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 voiceofreason on Dec 6, 2021 13:54:01 GMT -5
Maybe my point got lost. The league changed the rules when the Rams then the Colts were complaining about how they couldn’t beat Bills defense. It was too physical. So no Bill didn’t make the changes himself they were made to counter act him and promote fantasy football. If I remember correctly it was a couple months after the Colts lost the AFCCG. I'm not sure it was an official rule change, as much as a renewed emphasis of eliminating contact past five yards and becoming stricter with pass interference calls. Bill Polian was on the competition committee and was said to be a major influence in making this a point of emphasis, it was informally known as the Ty Law rule. Belichick bashed it at the time, commenting how subjective interference calls would become, and here we are now. Funny enough, the next year the Colts did even worse in their postseason loss to the Pats despite them missing Law, their #2 corner, and Seymour. Those Colts teams were SOFT. I remember some of those same things you mention especially Polian being on the rules committee. One more thing I read this week that I don't think has been mentioned here, I think it was Bourne saying this. The slow start at the beginning of the season was also because Mac didn't get many snaps as the #1 and with the first O. Cam got all the snaps until a week before the season per Bourne so Mac didn't have much time to gel with the top WRs. It makes sense and makes the production from Mac even more impressive. I wish it was 8 o'clock already. Umass I graduated High school in 1982. Yes you have had a great 30 yrs of being a Pats fan but I have to say 25 yrs of futility watching the Pats makes the past 20 that much sweeter. During my life time I watched the 49ers have the longest tenure of greatness and I was beyond envious. For the Pats to have blown those records away is incredible for me. I was on vacation in Cabo San Lucas after they won their 1st SB in 2002 and everyone loved the Pats and the fans, now after 20 yrs we are about the most hated out there, oh well thats what comes with being on top for so long. And now with Mac and winning again so quickly, it is almost unfair to the fans of the AFC East. A win tonight and a sweep of the Bills this season should be considered abuse.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 6, 2021 12:13:05 GMT -5
Hunter Renfroe has got to be the classic example of the differences between old school stat people and the new school analytics guys.
31 hrs, 89 runs, 96 rbi, leads all Outfielders in assists and a finalist for both GG and SS. All stats that would point to a much better than average player. Yet when looked at thru the lens of advanced stats he is just a replacement level 2 war player. It might just be the perfect case study for debate, which is what it has become here, one way or another. I would like to think I am more new school vs old school or at least open to it but based on my opinion of Renfroe I guess I still have a ways to go. I will look forward to following his numbers next yr.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 6, 2021 11:22:24 GMT -5
Bill didn’t change the game in those early years, the Rams did. We didn't join the party to 2008. Do people not remember those early years? We'd run the ball for three straight downs and punt multiple times per game. Of course I remember the early years, who could forget the beginning of the dynasty and 3 SBs in 4 yrs. Not only the early BB years but the mid 70's was my early years and they actually had some good teams with Hannah and Grey leading the way. They still hold the NFL record for most rushing yards gained in a season with 3100 in 78. BTW it was directly after the turf change in 2006, 2007 is the season that they joined the party when they traded for Welker and Moss and Brady threw for 4,800 yds and 50 tds. It would be a game changer if they could get anyone close to a Randy Moss for Mac to have as a #1. On another note. One thing I hear a lot from the pundits these days on Mac is sure he has done a great job but have we seen him lead the Pats to a win when coming from behind, does he have what it takes to win with his arm. My thought on that is this. One of the few opportunities that he has had to run the 2 minute drill was at the end of a half, I can't remember the game, but he padded his stats for the game by going something like 7 for 7. Doesn't it make sense that a guy who is really accurate will carve up a D that is playing off a little bit like they do when ahead late. Teams give up the underneath stuff to protect the big play over the top. It is frustrating to watch sometimes as it seems like D's just let teams drive down the field. Point is I think Mac will absolutely carve defenses up when the time comes to prove he can lead the team down the stretch, we should find out soon.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 6, 2021 9:29:27 GMT -5
