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 Jan 19, 2015 16:31:57 GMT -5
As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. Is that your 50% outcome? Because that's really low. I've got them in the 85-87 range. With plenty of caveats.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 13, 2014 17:15:44 GMT -5
I think the biggest surprise for everyone who posts or reads this board will be in the bullpen that the RS break camp with coming out of ST. Cherington will put the pieces in place, but Farrell will determine the opening day roster. I can readily envision Farrell lobbying Cherington for an acquisition before the team breaks camp. Should be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 13, 2014 17:02:24 GMT -5
I think it is very hard to assess Cherington independent of the ownership without knowing inside information. The ownership was involved in the Lester negotiations, as they have been in the past with some free agents. I don't think that is a good idea. The GM should be the guy dealing with the agents. The ownership should stay out of negotiations. It's OK to take the guy out to dinner, to make him feel good, but the business should be left to the GM. Boras, of course, wants to deal with the owners because he understands their egos. A team is better off keeping ego out of deals. ---------- I concur. There is a point beyond which a deal gets silly and dangerous, and I think Lester's deal is close to those. But the way revenues are going in baseball, the owners and the players are going to make much more money in the future unless somebody gets the bright idea that maybe it shouldn't cost so much to go to a game. So a deal no longer can be judged by what was done in the past. His deal may look reasonable six years from now. I am disheartened that BC did not sign Lester. What he has done, however, leaves this team with a better pitching rotation beginning in 2015 than what was being wheeled out at the end of 2014 Cherington has made a number of mistakes, but he seems to be learning on the job, and getting better. He has become a very good trade-maker, and the drafts have gotten better. Overall, the organization is stronger now than it has been in a while. The bottom line for all GM's is wins. IMO BC has added 10-12 wins to the 2014 team. Depending on how Spring training shakes out picking up another 5-7 wins is within reason. Despite the failure to resign Lester BC has done an admirable job this off season.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 21, 2014 19:17:54 GMT -5
I would trade Cespedes for Porcello and be very happy about it. Porcello is chronically underrated and I'd be satisfied with him as the second-best pitcher in the rotation entering 2015. He's also young enough that you'd consider extending him. In a heartbeat. I'm just not sure Detroit does it. Cespedes certainly helps the offensive side of the "win-now" mode, and despite the big bats they are set to field plus defense at the up-the-middle positions. But that said, detracting one of the most reliable options from a rotation facing some major question marks may not be too wise. +1
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 19, 2014 16:34:45 GMT -5
Has everybody here completely given up on Middlebrooks becoming an everyday 3B? I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. I haven't yet and that's why I think the Sox should sign Hanley Ramirez instead of Pablo. If Middlebrooks does pan out Ramirez could move to Left next year when Victorino is gone and if Middlebrooks continues to fail they could leave Ramirez at 3B. Pretty much. He's got one chance and he needs to show drastic improvement on several fronts. Whether that chance comes with the Sox is not even a given.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 23, 2014 22:24:58 GMT -5
I don't believe this team, given its' current roster, is even remotely close to putting out a #4 and #5 starter that could account for 325 innings, let alone 400IP. What I do find interesting with this roster is that it "could" get 1000 IP from the sum total of its' starters. Reaching that point would keep the bullpen relatively fresh.... especially if some of those starters could fill in on occasion. Using this "strategy" would be one way to separate the wheat from the chaff with respect to starters while allowing field management to keep its' younger prospects to a reasonable IP or pitching count (however they keep track of such things). I've never seen a Red Sox team with this kind of pitching prospect depth. And I've never seen so many talented southpaws despite the trades of Lester and the Doubrant. I have modest expectations for 2015. IMO it will be a very interesting year with which to observe pitchers. I hope the expectations of management are not unrealistic for 2015. I think this teams comes together big time in 2016. The punt 2015 to go for it in 2016 makes no sense to me. After 2015, the contracts of Ortiz, Napoli, Cespedes, and Victorino are all up, so unless you unrealistically think the prospects are going to fix all of that, we're going to have to overhaul the offense through free agency, which is expensive, or trades, which cost the prospects you think will fill in. In my opinion, the best strategy is to sign or trade for a bunch of guys to fix all our needs for 2015. This way, we can have a competitive team for 2015 and a core to build around in 2016. But leaving everything to prospects in 2016 is going to put us in a much less