|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 17, 2014 13:35:07 GMT -5
As the Giants bid the same for Sandoval as the Sox, why didn't they top Headley's AAV? Headley could be undervalued, but the teams that were bidding on 3B do not seem to think so. Perhaps they are all irrational - or perhaps there is something else that we are missing? This is true with every free agent signing or trade, though, and there's no point in having a forum if we're just going to defer to the team(s) every single time. I've presented why I think teams that undervalued Headley are wrong and am happy to hear what you think I am missing. Why would the Sox even want Headley's batting value when they already have that in Craig (even if the 2012 Headley curious jump when San Diego was linked to their player(s) on steroids). Seems to me looking between the lines Panda was our shot at quality 3rd baseman + having bench bats to back up outfield and infield in our own players. Apparently there was No player to add 4M salary to for upgrade quality that they say. Relieve pitchers and their possible blow ups aren't the answer right now with adding 4M there isn't even a value added. The SP option would be over Masterson and the only close value upgrade their would of been Santana and his 4/55 at 32 to 35 isn't worth it either as that value needs the age regression also. We have no idea if Panda or Headley's defensive value can be added or subtracted at this point. I think this argument is UN-winnable for either side and the Sox did what they thought was the best gamble going forward for a high dollar franchise that needed butts in "their" seats.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 16, 2014 20:17:24 GMT -5
@pgammo: Astros essentially admit wrong paying off $1.5m to Jacob Nix. So why does MLB not punish them? Still Stros paid $1.5m to unsigned draftees Astros should have been forced to honor the contract and lose a draft pick. Edit: Also.... @keithlaw: If MLB let the Astros give Nix the full amount, they just tacitly admitted that the entire draft pool system won't survive a challenge. Didn't this all happen before it went to an arbitrator (the same as a court ruling) and thus the amount was unknown to buy off Nix? www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24892163/astros-and-nix-a-top-draftee-whose-deal-was-canceled-reach-settlementCan MLB enforce something when the Astros didn't sign him but just paid him a sum to not go to a arbitrator's decision? If he is going back to school as one article stated he wanted to go to a two yr program what is the actual harm that MLB could possibly rule on? Lots of questions here on this case to what the MLB rules actually state. Seems to me he would have to sign the contract for MLB to enforce it wouldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 13, 2014 0:21:47 GMT -5
By the way, this is a pretty f------ great trade. Myles Smith has some upside, but he wasn't in the top 60 on this site when he was traded, which says a lot. In return, they get an MLB-ready starter who, as recently as a year or two ago, projected to be a league-averagish starter. He's probably not going to be a starter in this organization long-term, but he's the kind of guy who could easily be a Badenhop-esque weapon out of the pen. These little moves around the margin can be huge, and I'm a big fan of this one. What in the hell is going on in Arizona? Didn't they need a spot on the 40 man for the Yasmany? I heard something about being designated for assignment earlier. And with 2 spots for Webster and De la rosa I'm sure somebody had to go. Ben said something about him competing for a bullpen spot and also about replacing Wilson. He did struggle in AAA this year also.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 12, 2014 22:27:48 GMT -5
Yea your right it is always about how many championships the dodgers have won with their great lineup and 5 ace staff.... Oh wait they haven't gee. Oh well, maybe next decade... After all Boston owners no nothing about producing a winning team but hey maybe all those sleepy forum members will wake up and attack the sox for having owners who only win a few championships if a few years. The ship isn't sinking and who knows maybe the owners will flip a coin to get lucky for the fourth time in your lifetime. Seriously? Go back and look at those Red Sox championship teams and tell me what the pitching staffs looked like. Thanks. Yep, the exact same as this one... all paid for by Henry's Fenway Sports Group. The same group that when something goes wrong fixes it by remaking a solid business plan. This ownership group has not done anything to deserve so much pre-season negativity as is being thrown around here. That is the big picture. Thanks for asking
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 12, 2014 22:08:31 GMT -5