Comparing Macs first year to Bradys doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. They might as well of played in different leagues. The rules were different, which affected how you play both offense and defense. The technology was way different which affects how you can study and affects the complexity of both offense and defense. It’s why Carson Palmer is ahead of Montana in fewer season in passing yards and why Stafford will finish his career ahead of Marino and why Marino’s once vaunted record is already down to 7th all time. Goff is top 20 all-time in passer rating. 18 of the top 25 started their careers in 2004 or later. These are the Payton Manning rules - Belichick literally changed the game with his style of play during those first championship teams. Coinciding with the changes you describe with the rules and the game is that the Pats went from grass to artificial turf in November 2006. I remember when that happened and thinking at the time that the Pats would change their style of O to being more wide open rather than the grind it out style BB had always been known for. Now here we are 15 yrs later and the whole league has gone to smaller faster defenses to combat the passing so BB builds a team that is bigger and harder to play against in the old grind it out style. And on defense how many teams have starting LBs that weigh in at 255+ these days? Not many. RJP those were some great points on just how much things have changed over the last 20 years and how they affect QB stats. Dan Marino would have put up some serious numbers in todays game.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 6, 2021 8:57:44 GMT -5
The Suzuki sweepstakes could be a good time to incorporate achievable performance related bonuses. Offer him a really strong base deal that will pay him more than what others might be offering based on incentives. That gives a level of protection for both player and team.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 6, 2021 8:34:31 GMT -5
Sounds like the weather will be the star tonight. Brady loved the bad weather. It gave him a huge advantage. Probably a good learning experience for Jones. If it's a run only game, we have an advantage. Attempted field goals should be fun to watch. I remember a game many years ago in Chicago that the forecast was the same, windy, rainey bad and everyone expected the same. A run game only. Then Brady came out and threw the ball all over the place and the Pats put up like 40 points. Maybe it has more to do with the Pats short passing game and the offensive players knowing where they are going and the D can't react quickly enough to stay close with the slippery conditions. We shall see but I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats rolled out that kind of game plan and surprised the Bills with a spread offense. We all know how Bill likes to change things up to keep the opponent off balance.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 6, 2021 8:27:48 GMT -5
It would be great if the Pats could draft a #1 WR that would team with Mac from early on to create that type of dynamic combination but I doubt BB would pull the trigger on that pick. Past failures and other positions that are aging quickly would seem like 2 reasons for going in another direction. I also think that it is really hard to know if a WR would be able to master the Pats offensive scheme, many have tried and failed. On the flip side the draft does look strong at WR in the position the Pats will be drafting at so who knows. Id they had only taken Metcalf instead of Harry....
The most important thing is the Pats hit on Mac and as someone else mentioned he looks easily like a top 10 QB with the potential to be much better. In fact I would say based on what I have seen he will very likely only get better. He will work on that body and continue to improve, just like the last guy did.
Tonight is going to be a great test.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 6, 2021 7:50:11 GMT -5
Manfred you used the words "absurd length" to describe your thoughts on an earlier post. Well I agree with you on that, you seem to take every debate on the deals Bloom makes to an absurd level of negativity. To the point where I usually don't want to bother responding. So you don't like the trade, fine you are entitled to your opinion obviously. But it is the same with every move this FO makes.
YES absolutely yes, if you know that you are going to upgrade the position in the OF over the guy you have out there currently then yes it makes sense to move him. So yes that is part of the plan. Renfroe went from having no value, which his 2021 contract supports, to having enough value that you aren't going to just make him a 4th OF. Other teams value him much higher than that so you get the best trade you can in moving him. It is called strategy, the next move is to bring someone better in as you build out the roster. They might be separate deals but they are tied together. So no you can't just sit here and keep making the argument that the deal didn't help the team next season so that is another reason why you argue against it. They are obviously not done building next yrs roster.
And umass if the guy in Milwaukee that is paid handsomely to run that team thought that JBJ was worth that contract then yes he valued him that much. So yes their was a huge disparity in how the leagues GMs valued JBJ vs Hunter before the 2021 season. Hence when you look at the difference in perceived value of the players involved yes the Sox came out on the positive side.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 5, 2021 12:32:03 GMT -5
So before the 2021 season JBJ was considered good enough to be paid 24 million for 2 seasons by the Brewers. Hunter Renfroe was considered good enough to get a 3.1 million dollar 1 yr contract from the Sox. That is a pretty big disparity.
