|
Post by taftreign on Jan 22, 2014 21:16:35 GMT -5
I agree NY is not a front runner but at least there trying. Baltimore should be hitting this window hard. Toronto should be a better competitor this year. Still I never count out the Yankees. Last year when everything was falling apart I'd continue to look at the standings and there they were hanging around.
I still expect to hear some connections between NY and Jimenez. Nevertheless They are better at catcher and in the OF versus what they rolled out most of last season especially defensively. Soriano is an improvement at DH over Hafner. Teixeira is in decline but an improvement over Overbay. Jeter is limited but they ran Nunez out there last year and worst case he's still there. Really if they go over the top for Jimenez and Drew it's no doubt going to have you looking over your shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 22, 2014 12:08:57 GMT -5
In reading Jonah Keri's Tanaka reaction piece he mentions a few interesting tidbits. First, he believes this move now makes it a three team race for the division between Boston, Tampa and NYY. Interesting to see what the win projection systems look like with Tanaka joining the Yanks. Secondly, he also believes Arizona will now likely make a trade package for Price and include Archie Bradley in the deal. He calls it an "informed hunch." That would be yet another crazy return for Tampa after getting Myers for Shields. Why trade 6 or 7 years of the best pitching prospect in the minors who is all but MLB ready for a few years of a much more expensive pitcher even considering the upcoming TV deal. Bradley could be pitching for Arizona by August if the team wants to be aggressive or easily by April 2015 and the deal would likely end up including other prospects knowing how these things work out. Edit: Then again why should I expect Arizona to be logical given previous dealings this winter? grantland.com/features/well-they-couldnt-all-have-him/
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 21, 2014 23:35:32 GMT -5
I say Cubs offer a straight 7 and 154 but lose out to the Dodgers who offer 6 and 128 with a 7th vesting year based on innings pitched in years 5 and 6 for an additional 22 mil bringing the potential end total to 7 and 150. Yanks offer similar deal with vesting option that comes in at 7 and 147. Ultimately LA offers the best of title contention, cultural comfort and closeness to home in addition to dollars. I guess that a fairly specific set of projections but what the hey.
Edit: Does not count the posting fee.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 16, 2014 13:16:13 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal reporting via twitter that the Cubs are pushing hard for Tanaka.
Makes sense for the Cubs and Theo but not sure it will satisfy Tanaka as far as location and current competitiveness. Cubs may offer most $$ though.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 14, 2014 22:46:20 GMT -5
I know it's a high number of starters but besides the fact it would be more unconventional at the major league level a six man rotation to start the season may not be an awful thought with the article bringing up the extra innings last years starters absorbed during the Title run. Maybe it's more conventional to skip a few starts for certain pitchers instead but that still requires using an extra starter or two.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 14, 2014 22:22:29 GMT -5
From what I've read to date it appears this years draft is leaning stronger in pitching. Not to say finding hitting prospects will be improbable but I won't be surprised if Boston adds an arm or two as the best value with their first few picks.
I do agree a lumbering power bat hasn't been a Sox target as they do like a more complete player offensively and defensively which ultimately may pay greater dividends. As an example Boston selected in 2012 Devin Marrero with pick 24, Brian Johnson with pick 31 and even Pat Light two picks before Joey Gallo was selected by the Rangers who fits this description well. Most here would likely rather have Gallo's offensive upside and risk over Light at this point.
Still I don't believe in targeting any position or commodity such as power or speed. Each prospect has to be judged as a whole and in comparison to expected value vs other prospects.