Can't believe the amount of sunshine and roses on this board. The Red Sox have the 3rd highest payroll in baseball and we still don't have a #1! How is it possible to spend over 180 MILLION DOLLARS and not have a #1? Oh yeah, that's right, we have such "great depth". Look at the Dodgers- Kershaw, Greinke, Ryu we can't even say our #1 is better than their #3. I'm just so frustrated with how so many here seem to accept the fact (with positivity) that we can somehow spend more money than 90% of the league and put out a pitching staff like the one currently constructed. Of course this could change but as it stands right now this is absurd. Wake up guys. We have the highest damn ticket prices in the league and our opening day starter will be who? Rick Porcello? Unreal. Yea your right it is always about how many championships the dodgers have won with their great lineup and 5 ace staff.... Oh wait they haven't gee. Oh well, maybe next decade... After all Boston owners no nothing about producing a winning team but hey maybe all those sleepy forum members will wake up and attack the sox for having owners who only win a few championships if a few years. The ship isn't sinking and who knows maybe the owners will flip a coin to get lucky for the fourth time in your lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 12, 2014 12:17:26 GMT -5
There you have it; 63% voting for option C, acquiring second tier starters while keeping your top prospects. With Miley, Porcello and Masterson added to Buchholz and Kelly you have a five man rotation. And we didn't have to relinquish any of our top prospects. Webster and De La Rosa were graduated prospects. Sure, we don't have an "Ace", but how many teams do? Baltimore, for example had an outstanding season until the ALCS and didn't have an "Ace" on its roster. Tillman was its best pitcher and I wouldn't characterize him as such. Heck, even until last year, there was a discussion here as to whether Lester is a true Ace. I consider the likes of Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, Wainwright, Felix, Bumgarner, Cueto, Hamels as true aces, guys you can count on a stoppers, who can win you twenty games or so in a season. Shields was not an ace with Tampa. My point is you can contend without one. Miley, Buchholz and Porcello all have won sixteen games at one time. No reason why they can't do it again with the lineup the Sox will have. Kelly can win you sixteen. And Masterson, who will be the #5 starter, could rebound and give you 12. So it is wise for Ben to hold onto to his treasure chest of young prospects at least for now. After next season he will have a stable of better developed arms with a full season at AAA and facing a Free Agent class that could potentially have lots of top of the rotation starters. Why the hell are we using wins for predictive value? This is an easy one. Using the new highly analytical thought process formula developed for all baseball internet forums. Wins + (replacement cost) = > PO(v) thus > Loss + (RC X PO X(a) Thus formula translation to Many Wins + replacemnt value (throwing hat in the air at bar and losing it for just a pair of kisses of hot chick next to you) which equals making the playoffs thus this total value is greater than many loses which equal no play offs plus the added highly expensive cost of the value of a beer mug in the back bar mirror and the free ride to the hooskow. Italicized for those who don't have much sense > humor.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 12, 2014 11:54:59 GMT -5
Pete Abe seems to be suggesting we need to give up Betts and Bogaerts for Hamels. How is this guy so far behind the spanish reporters? That goes for Edes and Cafardo as well. We might be getting into trade proposal territory here now, but Abraham said it would take Betts and Bogaerts for Hamels? Just making sure I read this right. I have a hard time believing even Amaro is that delusional...if that's seriously his asking price, he should be institutionalized. Amaro? That probably will be coming to fruition about August 10th after ownership wises up!
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 12, 2014 0:21:35 GMT -5
If this is a competition between Ben Cherrington and Theo Epstein, I'll take Theo. Both saddled the team with a couple of dog contracts. But, at least Theo's dogs could defend their positions, whereas Ben's dogs either have never played their new position or are close to eating their way out of their position. There's also the two rings to only one for Ben. That being said, Ben can quickly close the gap with another title and an increased willingness to call out Lucchino. Actually gorilla suit and all Theo didn't get those "over the top players" for Boston's second WS Lucchino has to be credited with those as theo walked out over money and control back then and Lucchino was chasing after the Beckett and Lowell swap. So it could be pretty even between Theo n Ben towards winning WS titles.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 11, 2014 16:28:19 GMT -5
When we have a superb prospect list isn't our #16 about the same as the Yankees #2 or phillies #5 ? Yes. Or our #5 from 2011. I mean if you traded all 20 of your top 20 prospects, the ones that make up the new list aren't worth the same as the old. I screwed that up quoted the wrong post sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 11, 2014 13:50:43 GMT -5
Steve Gilbert ?@stevegilbertmlb 6m6 minutes ago #Dbacks Dave Stewart on #RedSox deal: "We’re still squabbling about the extra player. If we can get through that than we’ll be OK." Could this mean that they are going to squabble till Jan 1st so that the deal includes a 14 draft signee (1 yr in july) and falls within the 6 month ptbnl clause also?
