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 p23w on Apr 5, 2018 8:35:16 GMT -5
Through in Sanchez and Didi and that quartet could out home run the entire Bosox team. And we are not talking about lefties and the short porch at YS. It is scary.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Apr 3, 2018 21:26:09 GMT -5
More. I want lots more runs...
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Apr 3, 2018 20:55:34 GMT -5
JMJ It's deja vu all over again....
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Apr 3, 2018 20:53:06 GMT -5
I HATE walks by relievers.....
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Apr 3, 2018 13:39:09 GMT -5
I'll remember the 2013 playoffs as the year the Sox got all the breaks and bounces. Miggy had an oblique issue, Koji was awesome and somehow Farrell made all the right moves. But, hey we were the last team standing and that's what counts.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Apr 3, 2018 10:17:17 GMT -5
He probably should've DH'd. He would've have done better then the one they had that game. Watching the total collapse of the skillset of a generational talent like Pujols is heartbreaking. I saw the last of Willie Mays, as a Metropolitan. THAT was heartbreaking.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Apr 3, 2018 10:05:15 GMT -5
5 for 5 in strong starting pitching performances. The Sox definitely have the best #7 and #8 starters in the league. Johnson looked really solid out there. Hanley is acting like he's serious about being a 30-30 guy. Guess he wants Cora to treat him to dinner. Cora is doing a good job of utilizing his entire roster. Of course playing the Marlins and Rays allows you the luxury of that, but he does have the pieces and he is using them. I'm curious about when Betts and Bogaerts, especially Bogaerts will get a rest and I'm curious who his SS will be, whether it's Holt or Nunez. I'm also curious about how he's going to continue to get Swihart more time. If I'm not mistaken, he has started one game at 3b, DHed one game and pinch-hit tonight. I worry about the bullpen but the rotation, lineup, and bench is pretty strong. Against two teams with less than average offenses. Cora "blew" game #1. Plain and simple. Houston has the best #7 and #8 starters in the league.... and it isn't even close. Dombrowski let Reed go. There is you answer to a reliable bullpen. Bench is very strong. The line up "should" be strong, but it is too early to tell. Bogaerts looks reborn and Devers looks like the real deal we all hoped he would be.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Mar 15, 2018 7:25:39 GMT -5
Speaking of the Phillies.... anyone have any news of FA Clay Buchholz?
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 23, 2018 23:35:49 GMT -5
Look at the match ups. Not the aggregate stats when aligning your rotation in the playoffs. If the RS face the Yankees Archer would start game #3 (on the road) and game #2 at the Fens. He would probably start game #3 against HSTN, home or away. If Archer is a Yankee he starts game #4. home or away, against the RS and game #2 (probably) against HSTN. Think about it. Sabathia has owned the RS in recent years. The RS have owned Archer. Archer has owned HSTN, and pitched well against NY. Given that TB is tanking for 2018 and their top pitching prospect is out for two years, they could be sold on Groome who could be only two years away. For me Archer is not the ideal RHSP I covet for the RS, but he is the best available who sports good numbers against the two teams that I believe the RS will have to go through to get to the WS. With my prediction track record, we'll probably face Cleveland, who owns Archer. Derek Lowe was 8-10 with an ERA north of 6 lifetime against the Yankees when he took the mound for Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS against NY. He pitched 6 one hit innings. The point is that I don't think those things matter in a SSS type of situation. It doesn't matter because a) it makes no sense for the Sox to give up their thin farm system when you consider the Sox have six viable starter already, and b) you say Archer should start Game 3, but if Sale and Price are Sale and Price, they're your game 1 and 2 starters, and if Porcello bounces back somewhat, he's as good an option as Archer, or if Pomeranz pitches as well as last season, he's a better option for Game 3, or if Wright gets a shot and pitches like he did before getting injured or E-Rod, with a healthy knee, continues the progression he was making pre-injury, you have viable options for Game 4. TB will get a better offer by somebody with a better farm system than the Sox (which could be NY), but on a really good team he's a #3/4, but not necessarily better than what the Red Sox already have. The Archer thing makes no sense when you consider that other teams have more to offer, the Red Sox really don't have a glaring need, and a thin farm system and are already bumping up near the 237 million mark. The Red Sox are not getting Archer, simply put, and it's alright. Given the current roster, the RS will NOT have 6 viable starters come October. How many "viable" starters they will have for the playoffs is hard to say. I would hope four viable starters, three to "start" games and