When you target power you often get a Brentz or Shaw prospect who has holes in their game and will struggle to stick as a full time starter at the major league level for more than a year or two. As opposed to a well rounded player like Cecchini who could/should develop 15 to 18 Hr power in time but brings high OPB and solid base running. Or Betts who can add 15 to 20 per year. Bogaerts can be 30 plus. Vazquez can add 10 plus. Swihart could see 12 to 15 in time. As opposed to a team with two or three 30 plus HR players it's not a bad thing to have six or seven who can hit 15 plus especially if players get on base at high rates. I believe it would create a likelihood to score runs at a more even distribution throughout the lineup providing more consistent scoring.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 10, 2014 23:54:21 GMT -5
1. Henry Owens 2. Garin Cecchini 3. Blake Swihart 4. Mookie Betts 5. Matt Barnes 6. Anthony Ranaudo 7. Trey Ball 8. Christian Vazquez 9. Teddy Stankiewicz 10. Brian Johnson
If I buy Owens as the #1 mid season I'm not deviating from it come 1/1. Cecchini sticks at 2 based on consistency. Even if the power is slow to come he should produce a high rate of doubles combined with walks in the mean time with high OBPs. I like Swihart's ceiling more than Cecchini but a catcher moving to AA leads me to expect a few struggles early allowing Garin to hold ahead of him but produce enough to remain at 3 by the year end. Betts also consistently hits while providing speed and solid defense. If he produces another stat line like this past season with similar power he could pass Swihart on this ranking. Barnes at 5 above Ranaudo is a reflection of his great fastball. I expect a nice step forward this season with another solid K rate and a reduction in his walks which spiked last season. He should be able to suppress the base runners he allowed last season and regress in HRs allowed.
Ranaudo is steady. He lacks the Barnes upside though IMO but has a more complete current total repotoire. All he needs is health. I went Ball at 7 because to me a pitcher with his high end heater and a solid change should dominate at times at the lower levels posting a nice K rate spurring his projection. Christian Vazquez is at 8 as an already MLB ready defensive C. He only needs to be average for his position with the bat to warrant a top 10 rank. I went Stankiewicz at 9 because I like what he brings to the mound with his pitchability and is only 8 months older than Ball. Again he should do well early at the lower levels. I rounded it out with Brian Johnson. He is another steady safe pitcher. I believe he offers Workman type upside.
Also in a system this deep I thought it made sense to add an 11 through 15. These are obviously a bit more fuzzy for ordering purposes.
11. Manuel Margot 12. Jamie Callahan 13. Devin Marrero 14. Wendell Rijo 15. Simon Mercedes
For the record I'd have Devers at 16. I expect this to be an adjustment year and a steady rise starting during the 15 season. My sleeper for a rapid rise in 14 is Myles Smith who could be top 20 this time next year.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 3, 2014 23:47:15 GMT -5
Hunter dozier is not tradable at this time. No recent draft pick can be traded in his first year with the team.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 30, 2013 13:55:26 GMT -5
I agree it's a high risk strategy. Pedroelgrande is likely right that their is some desperation spearheading this. With the decline in ticket sales and revenue from the down year management was spurred to add high priced free agents to instantly improve the MLB club. Subsequently the team lost its high end draft picks and it appears the alternate route to add talent is go heavy in the international market to attempt to improve a poor farm system. All they lose is a chance to sign much internationally next year.