likely position of competing than we are now. Another thing worth considering is that the Red Sox TV money comes from owning a part of NESN, so all their sources of income are dependent on performance. Leaving it all to the prospects in 2016, and not going all out for 2016 could send us into a long rebuilding process, which is not only miserable to watch, but will also kill the amount of money the team has to spend, negating the point of prospects Punt was your choice of words. Their is no punting in baseball. While I think the Red Sox have numerous interesting trade chips to offer, I don't believe they have enough sample sizes to know which ones to keep and which ones to offer in trade. As for fixing the needs for 2015, there is simply too much to "fix" to compete in one year. This team is not going from last to first to last to first. Won't happen. A modest improvement, say a .500 record, would be more in line, IMO. I never consider money when judging talent. That is left up to management. My hope is that cash considerations don't weigh too heavily in rushing to judgement (and expectations) with personnel. Jon Lester would be an example of a financial consideration where I believe management missed an opportunity to extend him prior to the 2014 season. As far as putting unrealistic expectations on prospects, I disagree. Castillo is hardly a prospect. He is still a risk, but he's been there done that. Xander is of concern to me. I believe in 2015 we will see what we can expect to see from him going forward. I expect XB to be above league average. I am sold, lock stock and barrel on Betts. As for the contracts of Ortiz, Napoli, Cespedes and Victorino. If big Papi hits next year he can always be signed for another. Napoli is marginal beyond 2015, I think Cespedes is gone on or before 2016 and Victorino will not be resigned. Meanwhile Swihart, Cecchini, Shaw, Coyle, Brentz and Marrero get a full season of AB's in Pawtucket and probably some AB's for the big club. If the pitching is sorted out and of the caliber I am hoping for, then this team should be very competitive in 2016. Many of the prospect/suspects like Middlebrooks and Bradley will be gone, and the position prospects I believe in, Boegarrts and Betts will be fixtures. I'm not saying every position will be accounted for, but as an example, in 2014 the team used the hot hand between WMB, XB and Holt at 3B, in 2016 3B could be a rotation of Marrero, Cecchini and Holt. 1B instead of Napoli/Carp/Nave, it could be Napoli/Shaw/Nava. My chief reason for having modest expectations is the lack of an experienced ace. I would be more bullish for 2015 if I knew Jon Lester would be getting the ball every 5th day. I am not confident that a Shields, or Cueto, or Latos is going to be able to replace Lester in the short term. I hope none of these pitchers are signed or traded for. I base my prognostication on what is in the system.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 22, 2014 21:10:57 GMT -5
Getting 200IP from a #4 starter is a wet dream. I don't care about ERA, IP will speak for itself. 200IP from the #4 starter, regardless of age or ERA would be bliss. Show me a #5 starter who can give you 175IP and I'd be in pig heaven. Given the RS pitching depth I think your looking at a "rotating" #5 between 2-3 youngsters. I would love to see 200 IP from this collection. In fact I could envision both the #4 and #5 starters being a rotating competition among 4-5 young arms. BTW, I think Kelly will not be in this competition. I had assumed he was being sarcastic given the specificity. But just for giggles, 34 pitchers pitched 200 innings this season. I think that about says it all. Only team that had three was Detroit (Scherzer, Verlander, Porcello). There were a number of teams with three pitchers over 190-all in the NL, not coincidentally-but nobody came close to having four guys with that many. I don't believe this team, given its' current roster, is even remotely close to putting out a #4 and #5 starter that could account for 325 innings, let alone 400IP. What I do find interesting with this roster is that it "could" get 1000 IP from the sum total of its' starters. Reaching that point would keep the bullpen relatively fresh.... especially if some of those starters could fill in on occasion. Using this "strategy" would be one way to separate the wheat from the chaff with respect to starters while allowing field management to keep its' younger prospects to a reasonable IP or pitching count (however they keep track of such things). I've never seen a Red Sox team with this kind of pitching prospect depth. And I've never seen so many talented southpaws despite the trades of Lester and the Doubrant. I have modest expectations for 2015. IMO it will be a very interesting year with which to observe pitchers. I hope the expectations of management are not unrealistic for 2015. I think this teams comes together big time in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 22, 2014 20:34:53 GMT -5
Since you gave me three options I'd go meh. +1
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 21, 2014 16:23:59 GMT -5