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 11, 2014 13:47:09 GMT -5
I'm cool with how the Lester deal turned out. Still hate the Lackey deal. Seems like Miller and his control plus the Craig contract and it's possibilities at the time (and still today) aren't to bad for a elder statesman pitcher (who we did hear back then from Silva) that he asked to be traded ... So there is that.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 9, 2014 16:45:58 GMT -5
@jimbowden_ESPN 11m11 minutes ago Evans just told us that the #Giants are probably in the back seat in Lester bid because his heart strings are pulling Lester w 2 other clubs Evans being Asst GM with Giants. Interesting that the Giants supposedly opened the seventh year can of worms and we could end up eating it. It might not be as bad as everyone thinks. Jon's comp pitcher is Andy Pettitte who had a very comparable WAR to Lester's and if we then look at what Pettitte did with his 31 yr season on and run it out to his 37 season we come out with a 21.8 WAR if Jon does that and the price of WAR keeps going in the up direction we may be paying 8 mill for that @ 21.8 WAR which would keep the contract at 174M+. Pettitte and Jon actual for age and inning and value match up pretty close to me, Also Pettitte even pitched another year at 38 too.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 9, 2014 12:46:42 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if the Yankees lay in the weeds and pluck Lester at the last minute. I think the sox need to come up with something creative along the lines of (like Adrian Beltre) offering Lester 155 over 6 plus a 10m player option and use that to git the tax average down and still spend enough to turn the table if they are set on getting Lester back. Seems something like that might work out.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 6, 2014 16:39:25 GMT -5
Yes, thats the whole point, you don't come out and give them your best offer. An offer of $17.5M per year was absolutely a reasonable starting point to negotiations, especially after the player said he would take less money to stay. If they were actually serious about negotiating (they weren't), they would have countered with 6 years, $150M then the Red Sox would have come back with a 5 year, $100 million deal. That's how negotiating works. The fact that some people have actually bought into the media bullcrap about this whole scenario proves that people will believe anything if you suggest it enough times. That theory really is talk radio BS. Or it's really possible that Lester was ticked off that the initial offer was that low and said screw them. And you don't know that it's talk radio BS - it's easy to blame the media, but sometimes the Red Sox FO doesn't wrap itself in glory. There's no logical reason I can see why Lester shouldn't be a Red Sox, but when all is said and done, he'll wind up elsewhere because the Sox, flush with a ton of cash, don't want to spend the money on their own guy. It's an old story. Or you know it is really possible that the media and their chicken and beer garbage attacks totally ticked off Lester, then the media supposing it had to be a low ball offer as they didn't immediately up it wasn't quite correct... then the "in the know" media reports that are bad mouthing the front office (who really knows the motive behind them other then selling news)... So what we are getting now isn't so good on what he really feels towards the front office. Hey just saying...
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 27, 2014 20:19:36 GMT -5
Only problem with this reddit statement it claims at 11.30pm daniel breaks news of panda signing... But at 10.55pm before daniels That kid had this tweet too. Jake Wesley MLB @mlb_nl_al · Nov 23 The Boston Red Sox have signed Pablo Sandoval to a 5 year, 102 million dollar deal. Source with Hanley story has confirmed. It's done So once again reddit got that part wrong on time and who has said what... But who cares as it is all an internet war and the kid is obviously gonna get beat up by the mean ole net nasties! Also reddit posted a twitter claiming 12.55 but his account didn't make a tweet then. It was the above one and somebody faked or purposely edited their timeline picture.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 27, 2014 14:52:59 GMT -5
Beautiful!! How with all of the DNA analysis and new technology can the Sox, or any team, not find out who the mole is?? I can't imagine that too many people know what is going on in the "board" room with respect to their plans. Either there is a direct leak or there is "2nd hand" leaks. I think this kid is for real (how many people were guessing that we'd sign both Hanley and Panda, and did so the day before it happened?), and I don't think he has a single source in an MLB FO. I think he's a hacker, and he's reading in-house e-mail or tweets. I mean, folks have hacked Apple's cloud to get nude celebrity selfies. You have to respect a 14 y/o kid who, possessing the same talent, would rather do this. Oh, re the infamous tweet, Mets Have Interest in Xander Bogaerts could pretty much be an Onion parody headline. Gee I still think someone wants to get even with CHB, Cafardo, and Abe over being asinine in their articles about the Sox. Hmm maybe John has found a way to get rid of them without losing out to the union lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 26, 2014 16:58:49 GMT -5
If he cut down on routine errors, which you would predict would happen over time, he might have a positive defensive value. And the remarks on his athleticism are absolutely ridiculous. He may not be fast, but he's a tremendous athlete. Most guys of his size would be completely incapable of playing short. Well, that actually wasn't the problem in 2014. He had a higher fielding percentage than the average shortstop, and his error runs above average component of UZR was +1.7. It was his -2.2 mark on double play runs above average - a play he was often noticeably pretty bad at turning -- and -2.3 range runs above average that lead to the negative rating. How did they average all those bad throws that turned into base runners and runs off of errors?
