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 Jun 30, 2019 16:56:43 GMT -5
Sell: 1) I am becoming convinced this is going to have to be fixed in the off season. (When contracts come off the books. Panda, Porcello, etc) 2) Even if this team makes the post season, I am hard pressed to see them going very far.Everyone on this board must be like eight years old because otherwise you'd all remember a bunch of high-80s win teams that ended up with WS rings. I really don't understand how people can possibly justify statements like this.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 30, 2019 10:57:31 GMT -5
I seriously think that any pitcher could get Chavis out by throwing only 95 mph fastballs like this: I was surprised as well to learn he actually is a breaking ball hitter. Seems like FB would be easier to work on too with the advanced pitching machines and all the camera-aided work you can do now. I'm no hitting guru but I think it's probably just that his natural uppercut favors hitting pitches with a more downward trajectory. He's hitting .179/.319/.256 against four-seamers and .379/.419/.483 against sinkers.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 27, 2019 14:42:16 GMT -5
You guys can act like because they’re rich they should spend all of their net worth on the team- it’s just out of touch with reality and what actually happens. They already spend the most in the league. This is a business to them. And it’s certainly not a non-profit. And I’m not even a pro-ownership guy when it comes to discussing sports I'm not asking for that, but to be fair I do think it would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 26, 2019 18:04:25 GMT -5
Hal and Hank Steinbrenner have been a embarrassment to the Yankee franchise with how little they've spent since they took over the franchise after their father passed. So yeah they should be spending 300 plus million every year. Any loyal Yankee fan would tell you this. Their father George would. Bloated contracts are what sank the Yankees. You can only throw so much money at a team before you get into trouble. Remember A-Rod? That's the only defense small market teams have is the inability to get out of bad contracts. Hank and Hal are doing it right. Build up from within and then spend. The Yankees haven't been under .500 since George Bush left office. The first George Bush.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 26, 2019 16:38:13 GMT -5
Naysbel Marcano has homered again. Impressive for an obviously fake player.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 26, 2019 16:32:01 GMT -5
Sox can’t do shiz at home this season. Against bad or good teams. I want them to sell. They have more holes than the BP and it’s not even guaranteed we get a WC spot. Sell who, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 26, 2019 10:27:14 GMT -5
Also, they're hot right now. Baseball is like basketball in that it's a game of runs. In baseball, teams will get hot and cool down, it's just the nature of the beast. At some point, the Red Sox aren't going to continue winning at a 99-win clip. It's just not going to happen. You also can't excuse what they did at the beginning of the season either. Those games counted. If they can climb out of the hole they dug themselves and maintain, great. At some point they will slow down again and hopefully it's not the ice cold crap fest that we saw in April and May. Yeah I can't think of any precedent for something like that happening.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 22, 2019 15:19:07 GMT -5
This is random... Having watched the replay of Vazquez hitting the walk-off about ten times, I don’t recall ever seeing a player drop (or sorta kinda flip) a bat in fair territory like that. He watched the ball and after a couple steps toward first, dropped the bat with his left hand well into fair territory. I’m middle of the road on bat flips. I think they’re ok when a player is full of exhuberation but I’m not crazy about a flip done intentionally to show off or show up a pitcher. I really like the way Chavis has a very understated drop of the bat when he really crushes one. I’m pretty sure that was the biggest or one of the two biggest clutch home runs Vaz has ever hit. It was a terrific bomb. I’d prefer he flip the bat into foul territory. It’s not a huge the, just a little something I noticed that I can’t recall ever seeing before. Cut him some slack, he hasn't had much practice.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 22:41:34 GMT -5
Nothing that would make it a productive trade for a Red Sox team that doesn't have a good 4th outfielder. So, you're saying he's not worth a good reliever, but if you're the Red Sox, you wouldn't trade him for one anyways even if they were offered and it was above your percieved value of JBJ? And if JBJ goes back to hitting like he was back in May? That's the risk. If he's hitting between .750-.800 OPS he's very valuable, but that can come crashing down. He wasn't worth anything over a month ago and was a dead even 0.0 wins above replacement. If he continues his up trend he'll finish to where ZiPs had him, 2.7. He's a gamble. To answer all of your questions, no, I don't think the Red Sox should trade Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 22:34:13 GMT -5
