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 Sept 9, 2019 12:16:56 GMT -5
Remember, the Red Sox can't just fire someone, they have to character assassinate him in the press as well. Did he have a painkiller addicition like Francona too or nah? The idea that Dombrowski wasn't the right person to lead the Red Sox to 2020 is sensible. The assertion that his 108-win team in 2018 was "a minor miracle" that happened despite his disfunctionality is a whole bunch of malarkey. Anyway, everything we're hearing now from the exact same people seems totally credible.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 9, 2019 11:57:38 GMT -5
In regards to "trying hard"... I sometimes wonder if older fans might have a different perspective on this, because back in the day it was plausible that a guy could sort of coast all the way to the big leagues, and succeed there, without putting in maximum effort. It just wasn't quite as competitive. So if you had enough talent you could succeed even without completely devoting yourself to your performance. Think of the stories of Mickey Mantle hitting homers while hungover; or just think of how guys didn't even really work out that much until pretty recently. So if you're a fan who grew up in that time, you might have the impression that "effort" and "trying" are really important factors for a team's performance. But I just think none of these guys have made it as far as they have without putting in maximum effort - it's just too competitive, and anyone who slacks off gets their lunch eaten. And frankly, watching them play, I don't see one guy who's not clearly trying their hardest. (Besides which, they all know they get paid for their stats, and their effort; there's more than enough incentive for them even if the team is out of the race.) You're totally right about this, but there is a thought experiment on this topic I like to contemplate from time to time: how little effort would Mike Trout have to put in to be a league-average player?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 9, 2019 11:41:45 GMT -5
I really think this is it. DD has an autocratic style. Perhaps other voices were being stifled as a chasm was being created between DD, Wren, and LaRussa versus the other voices in the organization. This dovetails with what Shaughnessy wrote and he is connected within the organization.I do wish they would hold a press conference, but what are they going to say? People weren't getting along well enough to have a cohesive organization? That will come through back channels as I'm sure more comes out. Wow, what are the odds? Do the Red Sox not realize they can just put out a press release?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 9, 2019 11:38:40 GMT -5
It was pretty clear when Hazen wanted out that DD was the autocratic type. Maybe they could have handled it better, but I think moving on makes sense at this juncture. I’m curious to see who they bring in and what transpires this offseason, because it does seem like major changes are coming. Beane would be amazing, but he has the most secure job in the sport and Boston’s GM role has been the least secure, so I have a hard time seeing how Henry could sweeten the pot enough to get him interested. Would he? What exactly is Bill Beane's superpower at this point? He likes to trade away good young players with years of control left, which makes sense in Oakland and absolutely zero sense in Boston. I think he's a good GM where he's at, but it seems like you'd be getting the exact same situation that you (supposedly) have now with Dombrowski, a guy coming from outside the organization who has his own way of doing things that clashes with the existing front office personal.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 7, 2019 10:36:33 GMT -5
MLB's math on how they calculate pythag record is confusing. 99 runs isn't quite as good a differential for the Red Sox because their total number of runs scored and allowed is higher than the other two. They've outscored their opponents by the same number of runs, but a slightly lower percentage of runs.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 5, 2019 12:16:18 GMT -5
Two words: Brian Bannister. They aren’t mutually exclusive, but Houston has had some amazing “luck” grabbing pitchers who were thought to be mediocre (Morton), done (Pressley) on the downside of their career (Verlander) or just not living up to potential (Cole), among others, and made them All Stars. Sox could use help in this area (see: starters, relievers this year). Astros played five fewer games than Boston last year but their pitching is thriving. There is a strong link to this and their player development practices. Seem like something we’d want to get a piece of, if possible. There's no doubt that Houston is one of the best player dev organizations right now, but I also think some of these narratives are overblown. I'm not giving them credit for Verlander having the Nolan Ryan gene, and Cole's story is mostly about how Pittsburg wanted him to throw his worst pitch all the time because of their (terrible) organizational pitching philosophy. As far as the Red Sox side of this goes, I think the work they've done in the bullpen is a huge point in their favor. Workman and Barnes have both totally changed their pitch mixes with excellent results under Bannister. They certainly seemed to unlock the best version of Eovaldi last year, the mistake was signing him to a well above-market deal despite the fact that he has an elbow surgery every year, and that's a decision that probably wasn't driven by Bannister. Sale pitched as well as he ever had with the Red Sox until he broke down, Price has been aging fairly gracefully by pitcher standards. Basically I think the coaching/development of the pitching staff has been pretty strong, but when no one is healthy and you have no depth, that only takes you so far.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 5, 2019 11:22:48 GMT -5