one for the bullpen. I like Porcello, but his stuff is more finesse than power. I would far prefer Archer against the NYY's and "Stros than Porcello. If you go with Pomeranz for a game #3 against either the Yanks or the Astros you are tempting the fates by throwing 3 straight lefties against predominately RH line ups. I'll be very surprised if Wright is a viable starter come October. Houston got their hired guns, Verlander and Cole to go along with their home grown lefty. They are not in the market for Archer, and yes they could easily outbid the RS for his services. The Yanks have three viable RHSP and two lefties, an aging vet who may hang it up after this year, and a quasi talented young lefty with zip for post season experience. The Yanks are in the market for a LHSP, not another righty. And yes the Yanks could outbid the RS for Archer, if Archer was a Lefty he'd probably already be a Yankee. I could give a rats pitute about where Archer would fit on the RS during the regular season. I'm interested in Archer for the post season rotation. I think the RS have a need for a power RHSP going into the post season. I believe this pitching staff will get through the regular season just fine. I don't like the staff, as constituted, going against either Houston or NY in the post season.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 23, 2018 18:09:45 GMT -5
Look at the match ups. Not the aggregate stats when aligning your rotation in the playoffs. If the RS face the Yankees Archer would start game #3 (on the road) and game #2 at the Fens. He would probably start game #3 against HSTN, home or away. If Archer is a Yankee he starts game #4. home or away, against the RS and game #2 (probably) against HSTN. Think about it. Sabathia has owned the RS in recent years. The RS have owned Archer. Archer has owned HSTN, and pitched well against NY. Given that TB is tanking for 2018 and their top pitching prospect is out for two years, they could be sold on Groome who could be only two years away. For me Archer is not the ideal RHSP I covet for the RS, but he is the best available who sports good numbers against the two teams that I believe the RS will have to go through to get to the WS. With my prediction track record, we'll probably face Cleveland, who owns Archer.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 22, 2018 14:50:53 GMT -5
There are almost no teams in baseball where Archer is the number three, he is the number or two on pretty much every team. Dickerson is an offense first player at a time when power hitting isn't worth as much as it used to be, Archer is a young ace, with a great contract. Cole pitched in the NL, had less control, and everyone panned that move. The Rays are not going to just hand Archer to the Sox cause you want them too. Tons of teams would outbid us for him. Yankees, Twins, Tribe, Dodgers,Nats, Brewers, etc. The sox best prospect are at the bottom of every top 100 list. The Red sox would have to give up Groome, Chavis, and quite a bit more to get him and even then a team with an elite prospect like Soto could still easily beat us. Houston. Boston. Cleveland. Wake up. Archer is good, not great.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 22, 2018 14:46:44 GMT -5
Counting on a team to be stupid is a bad basis for trade proposals. Where do you draw the line of how stupid they might be? Trade them Sandoval's dead money and Jeremy Barfield for Archer because they're dumb. TB has already shown signs of stupidity. How stupid remains to be seen. The clubhouse is not a happy place, They are most certainly not going to improve on their 80 win season of 2017. The front office appears totally intimidated by the Yankees acquisition of Stanton and the Red Sox signing of JDM. I think those who can't envision this franchise unloading Archer are dim witted. This board talks about being creative. Alright. Think outside the box and make this happen. Archer has a really good track record against NY and HSTN. Those are the teams the RS need to beat. JDM is going to make for some 12-2 games against the likes of the Orioles. He is not going to put us past NY or HSTN. Imagine if Cashman pulls off a deal for Archer. We're very likely screwed.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 21, 2018 23:59:06 GMT -5
I think Tampa's front office is stupid this year. They trade the face of the franchise, a good defensive 30 HR OFer and piss off their GG CFer and ace pitcher. Given the make up of the RS staff, their questionable durabilty and the teams they have to beat to advance to the WS, I think they desparately need a hard throwing RHSP with nasty stuff. OTOH if we wait till July, the Yanks, 'Stros or even the Tribe can outbid the RS for Archer.... I'd far prefer to have Chris as our number 3 going into the playoffs, then face Archer with Pomeranz or Porcello. This team needs to get over the top and I believe a strong RHSP is needed to seal the deal. I would not trade Chavis in a deal for Archer. I think Hembree can be quite serviceable at the Trop. I think we are working with a 2 year window. If we don't win at least one pennant in the next two years you run the risk loosing talent to opt outs and lessen the probability of signing talent to "team friendly" contracts, a-la Pedroia.