I prefer my 4 starter to be a re-thread who can give you 200+ innings of 4-4.5 ERA and my 5 to be a 23 year old prospect with the upside of a 1-3. Getting 200IP from a #4 starter is a wet dream. I don't care about ERA, IP will speak for itself. 200IP from the #4 starter, regardless of age or ERA would be bliss. Show me a #5 starter who can give you 175IP and I'd be in pig heaven. Given the RS pitching depth I think your looking at a "rotating" #5 between 2-3 youngsters. I would love to see 200 IP from this collection. In fact I could envision both the #4 and #5 starters being a rotating competition among 4-5 young arms. BTW, I think Kelly will not be in this competition.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 18, 2014 18:34:23 GMT -5
One of the subplots that might be brought into this, is whether the Sox will ever have another fulltime DH after Ortiz. I rather doubt it personally, in which case there will be more at bats available, though not necessarily for Vazquez/Swihart. But it does play into the roster construction. I know other posters may see it differently, but I don't think they'll try to replace Ortiz. Agree with the general idea but having the off duty catcher as the DH is rather restricting. ITA. I'm hoping for Ryan Zimmerman to be the DH that replaces Ortiz. I like the idea of both Vazquez and Swihart platooning, pinch hitting and on the rare occasion playing Swihart at another position. The off season tea leaf reading has officially begun.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 15, 2014 18:26:17 GMT -5
Go be a "great manager" at a golf course Buck. Again. Yeah, buddy. Bye-bye Buck.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 15, 2014 13:04:21 GMT -5
I'd feel a littler better if Brett Lawrie wasn't on the list. Lawrie hasn't been bad, it's just very easy to fall short of expectations when you don't turn into a superstar. And FWIW, he's still only 24 years old, and I think it is perfectly plausible to suggest his production might have been much better if he hasn't been so injury riddled. But I understand looking at that list and seeing all the HOFer and wanting to assume that is Mookie Betts too. Maybe it's wishful thinking I don't know, but none the less everything he has done to date has been extremely impressive. As far as I'm concerned as long as Mookie Betts stays healthy, he should be better than Lawrie. ITA. I had hoped Will Middlebrooks would develop along the line of Lawrie. Injuries have affected the development of both, but Lawrie shows much more upside at this point in time than does Middlebrooks. Comparing Lawrie to Betts is an apples to oranges comparison, "stats" notwithstanding. Betts has a far different skill set, and IMHO a greater upside to a team than does Lawrie.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 15, 2014 12:51:25 GMT -5
Ranaudo noted after his first start, I think, that the MLB strike zone was smaller, yes? Could just be a rookie thing though. I think umpires "adjust" to new pitchers. Ranaudo's curve ball might have caught the ump unaware. Rookie thing? Yeah. But don't disregard an umpire adjust to a pitcher. Maddux did not get the "off the black" strike call when he was a rookie.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 12, 2014 10:52:10 GMT -5
I'd include Harper in that list, wouldn't you? Yep.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 10, 2014 22:39:27 GMT -5
Any potential Jordan Zimmerman becomes available this offseason? The Nats have a bunch of young controllable arms aside from him and will surely be looking for offense this offseason. Never happen. Nats looking for a healthy Zimmerman (the other one) next year. Gio Gonzalez OTOH could be available, but the RS have a plethora of LHP, so I doubt the match up would work. I'd be more interested in the other Zimmerman for 3B, then move over to be a RH DH.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 9, 2014 16:30:26 GMT -5
I'm not so sure the umpires are calling the strike zone correctly. And the fact remains that some umps call the outside strike and others don't call the high strike. I think the batters adjust accordingly, they just want consistency, which is not always apparent. Moving the mound back is sacrilegious. Never happen. Even today mound height is fudged by having the landing point for the pitcher lower than the plate. Don't see this practice in minor league ball, but I have seen it in MLB. "Juicing" the ball is an interesting concept, but it will reek havoc with stat heads. I've been through this with softball, core density, composition of aluminum bats..... I've seen fights break out and teams leave the field during tournaments. In leagues with no age restrictions this is not usually an issue. In leagues with age restrictions (50+ for example) or co-ed leagues this is an ongoing contentious issue. FTR juicing or "softening" the ball definitely works. Fascinating how this is accomplished during production. Consistency of the finished product is often an issue for softballs. I assume MLB has the resources to deliver a consistent product. That said I never bought MLB's position that they did not "juice" the balls after the 1994 strike. PED's were a convenient excuse to account for the record number of 50+ home run hitters. The only other suggestion I would consider would be changes to the bats. If you somehow could remove 2-4 ounces from the bats you would in effect speed up the swing. I've seen "composite" wood bats that achieve the weight loss, but I have no experience with the density or rebound speed of the ball off these bats. I do know some players order bats with different weights. I've spoken to MLB hitters who had bats that varied by as much as 2 ounces. With existing restrictions on bats and the emergence of so many 95mph+ pitchers, making some allowances for bats might be more palpable than "juicing" the balls. I agree that moving the mound back is a drastic change and "sacrilegious"...