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 24, 2014 23:53:32 GMT -5
I've already posted the chart that shows Sandoval's rather steep decline since his heady days as a 24-year old. The confounding factor is that MLB offensive numbers have been in general decline for those years, but I think there's more to it than that in his case. My opinion is that the contract will be a burden for at least two, and maybe more years. There were better ways to spend that money, I believe. It could be that there were talks with Headley and that those were fruitless. But this seems like an overreach to me. That steep decline might of had to do with his right hand Hamate bone surgery in 11 and also his Left in 12 couldn't it. How long does it take to come back from those? Seems to me that sometimes we need to look beyond the graphs and charts to see if there are other circumstances that might cause dips and such in production.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 24, 2014 23:47:05 GMT -5
So this is good??? “@loumerloni: He has them. "@kyle_Meadows: @mlb_nl_al @loumerloni Prove to me. I'm nobody but am fascinated by you and your so called sources.”” It appears the kid has legit sources. It seems unlikely that everything he's reporting is 100% accurate but I'd imagine most of it so far is pretty much on the mark. Who knows if/when the source will dry up or start to feed him misinformation, if it hasn't started already. Maybe the source feeding him quality news will go on long enough to get CHB, Abe, and Cafardo in hot water and released. I heard some rumor today over on that other site that someone in the Sox family might be thinking along those lines. Now that would be another good thing to happen today!!!
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 24, 2014 14:30:05 GMT -5
Seems to me with the ego's on these guys and a quote from Shane about as far as he is concerned he is still the starting RF'er that he might have a little attitude about being benched for Betts if that happens. I think that is enough concern added to the injury risk on him for me to send him to the trade market. He had one great year for us and even if we discount him by 3-5 million he was still worth his time here for that great year. If his physical shows him in good enough health to date he might be good enough to bring back a pair of high risk non 40 man guys.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 17, 2014 12:13:33 GMT -5
And he'll still get more than any American amateur in history. If it's known that he's paying 50% to Cuba wouldn't OFAC, uh, frown upon that? So how do we know he is paying 50% to Cuba anyway? If he doesn't give them a nickel what are they going to do complain to the US government or MLB? So far we have no evidence he is losing anything to anybody and also if he got permission from Cuba then how does anyone figure the smugglers are getting paid for smuggling him out? Seems to me the double down cycle doesn't fit here. Either the traffickers got him out or Cuba let him out one or the other I would think.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 16, 2014 17:40:52 GMT -5
So the first 50% goes to a socialist group and then 50% of the rest goes to a Communist group. Then the government takes 33% of what is left over. Monocada's head must be swimming trying to figure out the differences between Cuba and MLB. I have a hard time deciphering what you said above So which one of the two 50% groups are you claiming is the democratic party and which is the republicans again?
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 11, 2014 17:39:28 GMT -5
So would you rather have a poor left handed hitter just to get a left handed hitter? You really need to compare how the splits are versus RHP to see how much of an issue it is. Our Gm and his staff have all talked and been rumored to talk about this quite a few times that is the need for another strong left handed bat as a immediate need for this coming season. I to don't believe this team can compete for the whole season with a lineup to short on lefties. .304 .357 .493 and OPS of 850 than another righty in the lineup who hits good against a fair share of mediocre lefties but than struggles against the good ones. That being true when the chips are on the line. But that is just me I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 11, 2014 16:38:57 GMT -5
Assuming he's not wildly more expensive than Sandoval I much prefer Hanley. The problem is, of course, that Hanley seems likely to get a larger deal. The question, as always, then comes down to how much more you're willing to pay for the better player. Don't we also need left handed bats not a solid righty minus one lineup to be competitive?
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 7, 2014 18:26:22 GMT -5
Or another more likely explanation is that Buchholz lost it completely for a decent part of the season and had to be phantom DL-ed to get his mechanics back, which were still not all the way back by the end of the season. And yeah, it makes logical sense that you allow more baserunners to score when you can't control where most pitches are going to go so he'd have to pitch an 89 mph four seam fastball right down the middle to get a strike, like he did for several games before he was DL'ed. At that point, he deserved a slightly better BABIP or LOB% than a batting practice pitcher. This is where you have to consider that Buchholz was not pitching like a MLB pitcher at all when he was bad so you can't just assume that he'd adjust to the league average for BABIP or LOB%. If he were pitching like always and simply had bad luck, then I'd completely agree. Sometimes, MLB pitchers don't pitch like they belong in the MLB though. What about Buchholz surgery that he had right after the season that the sox said bothered him most of the season would that effect his performance this year. Probably not if we are still screaming about how bad he was this whole year. Seems to me for a guy that we all rag on we don't pay much attention to the medical issues this year. After all he has had quite a few medical issues in the past. wpri.com/2014/10/01/buchholz-undergoes-minor-knee-surgery/"The operation to repair a torn meniscus in his right knee took place Tuesday, two days after he started the team’s final game. General manager Ben Cherington said Buchholz pitched with the injury throughout the season."
|
|