Stupid is as stupid does. Longoria should not have been traded, and Cobb is still out there. Archer is unhappy (as is Kiermayer). The time to do the deal is now.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 21, 2018 16:08:40 GMT -5
At some point during the upcoming season the Red Sox should trade for Chris Archer. The guy deserves to be on a winner. He needs to be reunited with David Price. The question is twofold. You need to beat some other team to the deal and you need to give value. My thought is to offer Groome, Hembree and another pitching prospect either a reliever or a starter. The sooner, the better. The cost will increase come July, and other franchises have deeper farms than do the Red Sox. I would never have ventured this idea until the Tampa front office decided to go stupid. Now I think Archer can be obtained, and would love to join a staff with Sale. Price, Porcello and to have Kimbrell for a closer. In any event it works for me.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2018 14:59:58 GMT -5
Abreu's value to the Chisox is more than his stats. Once Red Sox fans come to understand this they will drop the notion of acquiring Abreu for the opening day roster. Of course an arrangement could be made. The cost would be something like 3 of the top 5 RS prospects or 4 of the top 10. Abreu's additional value is directly related to relationship with the best prospect on the White Sox. Wait another year and try again.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2018 14:40:33 GMT -5
I'm excited about the season because I think the team underperformed last year and still won 93 games. I don't want to hear about the Yankees and how much better they are despite having half the team having career seasons last year. And Both teams fired their field managers. I'm not so sure how much the team (Red Sox) underperformed last year. If you look just at the stats you could argue that as a "team" they over performed given their won-loss record. As for the Yankees, offensively they outperformed the Red Sox in 2017, and they added Giancarlo Stanton. Pretty safe bet the Yankee offense will be better than the Red Sox offense this year as well. If the Yankees win the season series against the Red Sox (again) this year, they will probably win the division given that their improved offense will shred the rest of the teams in the ALE more efficiently then the Red Sox offense, and given that the odds of the Red Sox going 15-2 in extra inning games under a rookie manager are fairly remote. Excited? Of course. The renewal of life begins on opening day. This team is a playoff caliber team. Aaron F. Boone is a putz. The Bronx is a pigsty. Mike Stanton is a transvestite. Mashiaro Tanaka is the son of a war criminal. Brett Gardener has hemorrhoids. C.C. Sabathia wears a D-cup sports bra. Pythagoras had it all wrong, it's about isosceles and sometimes scalene. Damn the torpedoes......