I expect the strategy will continue to be to full court press Tanaka (20 mil range per), sign another free agent arm (U. Jimenez?), blow past the luxury cap this year and look to get into a more stable draft and free agency period starting next year by signing none QO free agents.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 30, 2013 13:31:41 GMT -5
Saw this. Makes some sense for the Yankees since they will have less to spend in the rule 4 draft and less opportunity to add incoming prospects with the QO free agent acquisitions. If they believe they can sign 5 of the top 10 international talents it is a shot into the arm of the farm system and exciting for their fan base. Problem for the Yankees is it's a long road working the extremes of the age spectrum. MLB team at the older age and the prospects at the younger end. Most of this talent is at least 6 years away. Ellsbury probably isn't there when these kids have a chance to see the show.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 24, 2013 14:54:38 GMT -5
There is middle ground between the development of prospects and signing higher priced free agents when spending the $189 million. For instance instead of paying AGon or more relatively Carl Crawford the team can "overpay" an existing contributor like Ellsbury to extend his current contract. Do you think that after the 2010 season had the team offered Ellsbury 7 years and 142 or even 8 years (replacing the 2011, 2012 and 2013 years plus 4 or 5 more through 2017) he would have turned them down? Maybe the team doesn't offer it because of injury concerns at that point but its the risk you have to sometimes take and as for Ellsbury he would have received a decent raise in his 3 or 4 remaining years in addition to being paid well beyond. One of the main differences between a Boston and a Tampa Bay shouldn't solely be that one can add expensive (probably overpaid) free agents but that one team should be able to lock up its own talent before reaching free agency (in the age 24 to 27 range) by offering a market deal and paying a few million extra for a few years up front. Ideally setting up deals that end in the age 33 to 35 season when the team has an opportunity to either resign them on a shorter deal or offer a QO when warranted to still potentially add a pick (i.e. Beltran). Part of Tampa's success is draft and development but part is locking up players like Longoria and Moore on long term team friendly deals that are player friendly in the short term while they are younger. Boston will have a decision on Xander in 3 or 4 years as to whether they should attempt something of this nature. Boras usually runs his player to free agency but if you buy out enough years at a reasonable rate I don't think Boras could argue against it or worry about his rep as long as his player gets the money in the end of the deal. In addition there may be considerations of JBJr, Workman and soon thereafter perhaps Cecchini, Owens, Swihart, Webster and Barnes. If this high end talent depth the team has built begins to perform at the major league level the team has to use a significant portion of the budget to extend these players to longer term deals. That is how you build the next great Red Sox team. From my perspective if you're going to put in the money and work of scouting, drafting, and developing why not use the financial strengh to keep said players. Seems as a better risk to overpay the early to mid 20 player that you know well than the 30 year old you don't know as intimately and will be entering there decline. In this market I'd be more willing to offer a 23 year old Bogaerts (assuming an acceptable performance growth by 23) a 10 to 12 year deal above market value than sign a 7 year Choo or 10 year Cano. The devil-you-know vs the devil-you'don't philosophy. Not a bad way to go. But I think you are mis-using the term 'market value'. Any player is willing to take market value or less before their contract is up - but it would be idiotic for a team to take the risk of a long term deal without getting a a below market discounted rate. The Rays don't quite fit your mold because they sign their players shortly before/after being promoted to the majors, where they are taking a large risk but receive a very large discount. The cost for extending players closer to FA for the Rays is too high. Yes Tampa takes the risk a little sooner on the players they internally believe are less likely to fail and receives a greater discount but signing Bogaerts in 3 years is still buying out 3 years worth of arbitration years. By market rate what I meant was reaches market rates which would have been a better verbiage. I do agree the player is not getting market rates in the first few years of the deal but are getting a large increase over what they were expected to receive via arbitration. Additionally if you sign a player to a 10 year deal at market value in the last half of the deal one would assume through salary escalation that those last 5 years of the deal would end up being below market value. For instance if you signed a young 23 year old potentially perennial "all-star" player now for 10 years (14/15/17/18/20/20/21/22/22/24) you would expect by 2019 when the deal is at (20/21/22/22/24) the market value of higher end free agent players would be 30 mil per season or more. Doesn't that in effect give the team a below market discounted rate during the second half on the player in the long term merely because the market is ever changing and the relativity of what it would take to resign the player in any of those later years?
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 24, 2013 14:33:56 GMT -5
Producing prospects and talent then signing them long term doesn't preclude the team from entering the free agent market on the right terms. Victorino and Napoli are both examples of this. Drew could be an example this season as his market seems to under value him for various reasons and at the right price on two or less years he does offer value to the team even if it means both he and WMB or to a lesser extent Bogaerts spend a little extra time on the bench as a result. This is especially true in the case of a long-term injury. It becomes an issue of maximizing the whole as opposed to the individual parts.