( was lowering the mound or installing the DH?) but cannot the same be said for artificially juicing the ball or making the bats out of non-wood high rebound materials?...The issue with these latter two suggestions is that now safety concerns come into play as well. Mound hieghts varied greatly, prior to the new ruling. Sandy Koufax had, by far, the tallest mound in baseball. The DH was blashemy in 1973. For years NL fans looked down their noses at the AL. Some still do. With respect to safety concerns and bat/ball rebound speeds the safety concerns are very real. I've know of two older SB players who lost their lives from batted balls. In both instances the leagues had let the players choose the core density and bat rebound values. In my County the lawyers have stepped in and advised the Rec department to permit only equipment of their choosing. Since the County supplied the balls, many thought that was the end of that, however SB bat technology made even the slush balls missals. Two players suffered broken orbitals from the hot bats. Now the County has a bat/ball rebound limit speed in place. In MLB the league office controls the balls and to a lesser degree, the bats. If the balls were made to a strict standard, and held their, the stat junkies would be able to have greater reliability with their numbers crunching. If the bat rules were modified, even only slightly, say to permit wood composites, I am sure that bat manufacturers could produce a lighter compound bat with the same rebound qualities as the solid maple or ash bats commonly used. FWIW I once had a long talk with Ted Williams about this. I was amazed at his thinking. But then again, Ted was pretty amazing when it came to all aspects of hitting.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 8, 2014 20:50:35 GMT -5
Given that much of the offensive decline has been due to umpires calling the strike zone correctly, it's possible that hitters will adjust to that somewhat. But they wouldn't move the mound back. They've moved the mound up and down plenty of times through the years. That'd probably be the adjustment if this trend continues, to lower it. Would take away some of the advantage pitchers have lower in the zone. I'm not so sure the umpires are calling the strike zone correctly. And the fact remains that some umps call the outside strike and others don't call the high strike. I think the batters adjust accordingly, they just want consistency, which is not always apparent. Moving the mound back is sacrilegious. Never happen. Even today mound height is fudged by having the landing point for the pitcher lower than the plate. Don't see this practice in minor league ball, but I have seen it in MLB. "Juicing" the ball is an interesting concept, but it will reek havoc with stat heads. I've been through this with softball, core density, composition of aluminum bats..... I've seen fights break out and teams leave the field during tournaments. In leagues with no age restrictions this is not usually an issue. In leagues with age restrictions (50+ for example) or co-ed leagues this is an ongoing contentious issue. FTR juicing or "softening" the ball definitely works. Fascinating how this is accomplished during production. Consistency of the finished product is often an issue for softballs. I assume MLB has the resources to deliver a consistent product. That said I never bought MLB's position that they did not "juice" the balls after the 1994 strike. PED's were a convenient excuse to account for the record number of 50+ home run hitters. The only other suggestion I would consider would be changes to the bats. If you somehow could remove 2-4 ounces from the bats you would in effect speed up the swing. I've seen "composite" wood bats that achieve the weight loss, but I have no experience with the density or rebound speed of the ball off these bats. I do know some players order bats with different weights. I've spoken to MLB hitters who had bats that varied by as much as 2 ounces. With existing restrictions on bats and the emergence of so many 95mph+ pitchers, making some allowances for bats might be more palpable than "juicing" the balls.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 8, 2014 14:50:30 GMT -5
League-wide non-pitcher hitting is at its lowest point since 1972, per wOBA. There are a few seasons in the 1980s where it was close, though (.315 this year, .317 in 1988 and .318 in 1989). If offense continues to decline (it's fallen five years in a row), the league might have to do something, but I think it's a year or two too early to be too seriously concerned. True enough. The market is catching up to the game. Pitchers of all stripes get paid a premium to demonstrate proficiency with a limited skill set. Hitters, OTOH have been overbid and the discrepency in remuneration between a good hitter and a great one needs adjustment. The current situation will cause MLB to adopt the DH for the NL. The market for limited skilled "hitters only" is about to blossom. I don't think the powers that be will adjust the height of the pitching rubber, as was done, during the last lull, when pitching was dominant (followed shortly by the DH in the AL). What worries me, is that MLB may go the route of the NFL and involve the electronic media into the game. We've seen it with instant replay, can an electronic "strike zone" be far behind?
