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 thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 17, 2023 9:36:48 GMT -5
I mean there was clearly an adjustment period for Casas. But he is looking like he came out of it for the better. Teams saw him last year, figured out how to exploit him. Then it was up to Casas to adjust back. It took a bit of time this year. But since May 1st he has been all we could ever want from him: ![](https://i.imgur.com/lGray3U.png) Since June 1st even better: ![](https://i.imgur.com/0BdjBZk.png) And this month he is just booming the ball: ![](https://i.imgur.com/l2jLvCN.png) Loving it! It will be interesting to see if the slow starter thing continues to be a trend, as that was often the case for him in the minors as well. Part of that could be adjusting to new levels, but it may just be that he's a slow starter in general. If so, not sure how you'd try to counteract that in the spring, but at least you can feel confident knowing that eventually it will turn around relatively predictably as opposed to a guy like Bobby Dalbec who you're playing on a prayer that he finds a hot streak.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 17, 2023 9:02:29 GMT -5
Eh, feels like you're reading the article with a selective slant. There's certainly some criticism there (although less from Speier and mostly from unnamed league sources and, interestingly, from Cora: "Are we where we want to be when I talked to Chaim [when interviewing to return as manager] at the end of â20? I donât believe so. We still have some work to do, but we have made some strides,â said manager Alex Cora. âLast year we finished last and this year weâre playing .500. At the end, you have to be realistic where youâre at. Can we do it? Of course, but you have to very honest and very transparent, black and white, this is where weâre at and this is what we want. And then you look around and see if, yeah, we can pull this off and you make decisions based on that. If you donât feel that way, then you have to make other decisions.â). But there's also a fair amount of cautious praise about the MLB roster and the farm system: Maybe I needed more caffeine. My take away was that Speier's saying they have some young talent coming but not enough to tilt the scales to be an AL East contender. Additions will be key, especially in pitching. Dealing from prospect depth and/or buying a top starter are the options. In other words, they're on their way, but they'll need help from the outside to get there. I think that interpretation is technically correct, but as jmei said, a little bit on the negative slant. Yes the incoming talent might not be enough to tilt the scales (but for how many teams has that ever been the case - the current iteration of the Reds is more the exception than the rule), but the marginal benefit of getting minimal help from prospect graduations over the last few years to what the team is currently getting from Casas/Duran/Bello and what they should hopefully get soon from Mayer, Rafaela, and then some combination of Drohan/Yorke/the pool of lower tier but close to the majors guys (Valdez, Abreu, etc.) will allow you to allocate more money towards improving the roster as opposed to just trying to find "shrewd" deals for lesser money just to fill out the roster. While I can appreciate what guys like Duvall or Kiké have done for this team at different points in their tenures, having those positions covered by internal options and using the savings towards upgrading a rotation spot would go a long way. That's the thing I think that gets missed a lot in the discussion of how DD left the team, because I think people take the idea of "the farm system was barren" in the abstract without thinking how it affects the MLB team year over year. There were certainly talented guys in the lower minors, as evidenced by some of the recent impact players, but for the most part the high minors was pretty much a wasteland, and when you don't have a semi-steady stream of young talent coming up to contribute, you often are forced to overpay to make short-term fixes. So not only did DD leave the team saddled with some bad money (some people would dispute that, I guess?), he also left the team in a situation that mandated a simultaneous continuation of spending to make up for the lack of cost-controllable talent and also fiscal responsibility to avoid the luxury tax line at the same time, which is how you end up with the trade that won't be mentioned. That's not to say there isn't merit to that strategy. The Red Sox won a World Series because of it. But it's also a little reckless and more often than not will end up leaving a massive plateau, as we've seen. I am personally biased against that method because it reminds me a lot of some administrators that I've worked with in my time in sports (DD is almost exactly like a very high-profile Athletic Director that gets a lot of good press because his teams win but is actually awful at his job and just throws money around like it's no object - won't name names but there is a pretty shortlist of candidates you can guess from), so I prefer a Bloom type to a DD, but I get why people have frustrations with some of the ways Bloom operates. I understand the issues people take with some of Bloom's moves, and I certainly can understand not being stoked with the road to this point being a little bumpier than maybe should've been expected, but I think it's undeniable that the team is in a good place in the short-term with a baseline set up for success in the long-term. Maybe Bloom isn't around to reap those rewards, if the Red Sox don't make the playoffs this year I wouldn't be surprised to see changes made (honestly, I'd be real okay with a coaching change, though I've long thought Cora was a little overrated), but if that happens I think the next GM is going to be in an infinitely better position coming in than Bloom was.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 16, 2023 16:54:07 GMT -5
Name and shame these “anonymous” scouts The thing I have the hardest time reconciling with the off-season discussion of Masa is, while maybe he’s had a bit more pop than listed there, that evaluation is *correct*. So why is it that they had him almost perfectly pegged as a player and yet couldn’t see his value? Makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 16, 2023 15:10:25 GMT -5
Crazy how the two best players in baseball are from Japan
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 15, 2023 20:20:35 GMT -5
should’ve just inherited Elly’s ranking imo
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 22:05:58 GMT -5
Niko Kavadas hasn't struck out in AAA all season
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 16:18:09 GMT -5
This is purely anecdotal, but it seems like a lot of the rounds 5-10 bonuses are closer to their slot values than they've been in the past. Not sure if that's portal/NIL leverage, coincidence, or just an incorrection interpretation, but something that popped up in my mind. Not really. Look at 2021. Varies year to year. Are you referring to Sox-specific or league wide? I’m talking about the latter.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 14:55:22 GMT -5
I was going to say that 50 innings was too soon to move Gambrell after he’s already been promoted once this season, but Drohan only got 58 innings in Portland before he got bumped to Worcester. Situations aren’t the same. Drohan was dominating Portland and Gambrell is just pitching well. But maybe they look at Gambrell’s lost time to injury and want to push him. I highly doubt that though. He’s probably in Portland for the rest of the season. Maybe Liu though. Eh. Faria may not be blocking anyone but he's just keeping the spot warm for Murphy or Walter when they come back. Guerrero and Zeferjahn will get promoted before either of those guys. My guess is someone moves to the bullpen. Ah, yeah, didn't really think about guys coming back down, good point.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 14:40:48 GMT -5
Mariners signed Colt Emerson for $3.8 million (300k overslot at 22) and Tai Peete for $2.5 million (230k underslot at 30). Two guys that fit the profile for strong Red Sox interest. Kyle Teel + Caden Rose vs. Tai Peete + George Wolkow (semi-placeholder name there) is an interesting discussion point, imo.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 14:25:42 GMT -5
Looks like Sharp in Portland tonight. Will be interesting to see what they do in the rotation there with 6 starters. Sharp was the one I thought might head to the 'pen. Could Liu or Gambrell be among the short list of the next movers? It's hard for me to fully visualize because the rosters aren't updated yet (fairly, as they have yet to play games with the new rosters) but they both seem like some of the most likely candidates now that the huge wave of semi-obvious guys has come through. And I doubt Jake Faria is really blocking anyone.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 14:14:43 GMT -5
This is purely anecdotal, but it seems like a lot of the rounds 5-10 bonuses are closer to their slot values than they've been in the past. Not sure if that's portal/NIL leverage, coincidence, or just an incorrection interpretation, but something that popped up in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 13:46:59 GMT -5
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but does anyone know if Worcester tends to sit key players on the last game of these long series? I'm going to the game July 23rd at SWB and am going to be super bummed if Rafaela sits. I'd imagine it makes more sense to sit top guys in the middle of a series if they're going to do it to balance days off, but you can look here and see if you can find a correlation: www.soxprospects.com/stats/lineup.php?team=533&year=2023&date=0713
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 11:57:21 GMT -5