No matter how proficient you are at developing young talent there will always be holes to fill on the roster. Again using Tampa as a model there will always be a need for the Loneys, Escobars, Molinas and DeJesuses of the world. Or for the Cardinals the Hollidays and Peraltas of the world.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 24, 2013 13:51:12 GMT -5
There is middle ground between the development of prospects and signing higher priced free agents when spending the $189 million. For instance instead of paying AGon or more relatively Carl Crawford the team can "overpay" an existing contributor like Ellsbury to extend his current contract. Do you think that after the 2010 season had the team offered Ellsbury 7 years and 142 or even 8 years (replacing the 2011, 2012 and 2013 years plus 4 or 5 more through 2017) he would have turned them down? Maybe the team doesn't offer it because of injury concerns at that point but its the risk you have to sometimes take and as for Ellsbury he would have received a decent raise in his 3 or 4 remaining years in addition to being paid well beyond.
One of the main differences between a Boston and a Tampa Bay shouldn't solely be that one can add expensive (probably overpaid) free agents but that one team should be able to lock up its own talent before reaching free agency (in the age 24 to 27 range) by offering a market deal and paying a few million extra for a few years up front. Ideally setting up deals that end in the age 33 to 35 season when the team has an opportunity to either resign them on a shorter deal or offer a QO when warranted to still potentially add a pick (i.e. Beltran).
Part of Tampa's success is draft and development but part is locking up players like Longoria and Moore on long term team friendly deals that are player friendly in the short term while they are younger. Boston will have a decision on Xander in 3 or 4 years as to whether they should attempt something of this nature. Boras usually runs his player to free agency but if you buy out enough years at a reasonable rate I don't think Boras could argue against it or worry about his rep as long as his player gets the money in the end of the deal. In addition there may be considerations of JBJr, Workman and soon thereafter perhaps Cecchini, Owens, Swihart, Webster and Barnes. If this high end talent depth the team has built begins to perform at the major league level the team has to use a significant portion of the budget to extend these players to longer term deals. That is how you build the next great Red Sox team.
From my perspective if you're going to put in the money and work of scouting, drafting, and developing why not use the financial strengh to keep said players. Seems as a better risk to overpay the early to mid 20 player that you know well than the 30 year old you don't know as intimately and will be entering there decline. In this market I'd be more willing to offer a 23 year old Bogaerts (assuming an acceptable performance growth by 23) a 10 to 12 year deal above market value than sign a 7 year Choo or 10 year Cano.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 22, 2013 12:03:45 GMT -5
I still like Carlos Quentin, if you can handle the injury track record, playing 110 to 120 games in Fenway platooning off every handful of days. No idea as to his availability though or his trade value.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 21, 2013 21:41:12 GMT -5
Seems to me signing Choo for 7 years is still a better use of money for Texas than it would have been vs paying 4 more years of Cruz or resigning Hamilton prior and having 4 more seasons left at what Anaheim has to pay. (17m in 14/ 25m in 15/ 32m in 16/ 32m in 17)
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 20, 2013 23:08:21 GMT -5
And if the sox aren't going over the cap then it amounts to a hard cap. There would be opportunity costs associated with all dollars spent J as many others have stated would prefer they retain the 10 million or so for Drew to be able to make a move at the deadline We'll if the Sox are willing to go over the cap to sign Drew why would it preclude them from adding additional salary in a trade at the deadline. At that point I expect it becomes less of a roadblock as the cost is the newly imported salary plus a % of the overage. There is more than enough salary coming off the books to offset the additions next season allowing the team to drop back below the luxury threshold.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 20, 2013 0:31:47 GMT -5
Would you sign Stephen Drew for... ... 1 year, $14 Million: Yes ... 2 years, $27 Million: Probably but I feel more comfortable @ 2 & 24 ... 3 years, $39 Million: No ... 4 years, $52 Million: No Would you sign Shin Soo Choo for... ...5 years, $100 Million: No. 4 and 90 maybe but he wouldn't accept. ...6 years, $120 Million: No ...7 years, $126 Million: No ...7 years, $140 Million: No
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 16, 2013 14:37:30 GMT -5
I like this move a ton for the Chi Sox. They have had a black hole at 3rd for a decade or more really since Ventura left. For Arizona this is a very cheap talented option at the back end who they could potentially flip in three years to recover some value.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 16, 2013 12:40:02 GMT -5
I'd expect it will still show in the 2014 Prospect Handbook.