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2018 14:06:55 GMT -5
Youth baseball is rumored to have more players than ever. That isn't true. Parents are shying away from having their kids getting their brains bashed in on football and are turning to baseball these days. I've never stopped to watch a pee-wee football game or a pick-up basketball game. I've stopped scores of times to watch softball games (mens and womens) Little League, Legion games, even town games (yes they still play town baseball on the Delmarva peninsula). What I try not to watch is televised games. Oh, I do now and again, but what a TV production crew gravitates to and that which my own sensibilities as a baseball voyeur choose to observe are very nearly incompatible. If it were not for the CF camera view I would probably forego televised games altogether. FWIW listening and talking to fans in the stands at these youth oriented (and sometimes Senior oriented) diamond venues beats the heck out of listening to drunks talk about PEDs, L/R splits or (mis)management decisions. Never confuse the business of baseball with the game.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 7, 2018 9:16:07 GMT -5
I would give up very, very little for Harvey or Wheeler. That's just what "buying low" is all about. The upside is a power RHSP which is what this team needs first and foremost.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 6, 2018 22:54:46 GMT -5
Dear God how I wish this were the case. I would drive Dombrowski to the Mets front office. A chance to buy low on a Harvey or Wheeler is exactly what this teams could most benefit from. Besides I'm still po'd at Alderson for luring Clemens away (buying low) oh those 21 years ago. I had to double-check this just to see if I'd forgotten. Alderson was never with the Blue Jays. Are you thinking of Beeston maybe? I stand corrected. It was not Alderson in 1996-7 that lured the Rocket out of Boston. It was not really even about buying low for Clemen's services. He got paid top dollar, despite having a horrible first half in 1996. I guess I'm just conditioned to the fact that the Red Sox have had made pitching evaluation misjudgements an art form.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 6, 2018 20:46:08 GMT -5
It just reeks of the Mets being able to tell their fans "look, we're trying!". These acquisitions brought them to the brink of being a .500 team at best which is just a stupid use of money. Considering they won 70 games in 2017, 81 wins would be a significant achievement. If their bad luck with pitching injuries was just an anomaly, than an 85+ win season is not beyond reason. Keep in mind their division, and the fact that if the pitching stays healthy they will fatten up on the Braves, Marlins and Phillies. They should just rebuild completely by trading their pitchers. There's sense in a rebuilding team signing good-value veterans as long as they are willing to flip them at midseason. Frazier qualifies here. Dear God how I wish this were the case. I would drive Dombrowski to the Mets front office. A chance to buy low on a Harvey or Wheeler is exactly what this teams could most benefit from. Besides I'm still po'd at Alderson for luring Clemens away (buying low) oh those 21 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 4, 2018 8:33:58 GMT -5
The current economic climate in the game is pretty toxic. It is bad for fans and the future of the game. The amount of years being commanded by the top free agents is the big problem, not necessarily the salary numbers. Here is why. Getting a team to the "pretty good, probably can compete for a playoff spot is pretty doable. This is where smart executives, good drafting, and smart signings come into play. This is pretty much a skill based proposition, although luck certainly plays a role. The problem comes when a team wants to spent some money in the free agent market in order to go for it and push to the next level. I would postulate that the use of the word toxic is misleading. The skill and luck of front office decision makers comes at a hidden cost of doing business. Employees.The current free agent market means that almost all free agent signings of top-tier players are bad signings. The number of years that elite players receive mean that the last year or three of the contract is going to be a waste of money. If teams are simply unlucky, then these contracts can be disasters. If they make poor choices in who to sign and they are unlucky, then those signings can be disastrous, setting teams back years, especially small market teams. The market for free agency is one made up from contrived and artificial boundaries. The term marketplace is misused. MLB is a marketplace with self imposed rules agreed upon by both owner and player. To/for them it is a marketplace. To/for the revenue source, i.e. the fan[atic}s, this regulated marketplace is understood only so far as either party disseminates their positions and reasoning to their revenue source. "Bad" contracts can set back teams with respect to team success, but this rarely, if ever, leaves a lasting (or even temporary) red stain to the bottom line of a teams profitability.The obvious solutions to this is for teams to avoid bad contracts, just don't sign those players. But this ignores why most teams sign elite talent, to actually have more than a token chance to win a championship. When teams just muddle along, settling for pretty good, those teams get derided by fans, get dismissed by the media, and resign themeslves to long stretches of mediocrity, with perhaps an occasional, random season of excellence that is mostly fueled by good luck. Avoiding the elite talent largely avoids the risks inherent in those signings, but it also limits the ability