So if you don't know if the reported signing numbers are accurate, and if you don't know what they're considering, what are you using as the basis for "expected signing estimates it doesn't appear there is going to be any money". "I don't know" is not an expectation. The only sort of expectation we've been given is from directly what Mike posted. In his updated projections, which include the signings that have already come in, he still has the Red Sox with enough money to throw $600K at one of the high school guys, and that's with what I believe to be still too high a number for Anderson. Does that mean Call is willing to take that? No clue. But it seems very possible if not probable that the money will at least be there. If you doubt the estimates that Mike put out, fine, but you made it seem like you've seen estimates that actively go against that information. First post of this thread. What are you using? The updated projections he posted two hours ago on page 5
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 11:56:35 GMT -5
No, for draftees, they are usually projections and not current grades. Teel would not be an above-average regular if he was promoted to MLB right now. Okay, thank you. What causes me confusion is things like this from Baseball America: 35. Roman Anthony
Tools: Hit: 45 | Power: 55 | Run: 50 | Field: 50 | Arm: 50 Skinny: One of the top breakout prospects in Low-A this season, Anthony has taken flight since seeing a promotion to High-A Greenville. His excellent bat-to-ball skills and discerning eye pair nicely with his developing plus power.This recent evaluation suggests Anthony projects as a below average hitter with some pop and average speed, field and arm, yet he's "taken flight"? To where? Surely I'm not the only one confused with the marrying of the numbers with the words and the overall ranking? The projections can stay the same while the likelihood of hitting those projections can improve drastically, which is what I'd imagine is the case here. I think you are greatly overthinking this.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 11:53:00 GMT -5
Where do you get that? They have already saved $600K and we have no idea what Teel is getting. Yes, they have saved $600k when compared to the slot values, but the current signings (Weims, Rose, O'Donnel, Wehunt) have all been over the estimated values by roughly a total of $370k, which means the amount of available money to throw at Call is shrinking. That's all I am saying... Yes, I have no idea what Teel, Zantello, Anderson, etc might be considering or if the reported signing numbers are even accurate. So if you don't know if the reported signing numbers are accurate, and if you don't know what they're considering, what are you using as the basis for "expected signing estimates it doesn't appear there is going to be any money". "I don't know" is not an expectation. The only sort of expectation we've been given is from directly what Mike posted. In his updated projections, which include the signings that have already come in, he still has the Red Sox with enough money to throw $600K at one of the high school guys, and that's with what I believe to be still too high a number for Anderson. Does that mean Call is willing to take that? No clue. But it seems very possible if not probable that the money will at least be there. If you doubt the estimates that Mike put out, fine, but you made it seem like you've seen estimates that actively go against that information.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 10:00:45 GMT -5
It says that in 1988 they had 62 rounds. That's at least 1860 picks that year. Where are you going to put them all? On the other hand, the first 5 rounds are the most important for HOF players. The rest are a real crapshoot. I think the old system was one in which teams could essentially keep drafting until they decided to stop, but I could be wrong on that or just grossly oversimplifying it.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 9:50:28 GMT -5
After the draft, Pearson said he thinks the club is going to miss "at most 3-4 guys." (Note that I'm pretty sure they said something like that last year and only left 2 picks unsigned). IMO Oroski and Schlaegel are the top candidates to not sign, they seem like insurance picks. Call is obviously not clear, but like I said I'm cautiously optimistic. As I'm doing research today I just found a blog reporting that Tucker said that he plans to sign with the Red Sox. I can't speak to the reliability of the source but I might switch Tucker back to the other section. The Eagle is generally pretty reliable, and that's a good pull.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 9:20:26 GMT -5
Super wicked early projected not to sign19. Stanley Tucker Mike, Being pretty familiar with A&M I theorized that Tucker might not sign based on how the past season went (though A&M's outfield is going to be ludicrously stacked next year talent-wise, so not sure it'll get much better for him) so this isn't super surprising to see this change, but is this in response to a piece of news you've seen indicating he won't sign, or is this just a change in gut feeling?