1. I told you Vazquez was the best catcher on the roster.
2. The juiced ball, it's good now.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 22:16:14 GMT -5
You're talking about getting a "very good, cost controlled piece" for JBJ, and I'm saying you're not going to get anyone who's particularly better or particularly more cost-controlled than JBJ in return for him. I'd be curious, you're the GM of a team and need a CFers, what do you think his value is worth? He's basically a 2 WAR CFer whose currently hot. He's controlled for a year and a half. Relievers don't have the same value as an every day regular. It's funny, In a round about way, it sounds as though you're still agreeing with me. That he's not that great and if you could pull the trigger, you would. You're arguing a team wouldn't even offer that, which I think is debatable. Nothing that would make it a productive trade for a Red Sox team that doesn't have a good 4th outfielder.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 21:25:34 GMT -5
Yeah I doubt any teams are going to be particularly swayed by the fact that he's been hot for a few weeks. Bradley is a mature player who's been around for a long time, everyone knows what he is. So, I'm confused, do you agree on his value then and think the Sox couldn't net a good return anyways and are this stuck with him? You're talking about getting a "very good, cost controlled piece" for JBJ, and I'm saying you're not going to get anyone who's particularly better or particularly more cost-controlled than JBJ in return for him.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 21:12:53 GMT -5
If he's not a very good player on average, why would the Red Sox be able to get anything significant back for him? Because he's hitting currently and someone might want to take that gamble. His reputation on defense also probably exceeds reality. Clearly you seem to disagree on his value and feel the opposite. Yeah I doubt any teams are going to be particularly swayed by the fact that he's been hot for a few weeks. Bradley is a mature player who's been around for a long time, everyone knows what he is.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 20:56:20 GMT -5
Because JBJ isn't very a very good player on the average and they could use another arm in the pen. They could find a suitable gap filler on the cheap. He's scorching right now which is the point. He has value now. If he can sustain, great. It's a risk. If he's not a very good player on average, why would the Red Sox be able to get anything significant back for him?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 20:54:49 GMT -5
Lol our worst nightmare come true. Until Scherzer isn't a Yankee this trade deadline, I'll assume he's going to be a Yankee until he's not traded there. As the article states, NATS ownership won’t allow it. They think they are buyers. I don't know if I disagree with them. I know the Nats have been weirdly snakebitten forever, but it would still be super weird for a team with that level of talent trade away the best pitcher in baseball when they are by no means out of the race. And, their biggest obvious problem is the bullpen, which in theory should be the easiest thing to fix in-season.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 20:43:43 GMT -5
They could get a very good, cost-controlled piece in return. I would think. ...why?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 18:28:46 GMT -5
I would love to see this debacle if they ended up actually splitting home games between TB and Montreal. I can't imagine the players union being thrilled about the idea. Good luck ever signing a free agent again.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2019 9:29:58 GMT -5
I mean, yeah. It's a fascinating proposal on it's face, but if you really think about it, there's a 99.9% chance this is ultimately just the same old same old about leaving Tampa and/or extracting some kind of concession from them on a new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 20, 2019 10:28:52 GMT -5
Probably because Rafael Devers has been practicing his Brooks Robinson impersonation lately and is raking and Dalbec is beginning to look like a potential keeper, so where else do you put him?Honestly, his value is best at 3b, too, but you can't have two 3b, not that Dombrowski doesn't know how to solve that "problem". I mean, he's probably a year away from the majors, so my answer would be "at third base in Portland still." Just because he might never be Boston's third baseman doesn't mean that his value isn't maximized be keeping him at third base. And that doesn't mean I'm calling for them to trade him, either. Just that there's no reason at all to cut into the guy's value by trying to teach him a new, less valuable position while he's still trying to make contact that's of more consistent quality. I could see him getting a little bit of the Chavis treatment though, where they start trying him at first and maybe corner OF once he gets to Pawtucket.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 20, 2019 10:14:00 GMT -5