Chronic injuries are much more worrisome than unrelated ones when it comes to a player being "injury prone", and Eduardo was clearly one of those guys. It wasn't a string of bad luck, he had one specific aspect of his physiology that continually caused him problems, and when he finally did have the full reconstructive surgery, it wasn't totally clear to me to what extent the problem was solved or how long it would remain solved. I suppose we still don't know how much life is left in that knee, but just to see him get through a season (knock on wood) without it being an issue is huge for him is a huge deal. Wouldn't that be 2 seasons now if last year was just his ankle? Some people kind of lumped them together as lower-half injuries, but yeah, I'd say the ankle injury looks more like a random/unrelated thing now. ERod's biggest issue is how unathletic he is. I imagine he'll always be right on the verge of getting hurt by trying to run for 30 feet. It's not that he's obese and it's clearly apparent that he worked hard in the offseason to get into better shape which probably helped him greatly. He just can't move well.I wonder if that's more of necessary adaptation to reduce stress on his knee, or maybe even a mental thing where he doesn't fully trust his legs after so many injuries. He certainly doesn't look like an un-athletic guy to me.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 5, 2019 10:50:58 GMT -5
A friendly reminder that ERod’s injuries were mostly tied to: 1. A floating knee cap that messed with his mechanics when it came loose. It was eventually surgically repaired, but it was responsible for several years of problems before surgery and recovering his mechanics post surgery. That long standing (pun) issue is resolved. 2. Last season, tripping over a runner while covering 1B and tearing up his ankle. That issue is also resolved. All pitchers develop IL issues, from blisters and hangnails to TJ surgery. But ERod seems strong, young and healthy going forward. We have a good one to bolster a hopefully healthy Sale, Price and Eovaldi to contend in 2020. That would be awesome, right? Chronic injuries are much more worrisome than unrelated ones when it comes to a player being "injury prone", and Eduardo was clearly one of those guys. It wasn't a string of bad luck, he had one specific aspect of his physiology that continually caused him problems, and when he finally did have the full reconstructive surgery, it wasn't totally clear to me to what extent the problem was solved or how long it would remain solved. I suppose we still don't know how much life is left in that knee, but just to see him get through a season (knock on wood) without it being an issue is huge for him is a huge deal.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 5, 2019 10:26:29 GMT -5
You know, with more position players pitching and second-tier starters no longer expected to go through the lineup more than twice, two-way players, even ones that are really mediocre in one direction, probably are going to make a lot of sense. Like Bryce Brentz is a major leaguer if he's also your mop-up man, right? Let's be honest, Brentz should be a major leaguer now. He's an rbi machine. Or used to be, before the Red Sox ruined his development. Now this is the type of petty score-settling that I'm here for.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2019 17:52:48 GMT -5
Saves are a 100% accurate measure of instances of the below. The reason saves were invented were to reward relief pitchers for performance outside of W/L record and ERA as Baseball Writer Jerome Holtzman thought the same of these statistics as you think about saves. There's nothing wrong with saves, only issues with interpretation of the value and importance.Counterpoint: the definition of a save is the purest gibberish. It's not a stat that's been mis-used. It has no use. It is a measure of nothing. The only reason it even sort of works is because teams manage to the save.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2019 10:25:44 GMT -5
If they put Workman in the 9th only to pitch the super easy 3 run saves on clean innings like Kimbrel always did, he'd have way more saves and way less blown saves. Instead, they use him like everyone complained about what Kimbrel was incapable of doing, where he got to face the middle of the order with runners on base constantly no matter what the inning. And now that the Red Sox are doing what everyone wanted to begin with - pitching your best pitcher always in the highest possible leverage regardless of inning, they're complaining about it. They really should just eliminate the saves stat because it's so dumb and meaningless. The fact that a team could have about 8 blown saves in one game and then win the game tells you how dumb it is. Exactly. Save percentage is a function of usage, not skill. Mariano Rivera was 5 for 9 in save opportunities in his first two years. Setup men have bad save percentages because a blown hold is a blown save but a hold isn't a save! Brian Johnson got a damn blown save for giving up a run in the fourth inning last week. I mean, come on! That's entirely meaningless! I don't understand what's so hard for people to grasp about that. People complain about pitcher wins and RBI but, while those stats aren't often useful, they're not as actively misleading as saves and blown saves. Don't use saves and blown saves anymore. A lot of people have put a lot of energy into complaining about this bullpen and they're not going to let it all go to waste just because the bullpen has been objectively good.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2019 9:57:23 GMT -5
Just a few really headscratching comments in this thread. Porcello sucked - and has pretty much all year. We are fans first and foremost - and we can be harsh critics. Period. Porcello is making more in one year than most of us will in our lifetime. I think - I should hope - he can handle some mean commentary!!!!!!!Ok, but he's not the one who has to handle it. He doesn't read these threads. It's not super enjoyable to read a ton of super negative, hostile posts. Particularly when they're so minimally insightful -- Porcello's been bad this year. Yeah, I was aware of that. LOL what a effort by Porcello in the middle of a wild card race. Get rid of this bum. I don't really understand how you can look at a guy who's clearly not having the season he wants to have or thinks he should be having, and respond with anger. Like why kick a guy when he's down? And yes, I'm aware that he gets paid a lot to do this.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 3, 2019 14:28:07 GMT -5
"You can't prove it's not true" is the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to proving that something is true. It's just as ridiculous as saying that everything that gets labeled a conspiracy is false because conspiracy theory is a dirty phrase invented by the CIA after JFK was assassinated to discredit everything but the government's official story. Ah, ok.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 3, 2019 13:05:18 GMT -5
Where does screwing up the player development pipeline for half the league fit into Rob Manfred's brilliant conspiracy to make baseball more popular by ruining it?
