:41 GMT -5
The Sox can reload their farm system substantially (making them a top 10 minor-league system again) on the back of Price and Betts trades, including getting at least one MLB ready SP (hopefully a righty instead of a lefty) and OF with high upside needed to replace the Price and Betts spots on the active roster for the coming year with greater long term WAR coming to the Sox in return for the higher ST WAR the other team would be expected to get in year 1 on top of any cash we send out. The Sox should eat some of the Price contract and potentially some of the Betts salary as well to get more in prospect return. We don't need to trade away our good low-cost players in any deal. That is stupid because it creates more holes in our current roster, and we are good enough to be a playoff team without Price and Betts, if we are smart in the deals we do. We don't need $60MM in salary relief, so we could easily eat part of each of those player salaries to get more prospect return. That's the best way to improve short, and long term. The word "smart" is carrying a lot of weight here. You're not asking them to be smart, you're just asking for an absolute base-case-scenario trade. Two of them, actually. I said this once already, but people are way underestimating the risk inherent in a Betts/Price trade. A trade involves a trade partner. That trade partner is smart, they have more information than you do, and they're trying to make you lose the trade. Billy Beane is maybe the best in the business at flipping guys before they hit free agency, but he still has the Josh Donaldson trade and plenty of other clunkers on his resume. There is no risk-free path with Betts.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 5, 2019 17:49:22 GMT -5
Is losing a Benintendi and Price worse than the Nationals losing Harper? Price and Benintendi combined are better than Harper, and the Red Sox don't have thing close to a Victor Robles ready to replace either. So yeah, quite a bit worse.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 5, 2019 11:46:04 GMT -5
Should we just accept that nobody else has done it recently? Nobody else had a reason to do it recently. The Yankees core isn't truly expensive yet, same thing for the Dodgers. They have a lot of players who are getting raises soon and their cores are really good, should the fans just accept to see the team dismantled? Imagine you're the Yankees and you give up on winning because I don't know man, Aaron Judge is getting a huge contract and we need to rebuild the team. We had our window, but now let another sucker pay for Judge while we wait 10+ years for the off chance we're getting someone nearly as good as him. You're the Yankees, ideally you don't have to rebuild ever. The Red Sox won a WS with this core, they shouldn't dump their best player for money reasons because no other team stayed over an arbitrary threshold. Let's be honest here, even with the penalties imposed for staying over the line, the ownership should have 0 issues affording it. The disconnect for me is how many people seem to think Mookie leaving via free agency is the one disaster scenario that must be avoided at all costs. I get that it's not ideal, but I just don't think it punches a hole in the universe relative to the other options. The problem with that math to me is that people are treating the trade route as risk-free, but there's no guarantee whatsoever that you aren't trading for the next Alan Webster. Or hell, Manny Margot, who's a fine player and certainly a good return for the Padres in that trade but really isn't making or breaking the fate of that team on his own. Trading Betts this offseason is maybe slightly less risky over the long term than holding, but if you get a Margot-level player back... that's a good trade, and yet is that so much better than going for it in 2020 and taking the draft pick?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 5, 2019 9:25:22 GMT -5
I agree with this in principle but I question whether what they could get in return is worth Mookie’s ~7 war in a season where we project as a playoff contender. I think that you can maybe get a high-end prospect, or you can maybe get someone who's going to address the deficit created by trading Betts, but you can't get someone who satisfies both of those conditions.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 5, 2019 7:42:08 GMT -5
The reason to trade Mookie is not to save money. That is just a positive externality of a decision to trade him. The reason to trade Mookie is that he won't sign an extension with the Red Sox, so we are going to lose him anyway in a year to whoever is the dumbest bidder who will pay way over-value for the last probably 4+ seasons of whatever deal they sign. The contract will be an albatross for whoever gives it. So we might as well get the most value possible for him while we can. We should have traded him already. This is Mookie's decision to not value being part of the Red Sox over testing the open market. The ball has been in his court for a long time. He is not returning serve. So the Sox are left to play/negotiate with themselves. That means that they have to trade him or risk either 1) an injury that devastates his value, or 2) lose him for only a draft pick after he turns down his QO. Trading him is really the only option if they cannot work out a LT deal with him in very short order. And if he was going to agree to that, he probably would have done so already. What a terrible idea it would be to pay a lot of money to this top-five player who's good at absolutely everything. Just criminal mismanagement.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 3, 2019 11:07:26 GMT -5