for teams to go from pretty good to outstanding, and that is bad for the game and bad for fans. One could also argue that this would/could apply to revenue generating contracts for both the team and their core customers. Media contracts are far and away bigger than any player (or team payroll) contracts, yet there is little discussion or critique. This issue is referred to a big market versus small market. In the case of the individual fanatic their is no such thing as a bad contact, there is only the cable (or streaming media) bill. For instance, imagine if Pittsburgh could have "gone for it" a few years back when they were pretty good, but not really contenders. They could have signed some elite talent, spent big for a few years with a reasonable expectation of reward without assuming a bunch of long term risk. They could have made a splash and the playoff landscape would have been fresh and excited. Now imagine 5-6 upstart, small market teams doing that every year or two; that would be awesome. That would be good for the game. The Bucos had their chance, and while the competition went big and signed Jon Lester, the Pirates were cautious, and it all came apart. OTOH the Royals went to the WS two consecutive years by making shrewd missing pieces trades and signings. (Davis/Cueto). Even Houston pulled the trigger on a championship by trading of Verlander. These "upstart" teams have a better track record than you give them credit for.This topic is about far more than players versus owners (except for minor leaguers, they are absolutely exploited) or $50 hotdogs, it is about the good of the game. The rich owners and the rich players are going to continue getting richer, but the current dynamic where free agents can only be had for stupid contracts is bad for the game. It is bad because moribund teams waiting for bad contracts to expire is boring, and perpetually mediocre teams that avoid the free agent market is mostly boring. Currently, we have a lot of mediocrity, which, not incidentally, leads teams to pursue tanking or other more convoluted schemes to get obtain talent (Like the Billy Bean scheme of signing talent with the intent to sell the plyer at the trade deadline for a profit). Teams have to have a way to use the free agent market to get better AND not mortgage the future. The market isn't going to correct itself, baseball has to impose limits on itself, because the current market is set up to perpetuate bad contracts, not curtail them. This topic "MLB Economics" has only been viewed through the prism of the media. They focus on outlays (player contracts), not revenue streams. The CBA is predominately directed to the "expense" or outlays. The reality show drama queens keep the focus on the celebrity of the owners and players (and the new stars, the SABR gurus). The "market" isn't going to correct itself because by and large the regulations (CBA) won't allow it. Free agency is only terminology. Real free agency can only exist in the back drop of a free marketplace. Imagine an elite free agent player in todays marketplace who wants to play in proximity to where he grew up, and was willing to sign a contract worth half his "SABR" value. Imagine Mike Trout or Bryce Harper. Imagine how the Phillies or Diamondbacks would benefit (ditto Joey Votto for the Blue Jays). Do you seriously believe that the local cable prices or ticket prices would reflect the good fortunes of these team? That's not the economic model that MLB has entered into, works. Try focusing on the time constraints and how they affect the bottom line. That will give you a better appreciation of how MLB determines what is for the good of the game. Packaging is a HUGE component of those media contracts.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 29, 2018 17:26:26 GMT -5
I am curious what people think of the Brewers off-season in general. I don't know the prospects involved, but even thinking of going for it in the short run.... I don't know what to think. I think the division is in flux. It's a 3 team race from where I sit and the team that adds the best pitcher from here on out (Brewers/Cards?Cubs) will win the NLC.
The Cain signing seems clearly like a long-term overpay (likely, but is it worth it if you are all in for the next year? And... if you are all in for the next year, have they done nearly enough to get there? Would adding, say, Darvish even be enough to compete with the Cubs (probably, I think)... but for the WS? If Cain ages like Tori Hunter, he will have value over the length of the contract. If not then maybe it is an overpay. If the BrewCrew can make it to the NLCS I'll be rooting for Bob Uecker.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 29, 2018 17:11:41 GMT -5
It's all about batspeed. Devers has it Betts has it. Benitendi has the ascetics. Pedey has the laser show. Devers has the most to prove (and I agree with the poster who cautioned about Devers' potential to be susceptible to inside stuff). All that said Rafael Devers has the best "home run" potential on this team. I'm looking forward to Dever's ability to adjust because the god given bat speed is there.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 26, 2018 13:43:09 GMT -5
Wonder if it had anything to do with the passing of the bat fetching dog (forgot his name). Trenton has always had a soft spot for animal "acts".
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 26, 2018 13:33:13 GMT -5
To be fair, the president has been performing quite a bit below replacement level. Along that same line the President took a huge "hometown" discount to sign. With respect to replacement level performance it remains to be seen if he profits in the same economic manner as his predecessors have, or if he puts the "team" first.
|
|
|