Everyone loves conspiracy theories, but this is so obviously just poor stewardship of the game. Major League Baseball doesn't have adequate control of it's equipment, and they're the last ones to figure that out and/or care about it. That MLB bought Rawlings right before the ball became juiced beyond belief does not stir any thoughts of conspiracy to you? Saying the word conspiracy doesn't make it untrue. Jeffery Epstein being a billionaire pedophile was a conspiracy theory a few years ago. Is it really that hard to believe that they wouldn't be playing dumb and doing nothing about the ball if home runs were down 50%? "You can't prove it's not true" is the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to proving that something is true.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 3, 2019 12:51:44 GMT -5
3) Having said all that, I'm not actually against a Betts trade out of hand. I'd consider it for the right price. But you're giving up an awful lot by losing Betts for 2020, and my standard for what I'd want back would be higher than what Arizona got for Goldschmidt. It seems like there's a pretty wide consensus that Arizona totally roasted the Cards in that deal. So yeah, if the Red Sox some team to massively overpay for one year of Betts, sure, make the trade. But that's also my policy for every Red Sox player.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 3, 2019 12:22:11 GMT -5
Remember how stupid baseball was in Lancaster? The entire PCL had a higher SLG than Lancaster this year, and this was the year in which the PCL lost Colorado Springs. Where does screwing up the player development pipeline for half the league fit into Rob Manfred's brilliant conspiracy to make baseball more popular by ruining it?
Everyone loves conspiracy theories, but this is so obviously just poor stewardship of the game. Major League Baseball doesn't have adequate control of it's equipment, and they're the last ones to figure that out and/or care about it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 2, 2019 15:46:24 GMT -5
(There's already talk about this in random other threads, of course. That's inefficient!) A discussion of the 2020 roster has to begin with an accurate sense of how good the current roster is Trading Mookie Betts.
It's obviously an insanely terrible idea. A guy is great as Mookie is most valuable to a team that has an excellent shot at winning the WS with him, and an excellent shot of missing the playoffs entirely without him. That describes us. Perfectly. It perhaps describes us better than anyone, given the division we play in. How can you win the trade if he's more valuable to us than the other team? The best NL team that could really use a CF is the Mets, and they're an 86-win slash-line team; they're not an elite team with him.
This could be true if you could guarentee me a year out of Chris Sale next year, you know, the Sox best pitcher. At this point, it's a hope. I'm not going all in and keeping Betts around in a year where you *hope* to have your best pitcher around. Without Sale, you're as much of a contender as you are this year (as in not much of a contender). You trade Mookie Betts for more controllable great young talent next year and bite the bullet for 2020. I'm not the most optimistic guy when it comes to Sale's health, but I don't think 0 WAR is a reasonable median projection for him next year...