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 8, 2014 14:27:57 GMT -5
My Cardinal fan/friends are insufferable. They taunted me that Kershaw was a choke artist (and compared him to Pedro). Insufferable is probably too kind. I wanted the Nats to advance, but they didn't deserve it. Leaves me with the Giants in the NL. Don't know any baseball fans from the Bay area, so I guess I'm safe. KC versus the O's. Hmmmm. I'll go with the Royals. Memories of drunk Oriole fans taunting Big Papi about PED's and the spectra of a manager that I have a visceral dislike for trump my allegiance to the Ripken's. Nice to see new teams and faces in the ALCS, not too interested in the reappearance of the same old teams for the NLCS. In the end it's just not the same without the Red Sox in the final four.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 7, 2014 15:19:16 GMT -5
C'mon. A meteor might hit the planet before then. Plus, like, you need to throw that marker down on the table now. I also have a prediction on who will win the world series, in how many games, and the scores of those games. I'll post next month not to ruin the surprise. Love it. After you post the WS results, I'll post the 2015 RS 25 man roster.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 7, 2014 7:50:51 GMT -5
Catcher? Non issue. Next discussion, please.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 5, 2014 22:56:16 GMT -5
Yes to Masterson. Big mebbe for Lester. No to everyone else. I want to see more of the kids. The bullpen needs a near complete make over. I'm getting pissed watching other teams run out ex-Red Sox pitchers from THEIR bullpens, especially playoff teams.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 5, 2014 22:45:41 GMT -5
Ain't it a beautiful game? The Royals are the Rockies of 07', hot when they need to be. The Orioles advance sans two of their key players and the suspension of their best player from the previous year. Poor Detroit, wasting Victor's best year, showing squat for the best late season addition in all of baseball. Then their are the Halos.... gotta' believe Soscia is history. Not to worry Mike Trout, there will be other years. Pujols, Hamilton, I am so reminded of AROD and Texiera.
Onward. Reverse the curse Nats. Coin toss Cards/Dodgers. Who'da thunk the two 20 game winners would account for the highest scoring game in the playoffs? Something for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Sept 23, 2014 20:48:33 GMT -5
Painful. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Sept 23, 2014 13:26:04 GMT -5
That's a fair point. But I think there are a fair number of solid power guys in that lineup. Guys like Headley, Bogaerts, and probably Castillo and Betts should be good for a .140+ ISO. Pedroia and the LF platoon might be able to get close as well with bounce-back years. By the way, the other big reason for that runs-scored disparity? The Red Sox are the third-worst baserunning team in the league, with the bottom three (Boston, ChicagoAL, and St. Louis) forming a tier of terribleness all their own. With Victorino injured most of the year and Ellsbury gone, there was little speed in the lineup. What made it worse was that some of the fastest guys on the team (Bogaerts, Bradley) were terrible at getting on base while some of the slowest guys on the team (Ortiz, Napoli) were the guys who were on base the most. That, and Farrell and his coaching staff ran into a ton of outs earlier in the season. With Betts and Castillo added to the lineup, that should be a lesser issue next year. This is the problem with cherry picking stats to include players who did not play a full season on one team. Yes, our team speed (and run scoring) was diminished drastically with the loss of Ellsbury and Victorino. No, Bogaerts and Bradley are not among the fastest guys on the team. Castillo and Cespedes are much quicker. I would rate Holt a better base runner than either Bogaerts or Bradley. Heck Napoli is a very good base runner even if he is slower than Bogaerts or Bradley. I'm not sure how much speed Victorino brings with him in 2015. And if Craig is part of the mix, well I'd rate him a half step quicker than 38 year old Ortiz. A full season of Betts will/should be a huge boost to scoring runs for this offense, but I think we need to keep some of the new pieces with good speed and baserunning skills in the line-up and on the roster. The fall off in run scoring put additional pressure on the defense and the pitching staff. 2014 was the post card for this. From the late season additions to the roster I believe we have already seen a significant improvement in our run scoring potential for 2015. What I project for 2015 is a better team that will be both a challenge for field management and players alike as they seek to develop a winning team chemistry. Should be huge fun for the fan base. Just beware of expectations. After all, almost anything would be an improvement over 2014.
|
|
|