Edit: Referring to the 5 year line up projection.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 16, 2013 11:27:04 GMT -5
What I like is the positional variance on that top ten. A ss, 3b, 2b, cf, c, 2 lh starters and 3 rh starters. Baseball America is of course correct to point out what we all are aware of: the lack of corner power bats outside of 3b.
Also tying this to the argument of who will hold the #1 come June we can see BA appears to come down on the side of Owens.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 16, 2013 1:41:05 GMT -5
Are we confident Cecchini starts the season in Pawtucket? He's only had 214 abs in High A Salem and 240 abs in AA Portland, both of which occurred this past season. He no doubt has advanced approach but with options at the major league level why rush him straight to AAA vs letting him continue to develop in Portland for another half season or so. I don't believe he ends up being an option for the big club until Aug 2015 or Spring 2016. So for me Cecchini is a none factor in regards to Drew because I don't see Ben giving Drew anything more than a 2 year deal.
The draft pick does give more pause but I believe that sources from the fact we are by nature prospect followers and value picks at a slightly skewed level.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 14, 2013 0:53:37 GMT -5
I noticed that as I went through the list, but how many of those players would you want on your squad? You seem to have this thing about being a "major league regular". If they aren't good, I don't care how many ABs they keep getting. Maybe, just maybe some of these guys don't do well because they aren't prepared for major league pitching. That's not really the point though...but if you want to only take the top 14 you have two players, those with two WAR or better...it's still 1 in 7. I don't think it's that controversial to say that it would be unwise to bet on a player becoming a major league regular without having a 500 PA season before age 27. That's not to say that it doesn't occur.We'll Ortiz didn't have 500 plate appearances in a season until his age 27 season as an example relevant to the team. He did however come close in two of the previous three. This was of course his first with Boston after leaving Minnesota. The difference with WMB and the main problem is it would be very difficult for him to approach 350 plate appearances let alone 500 with Drew on the team. I would agree the short term benefit is to add Drew and play Bogaerts at third. The chain of events would require playing Will at third in Pawtucket to start the year to continue to work on his plate approach and allow Cecchini to gain more at bats at AA Portland beyond the 295 he received last season. No need to rush either although both could handle the next level well enough if required. I would argue this appears to be the best long term solution also. I believe in Middlebrooks but both he and Cecchini would benefit from more seasoning. The potential negatives associated are Bogaerts loses reps at SS, does the "demotion" effect WMB psyche and the team would need to use Holt as the back up for third and second which is an offensive downgrade (although I prefer this over not getting WMB regular at bats). Then come late July or early August you reevaluate the situation as to whether to promote both Will and Cecchini which is likely and reentertain the idea of trading Middlebrooks in the off season.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 11, 2013 18:08:15 GMT -5
Pederson much > than Yelich long term IMO.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 11, 2013 17:03:45 GMT -5
That top half always seems to be pitchers doesn't it. So the trend of flipping starters for young bats should continue with Price. I really like the small sample from Ciuffo though
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 9, 2013 1:03:15 GMT -5
Otherwise if I can't find a player to meet the break out criteria similar to Brandon Belt or Kyle Seager and I'm willing to take on an injury risk similar to the more expensive Stanton, Kemp, Tulo, Cargo then I'd try to pry away Carlos Quentin from San Diego. He's currently their most expensive player making 9.5 mil in 2014, 8 M in 2015 with 3M buyout and 10 mil mutual option for 2016. A very team friendly deal so it would require some value of prospects. The worry is he has played 118, 86 and 82 games respectively in 2011, 2012 and 2013. I think he would make a solid right-handed power bat in LF filling the strong side of a platoon with the plan of 125 starts to limit his exposure and attempt to reduce his likelihood for injury. Quentin produced well in his limited time in 2012 and 2013 while unsurprisingly having much better numbers away from Petco Park.
|
|