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 9:18:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 9:13:12 GMT -5
I don't really care to ding a GM for their draft picks not working out, other than if they do obviously dumb stuff like taking a HS pitcher in the first round higher than even the media pundits have him ranked. Same with international signings. It's all a crapshoot and nobody rolls enough dice for outsiders to ever learn who has a skill edge. The farm system being a wasteland when DD left I would mostly chalk up to "sometimes that happens and it sucks when it does!". DD's track record sucks for the major league moves. Sale and Price contracts cost the team 20 wins combined. Dumping Travis Shaw was a 9 win blunder. The Craig Kimbrel trade was not good. The only thing he did that generated surplus value was the Bogaerts extension. Agreed on the draft side, like I think that the Angels taking Nolan Schanuel was semi-defensible but for full slot I’m not so sure. (Also see my last post for a scoreboard question I had for you)
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 14, 2023 8:57:16 GMT -5
I'd also ask about the crap load of players Bloom traded for, many close to majors. If he's created some developmental monster machine, why have those guys mostly been huge disappointments? The trade acquisitions mostly haven't been valuable, but the same goes for the guys he's traded away. Betts is the major exception, and it so happens that Verdugo and Wong are both valuable. julyanmorley's spreadsheet shows the trade record pretty well - there have been some wins and losses along the way, but Bloom's overall trade record has been fine. Yeah, I'm not quite sure how many "huge" disappointments there have been honestly, outside of Jeter Downs. I'd say his track record with trading for higher minors prospects is roughly in line with what you'd expect from the approach he's seemingly taken of spreading his bets out across a higher quantity of prospects as opposed to hyper-fixating on an "elite" guy. There are certainly misses, but the strategy is almost designed to have misses under the assumption that the math will dictate you're going to run into some hits, as well. I'd say Wong has been a huge success, or at least projects to be moving forward, and Winckowski is a win too, even if he's just a reliever. As far as current high minors guys go, I think that David Hamilton/Enmanuel Valdez/Wilyer Abreu all look like guys that have a chance to contribute in some way or another, though a lot of that remains to be seen. So I'm not really seeing the whole "mostly huge disappointments" thing, though I guess that's mostly just a matter of the lens you're attempting to view things with. If you go in expecting to be disappointed, you will probably find a way to be. I'd also probably push back on the idea that he's traded for a "crap load" of those types, looking at his trade history. At worst it seems like it'd be probably pretty normal relative to the rest of the league, given the shift you've seen in teams preferring MLB-ready or close to it guys. Also, for julyannmorley if they read this thread, what does "ngmi" mean under the "remaining" column? Not gonna make it? If so, I'd say that's premature for Gambrell for sure.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 13, 2023 23:17:19 GMT -5
Go look at ramireja's work on what a "chalk" draft would look like in past years. It kind of answers the question before you even start asking how realistic the plan is. And I don't agree that if an owner doesn't want to pay the cost of a low MLB payroll to sign a bunch of amateurs, they shouldn't be owners. It was actually about what I was expecting probably 5 major leaguers, 2 solid players and maybe 1 all star from the group. The 2019 class would have yielded Spencer Jones, Leiter, and Brooks Lee at a minimum. 1. You can feasibly achieve that haul (1 All Star, 2 regulars, 5 big leaguers) in a “regular” draft. 2. You cherry-picked the one example of the three that turned out well, 2018’s had McLanahan but the rest is pretty bad and 2017’s outright sucked. So again, if the best case comes to fruition *maybe* it works but it’s still just a generally pointless level of risk.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 13, 2023 23:07:25 GMT -5
I think that math is completely awful and that you really don’t have a firm grasp on what the investment actually is (I mean, you’d be $240 million in the hole before you’d even start seeing rewards on this, you’re probably better off just spending that money in luxury tax payments on players you know are good), especially since you think having access to capital is the same thing in this context. Whatever, more power to ya. Once I see it happen I’ll start to take it seriously as a long-term investment strategy but given you have thirty ownership groups who live to make money and, with I’m sure some nepotism exceptions are VERY good at it, somehow I doubt that random internet poster is onto an idea that they haven’t already weighed. Where did you get the $240MM in the hole from? I'm looking at $40MM in the draft + $40MM tax = $80MM (though it's probably closer to $70MM because the pool money isn't counted). Early round guys probably sign somewhere in the $2MM-$5MM range and later round guys probably sign somewhere in the $1MM - $2MM range. I called that investment $80MM initially, but lets call it 100MM if you want. So now I have 20 T100 prospects who I paid $100MM to acquire. I'm out $100MM at the start. Let's say 4 (3 hitters 1 pitcher) of those guys turn into caliber MLB players and make their debut sometime in year 3. Between year 4 and year 7, I am paying 1/3 of my lineup prearb money for quality production. What would