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 2, 2019 9:33:25 GMT -5
So here's the thing with Holt: in, like, 2005 someone gives him money to try to be a starter. Maybe he gets something like 3/$20M, which is tough for the Red Sox to match. In the "suck as badly as possible in order to increase your bonus pool" era though? Signing Holt and going from a 64-win team to a 67-win team isn't part of the program, and first-division teams are probably going to be looking for more established options as a starter.It's true that they won't see him as a starter, but they might see him as a sort of DJ LeMahieu luxury depth piece. If not that, I could see him holding some appeal for your scrappy small market teams that do try to contend, especially if they see some legitimacy to his recent offensive improvements. I don't see anyone being willing to overpay for him, but I think there'll be enough interest to keep his price roughly fair dollars-per-projected-WAR rate.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 1, 2019 20:20:16 GMT -5
Chacin was the best starter on a team that almost went to the World Series in 2018. That's more a comment on how weird that team was than anything, and it isn't super promising that the very same organization released him less than a year later, but hey, Wade Davis is good now so why not?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 1, 2019 10:55:55 GMT -5
People are fixated on the bullpen and it's extremely annoying. If the Red Sox had gotten a little more out of Price/Sale this year, and had signed someone useful instead of Eovaldi, everyone would be talking about what geniuses they are for assembling this pen on the cheap. On top of this, if their starters had succeeded in going deeper into games, they'd have to lean less on the weaker relievers, and the bullpen stats would look even better. I think that goes to Eric's point about the bullpen ranking highly on the positive AND negative win probability leaderboards. It's not a bad bullpen, it's an overexposed bullpen. Also, I think people aren't fully adjusting for the league context. Everyone is having bullpen problems. Bullpen ERAs are up half a run across baseball. That isn't a handful of awful teams dragging the average down either, the five best bullpen ERAs in baseball this year are about a half a run worse than the five best last year.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 1, 2019 7:35:33 GMT -5
That many blown saves indicates a fatal flaw. Unclutch pitching, along with unclutch hitting (at times). The starting pitching failed the team more though. Has this blown saves thing not been put to bed yet? They have 2 more blown saves than the Yankees, 1 more than the Dodgers and Oakland. It's about as meaningful a stat as pitcher's wins. Or, you know, saves. People are fixated on the bullpen and it's extremely annoying. If the Red Sox had gotten a little more out of Price/Sale this year, and had signed someone useful instead of Eovaldi, everyone would be talking about what geniuses they are for assembling this pen on the cheap.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 28, 2019 15:35:12 GMT -5
I'm not necessarily eager to bring him back, but Porcello is basically having the season he had in 2015 once you adjust for league wide offense. He's also throwing about the same stuff that he has for the past decade. I'm not sure why you're taking such a hardline stance on him being done at age 30. The stuff is about to decline, and he's about to be a lot worse. I mean, it's possible, but you're talking about one of the most dependable arms in the game, and I don't really see the collapse risk at 30 to be dramatically worse than it was at, say, 28.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 28, 2019 14:45:34 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again. They should look to retain Porcello for around 5 million. Maybe add IP incentives. He's worth more than that to a NL contender. He's probably worth 2 or 3 years over there at 10 plus million. Porcello's value to the Red Sox might not even be at 5 million anymore. Porcello in his 30's is completely different than Porcello in his 20's. Porcello is one of those guys where if he doesn't go to the right environment to succeed and prolong his career, he could go from decent to unplayable and out of the league pretty soon, AKA Matt Latos. His best oportunity moving forward is outside the AL East. Go find the next Porcello who's in his 20's. I'm not necessarily eager to bring him back, but Porcello is basically having the season he had in 2015 once you adjust for league wide offense. He's also throwing about the same stuff that he has for the past decade. I'm not sure why you're taking such a hardline stance on him being done at age 30.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 28, 2019 9:32:44 GMT -5
I always liked the Pomeranz trade before and now after. It's not that I thought it was steal or anything. I get you could not like the deal -- but the anger I thought was nuts. And even now if you still want to criticize it-- I think it crazy too. I don't think some understand that the Sox thought Pomeranz was a "2." I can;t find the article but I think that is what Bannister said. A pretty young young 2 that would have given them 2.5 years of high quality pitching. Secondly, I don't think they understand that low level guys are highly questionable. I can understand not liking the trade back then but not in a manner of "anger" (which was prevalent back then.). And after the fact - I don't see how this was bad as of right now. I don't understand a criticism for DD on this other than extremely mild or anyone that as fangraphs makes reference to in the below link vastly overrates the value of low level minor league players. blogs.fangraphs.com/did-the-red-sox-really-overpay-for-drew-pomeranz/ Yeah, that's the thing. People want to weigh Espinoza's hypothetical upside against Pomeranz's actual performance. You can talk about Pomeranz having more of a track record, but pitchers break out mid-career all the time, and Pomeranz did look like he might be one of those guys at the time. There was upside on both sides of the deal and people are only acknowledging one half of it. By the way, Pomeranz looks like he's going to be best reliever traded at the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 27, 2019 14:35:02 GMT -5
How did it play out exactly as he intended? Espinoza got hurt, unless he had medical knowledge of his elbow beforehand that we're not aware of. What we are aware of is that Pomeranz was a failed starter who had a terrific half season and Dombrowski traded the 13th overall prospect for him, despite getting medical treatment that the Red Sox were not made aware of. This and the deal that the Marlins actually rescinded for a similar situation is what got the Padres GM suspended for 30 days. Knowing he's a 19 year old pitcher is enough.
|
|
|