I keep coming back to wanting Mookie to be a Sox lifer, but arguably the best thing organizationally long-term is swinging a great deal this winter, getting a 60 FV guy back, plus extra, (best possible deal is probably Mookie-Workman to LA, since it’s a big OF upgrade and a significant low-cost BP upgrade), and then charge hard to re-sign Mookie next winter. If the Sox actually could get Verdugo-May back, they’re probably only losing 2-3 wins, if Verdugo is a 4-win player in ‘20 and May can put up 2 WAR (vs <1 for Porcello). They could still contend, especially since not having Mookie’s $30M means they could seek out some high-upside cheap pillow deals or short-term upgrades (Kendrick?). Hell, I’d even lay if out to Mookie and say, “we’re gonna bring you back to an even better team, and we’ll pay you what you’re worth.” This would make some kind of sense if the Dodgers window was closing and they were in desperate need for regular season wins in 2020. But it isn't, and they're not. And for all the "they have to go for it" talk, ok... well they can like sign Gerrit Cole and just keep their young controlled four win outfielder. In fact, they can do anything. Why they need to make an extremely costly trade for Mookie Betts specifically is a question that remains unanswered.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 2, 2019 18:36:41 GMT -5
I don't know why JDM is worth over $20 million a season when a guy like Nelson Cruz who is pretty much the same player has made about $14.5M per year for the last 5 seasons.Nelson Cruz is also seven years older than JD Martinez. Cruz would be paid $20m a year if people had known he was going to be ageless.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 31, 2019 12:00:31 GMT -5
I wonder if the Nats would have been able to pull this off if their series with the Cardinals had gone even five games. The question the whole time was could they could get enough innings out of the Strasburg/Scherzer/Corbin trio to cover for the weakness of the rest of their staff, and they just barely did.
Score another one for "momentum".
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 31, 2019 11:32:49 GMT -5
Agree. Why not bring in Cole to start the 8th? Still 6 outs to play with, and maybe Corbin or Hudson crack under the pressure. I don’t understand not bringing in Cole at all. It seemed really narrow-minded on Hinch’s part. But...the right team won, so I’m not complaining. Basically any scenario where you use Cole at any point is better than one where you don't. Like why not just use him as an opener? It's not like the first inning of game-frickin-seven is low-leverage garbage time or something.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 31, 2019 9:20:31 GMT -5
It's also so fitting that the team with a Little League park lost to a 336 foot home run. That one has got to hurt a lot more than normal. It's like the Bucky Dent home run for the Astros. If you hated baseball any more, Fox would ask you to do play-by-play.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 31, 2019 9:14:47 GMT -5
It’s funny...I don’t have all that much of an issue with Harper, but I do like that the Nats held their ground on overpaying the guy. They made a very reasonable offer given his “1 great year” career, more than reasonable really, and when they pivoted, they made a pretty smart move with Corbin. How that contract ultimately plays out is uncertain, but he was very good this year, and that deal is likely to be a (much?) better one overall than Harper’s. A thing I like about this Nats team is that there's truly no narrative you can attach to them. What's the lesson we're all supposed to learn? This team is built the exact same way that all the disappointing Nats teams of the past five years. The loss of Harper is the one thing you can point to, and I'm sure people are trying to make it A Thing, but if we're being even a tiny bit rational, the only thing it proves is that they happened to have three other good OF options on hand.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 31, 2019 8:33:41 GMT -5
Aren't these guys supposed to be smart or something?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 26, 2019 11:19:03 GMT -5
"There is only one Rays executive whose official bio begins with a pronunciation guide for his first name: “HIGH-em” Bloom. I asked Bloom if he often finds himself in the position of explaining to people in the industry how to say it. “All the time,” he said. Most people, he added, “figure it out or they figure out something close enough that they can call me.” He’s given up on the guttural “ch” sound, though. “The ‘ch’ to me is sort of a varsity-level thing with my name,” he joked. “In this game, if the worst thing you’re being called is some mispronounced version of your actual name, you’re doing pretty well.”" www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/282617/chaim-bloom-tampa-bay-raysI've heard his name come up a couple times on podcasts by people who seemed like they knew how to pronounce it and sounds close to "rhyme" minus the R, which seems close to what he's saying there?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 24, 2019 13:33:46 GMT -5