that same level of production I'm getting from my prearb players cost on the free agent market? Probably about $10MM per player on average, so $40MM per year total. $40MM per year savings over 3 years means I'd be paying out $120MM to free agents, but instead I'm paying prearb players and I've recouped back my initial $100MM investment. During years 7-10, I turn a profit on that investment during the arbitration years and then can resign the player or trade them away. The reason this hasn't been done has more to do with "breaking the draft" and pissing off all the other teams in baseball. Doesn't mean that the strategy wouldn't give a team a massive edge. $240 million comes from the idea that you’re repeating this strategy, because if it’s optimal and you get it right, why would you only do it once? So let’s say optimistically these prospects debut by year 3, you’d have invested $240 million before you even know if it works or not. In the scenario you laid out, sure, maybe it’d make a sound investment. But you’re absolutely not going to get 20 T100 prospects from one draft class, you’d probably still end up with 3 or 4. So you’re being extremely over optimistic with the caliber of prospect that would still be available late, even if you only drafted sign-ability guys. And even if you did end up with 20 of them, you’re not guaranteed a 20% hit rate. But let’s say you’re right again and you end up with 1/3 of your lineup and 1/5 of your rotation being paid pre-arb money… aren’t many teams already doing that? Would the increase in talent, assuming many of the guys in existing MLB rosters being paid that are some semblance of top prospect, merit the investment? I mean you are ascribing a high-end outcome to every variable here and, if I’m understanding what you’re attempting to lay out correctly, it’d all be for a 20% ROI? You genuinely think that’s worth the risk? But sure, I am totally convinced of the argument that an owner of a professional sports team would sacrifice a “massive” competitive edge and a shrewd investment because they’re afraid of making other owners mad. That seems real logical.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 13, 2023 22:55:56 GMT -5
...and also, I should add...those older drafts earlier in the thread aren't aging well. That said, I'm pretty convinced the Red Sox board with a BPA approach would do better than a board using MLB Pipeline rankings like the above. However, I still don't think the benefits outweigh the massive $ it would take to pull this off although its not my money. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Honestly though, I’m not sure it would be much better. If you look at the first 20 picks in each draft, the 20 players that MLB teams thought were the best in the class (for the most part - signability stuff of course), you aren’t ending up with as good a haul as you’d expect. Some classes you have quite a few stars in that allotment but I’m not sure the odds merit an $80 million annual investment just to use a consistent number given you still have to spend the money to fill out the rest of your roster anyway, and that’s with as generous a set of players being given to you as absolutely possible. I think at the end of the day there are too many variables in the development of these prospects to make it a sound investment. I think if owners are going to start aiming for reckless spending advantages they’d just start employing Golden State Warriors levels of tax willingness, as that’s at least proven talent (though the Mets and the Padres are showing that doesn’t always work, either).
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 13, 2023 22:33:20 GMT -5
How much money do you think MLB owners just have laying around? Very few could just throw out $80 million dollars like it’s nothing lol, an owner’s net worth is not the amount of liquid money they have. Also, they own the team to make money, blowing absurd amounts of money like that is the exact opposite of what they’re going to want to do when it isn’t competitively required (meaning you can field a good team without doing it. It’s a fun thing to say as a fan they should do, but anyone that takes a second to think about it or understands business (I work in Athletics finance, albeit a bit different of an operation) can pretty easily understand why it’s not realistic or even, really, possible. It's not blowing absurd amounts of money any more than creating a portfolio of assets that could potentially grow in value or tank. If I was looking at my future payroll knowing I can pay 1/3 of my lineup and 1/5 of my starters rookie contracts for 5 years and get comparable MLB production than if I were paying 30MM total to comparable MLB veterans over that same period, I'm net around $70MM after 5 years assuming I spent $80MM on the draft. Anything else is gravy. Could they all turn up busts? Sure. Same risk exists with any investment. As for liquidity, I think you underestimate the access to capital owners have available. I think that math is completely awful and that you really don’t have a firm grasp on what the investment actually is (I mean, you’d be $240 million in the hole before you’d even start seeing rewards on this, you’re probably better off just spending that money in luxury tax payments on players you know are good), especially since you think having access to capital is the same thing in this context. Whatever, more power to ya. Once I see it happen I’ll start to take it seriously as a long-term investment strategy but given you have thirty ownership groups who live to make money and, with I’m sure some nepotism exceptions are VERY good at it, somehow I doubt that random internet poster is onto an idea that they haven’t already weighed.
|
|
|