The fact that Ortiz was shot in the back makes it highly believable that the gunman wasn't looking at his face. The two have very distinct body types. Seems like an impossible mistake to make when you aren't in a crowded room with your adrenaline running at 7000%. And look, I'm not saying I have 100% faith in the official version of the story either, I'm just saying that I think that version is at least plausible.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 20, 2019 9:39:58 GMT -5
Two, all those people and they couldn't get it right on who to shoot? I mean, you say "all those people" like telling a bunch of people about your murder conspiracy isn't the dumbest thing you could do. Nor did the killer think to shoot both for good measure? Third, the gunman only knew of his target based on the color of his pants? He had a blurry photo that made it look like he had white pants on when he was wearing black? That's how he confused David Ortiz with his intended target? Ortiz was shot at night, sitting down facing away from his intended target who walked right up to him and shot him in the back. Fourth, what, did he only know the color of his targets pants, which was wrong? They don't even have the same body build or look similar in any way. Here's the thing, regardless of the intent of the would be assassins, this was not a good plan and it was not well executed. There's no version of events where these people displayed the tiniest bit of competence. They didn't want to kill Ortiz? They hit him in his damn liver! Some drug lord wanted "send a message"? Seems like there'd be no better way to get the Dominican authorities to crack down on your criminal operation than an assassination attempt on a beloved national icon. They left witnesses, security camera footage, numerous co-conspirators... there's just no interpretation of events that I can see where this wasn't a terrible plan executed incompetently.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 19, 2019 14:19:17 GMT -5
The thing is, when you only look at their record against winning teams, it might seem like you're learning something more meaningful, but all you're really doing is throwing away good data and reducing your sample size. I don't think the Red Sox had a magical ability to dispatch excellent teams last October, I don't think they've suddenly reversed the polarity on that this year. It's somewhat improbable that their distribution of wins against good teams breaks down that way, but improbable things happen all the time without there being any particular significance to them. So you place no value that the team hasn't won a series against a winning team since 5/1, but are steam rolling the worst teams in baseball? Not really, no.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 19, 2019 13:53:02 GMT -5
But you do keep saying it, and you realize that's why people have lost patience, no? I'm saying it's unlikely, but not impossible. The Raptors won an NBA title because Golden State went down with injuries and Kawhi hit a miracle buzzer beater against the 76ers. Replay those playoffs a thousand times and I bet Golden State wins probably 950 of them. Toronto won an unlikely title. So, could the Red Sox theoretically win if Blake Snell goes down with an elbow injury, the Yankees get ice cold top to bottom and win on a hopper that was mis-played? Sure. Judging by how they've performed against winning teams this season it hasn't been very encouraging other than, "anything can happen in October". That's the only silver lining. That and they're really good at beating bad teams and will likely get in because of it. The thing is, when you only look at their record against winning teams, it might seem like you're learning something more meaningful, but all you're really doing is throwing away good data and reducing your sample size. I don't think the Red Sox had a magical ability to dispatch excellent teams last October, I don't think they've suddenly reversed the polarity on that this year. It's somewhat improbable that their distribution of wins against good teams breaks down that way, but improbable things happen all the time without there being any particular significance to them.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 19, 2019 10:17:55 GMT -5
It just took 17 innings for a 47-24 team, playing at home, to end their six-game winning streak. If you're taking that as "they can't beat winning teams" then I don't know. I watched one (1) baseball game and it confirms all my pre-existing beliefs about the team, time to get posting.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 18, 2019 16:27:32 GMT -5
They signed Eduardo Nunez and won. Yeap, and signed Julio Lugo and won. These players you highlighted actually made a huge impact in winning, so whatever. Uhh, beg to differ on Kimbrel. He was awful and he was extremely lucky not to have blown multiple games in that run. And the won in '07 without a big name acquisition in the bullpen. So whatever. Mostly my issue though is that you're completely wrapped around the axle on the ideal construction of the Red Sox bullpen three and a half months from now, when that's clearly unknowable.
|
|
|