The question I have is: is it they weren't getting much out of him? Or perhaps they weren't utilizing him as much by choice? I don't know that the Sox have been as on the cutting edge of analytics as others (Astros, Dodgers, Yankees for example) as I think they've been trying to catch up in that area. I'm hoping they didn't let their constant search for knowledge decay to the point where he wasn't utilized when he could have been. I don't think Bill James is particularly on the cutting edge of analytics anymore if we're being honest.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 22, 2019 8:23:06 GMT -5
"They would have won with Corbin" = speculation. "We can't say for sure if they would have won with Corbin" = statement of fact, not speculative. If people want to think that Cashman is actually a bad GM who's teams are somehow always fatally flawed despite winning a zillion games, and not just a real good GM who hasn't won in a while, well... I guess whatever helps you sleep at night. Another swing and miss. Corbin speculation is based on shrewd GM decision making. WITH Corbin, the Nationals won the NLCS. Without Corbin the Yankee bullpen was overused. Cashman could have had Corbin, wherein the speculation lies. Speculation now rests with how Martinez uses Corbin (the Astros' crush LHPSP) They also faced the Cardinals. Different team, different series, doesn't matter, proves nothing. Moving on.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 21, 2019 18:31:12 GMT -5
With respect to Corbin. Speculation either way. With Corbin in the rotation the bullpen is less stressed out (Octavino?) In any case we will see how Corbin fares and is used by Martinez against the Astro's. Making SABERMETRIC excuses/rationalizations for Cashman is to ignore his results. Bullpens are nice. Going long into games (especially in the playoffs) is better. "They would have won with Corbin" = speculation. "We can't say for sure if they would have won with Corbin" = statement of fact, not speculative. If people want to think that Cashman is actually a bad GM who's teams are somehow always fatally flawed despite winning a zillion games, and not just a real good GM who hasn't won in a while, well... I guess whatever helps you sleep at night.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 16, 2019 14:21:53 GMT -5
The Nats have had problems with their back end starters and basically their entire bullpen the whole year, which kept them from getting into the "superteam" tier. In the playoffs, you can cover a lot of that backend weakness by riding those elite starters really hard, which is what they've been doing. The problem is that eventually those guys are going to hit a wall. Which is to say, momentum issues (which I don't totally discount) aside, sweeping the Cards is the best thing that could have happened for them.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 15, 2019 17:48:49 GMT -5
Great job secretly changing the baseball, Baseball.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 15, 2019 17:29:51 GMT -5
Pollock has three years 51 million left on his deal, just gave them .2 bwar in his age 31 season. His D tanked and he went hitless in the playoffs. Yea I think they want to move him if they can. Maybe people don't know what happened with Pollock this year: dodgers.mlblogs.com/the-hardest-part-was-the-wait-for-pollock-who-nears-his-return-7148a409760He hit .288/.348/.537 after returning from that. He had some bad defensive metrics but it's a relatively small sample, he's been good in the past, and his raw speed hasn't tanked, so I'd expect that to rebound. Despite the low WAR total in one season, there's not much to indicate that Polluck is anything other than the guy the Dodgers thought they were getting for a very reasonable $12m AAV. Not that he's an untouchable player or anything, but they're not going to give up value just to get rid of him. He's good and he's cheap.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 15, 2019 13:51:16 GMT -5
Dodgers are going for one of Cole or Strasburg and will have zero interest in Price. If I'm the Dodgers and could replace A.J.Pollock with Mookie Betts, and move Joe Kelly, I'd take Price in heartbeat. You'd want to replace the good player who you just signed last offseason? Julio Urias and Gavin Lux. Dude.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 15, 2019 13:47:23 GMT -5
Right right right, it's different when we do it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 15, 2019 13:43:10 GMT -5
Howie Kendrick is sure looking like a decent 2B option, even at 36 years old. He put up 2.9 fWAR this year and has 3 doubles tonight after a season with a 146 wRC+ for $4M AAV. He'll be a FA. Imagine if the Red Sox had him instead of Nunez this year. Yeah, he’s cut his K rate way down and boosted his power some. I think it’s fairly “real.” Lol...having him instead of Nunez is like a 4-win swing. Wow, I knew he had a good season but that .572 slugging is wild to see. The problem is he's been a really good hitter as a part timer for three years now, to where I don't really see him getting less than Holt.
|
|
|