One yr later JBJ has a terrible season and Renfroe has a very good season. So have their baseball values really flip flopped so much in one season that the Sox get JBJ and 1 very good prospect and another good prospect in return along with some money going to the Brewers with Renfroe.
Who is to say JBJ isn't the better player this coming season, he always was before right. If you look at the whole picture from above how is this not a great chess move? It all depends on what happens in the future but this certainly looks to me like the kind of deal people could have a really good laugh about in a few years. Like Heathcliff Slocumb for J. Varitek and D. Lowe, yes that is hyperbole but it could end up being a lopsided deal in the end.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 4, 2021 8:49:02 GMT -5
I’m all for it..personally I think it would cost something like Dalbec, Downs, Binales for Montas…maybe a bit more if your trying to beat other offers….but rotation would look really solid if Montas was added. Sale Eovoldi Montas Pivetta Hill Wacha And eventually Paxton Houck and Whitlock slowly take on longer stints as long relievers…..I’m in. Although I would have liked to have seen a higher end starter brought in by Bloom I think we are looking at the current guys as who they will be going into the season with.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 3, 2021 9:19:51 GMT -5
All along I have been of the opinion and have voiced such that this CBA would not cause a prolonged stoppage and that could still be the case. But it doesn't look that way and once again I have underestimated the power of greed.
My thinking was mostly based on the epidemic and that revenues have still been strong for MLB, why screw up a good thing. Nope they are more than willing to screw up a good thing in the name of money. The owners have had the upper hand for a while and they like it so no they are not in the mood to give anything back.
Anybody have any thoughts on when this ends? I am going to predict that it goes on until March.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 3, 2021 6:26:18 GMT -5
Another thought on the trade for prospects is the effect on the farm system and how it helps the major league team.
Yes the system is better and these guys are all assets to one degree or another whether they ever play in the show or not. As others have said the Sox can flip them for other players or prospects. But also how much does it help at the trade deadline? Sure every deal needs to make sense on it's own but the more assets you have then the better position you are in to make a deal when the iron is hot.
Being active at the trade deadline this past season was hotly debated based on giving up prospects, well the more you have the easier it is to pull the trigger. Basically a stronger system means you are trading from a position of strength. I don't think this is a small consideration when you are talking about making moves to improve a team that is headed to the playoffs or fighting to and has a need.
On another note, and this has been mentioned by others, on a macro level from above the Sox flipped a guy they got off the scrap heap for JBJ, his bad contract and 2 decent prospects. Once they make their next move upgrading over Renfroe that should be considered a win/win. They got a very good season out of him, which helped them make the playoffs, and now they have upgraded the system on the value created. Seems pretty smart to me.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 3, 2021 5:42:03 GMT -5
The Patriots are going to win this game against the Bills.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 3, 2021 5:39:14 GMT -5
Pasta and McAvoy untouchable. Carlo would require a big return. Patrice if he wants to be traded. Everyone else on the table. Of course out of respect you ask Patrice but all the other guys with real value also have no trade restrictions so yhey would all have to be asked.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 3, 2021 5:31:20 GMT -5
What does a Kiké extension look like?
He's entering the final year of his 2-year, $14m deal and he has already been more than worth it.
I feel pretty strongly that extending him is a high priority, given his versatility and excellence in the field and his breakout season. He's also one of the faces of the team when it comes to interacting with the media and is clearly a good teammate. And what a playoff performance...
Chris Taylor just set the market for players of that type (and I'd rather have Kiké). With that as a baseline, how about a 2-year, $30m extension? He would then be eligible for free agency at age 33 and his money would come off the books in the (status quo) year that a CBT reset would be necessary. I'd probably be willing to go a third year.
If you ride out the current contract and he plays as well as in 2021, he'd certainly be asking for a Taylor deal in both length and AAV on the open market. Signing an extension now protects him from losing significant future earnings to an injury in 2022.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
I like the idea and the numbers. But is it enough for Kiké to like it or would he rather bet on himself for one more year? I think he would bet on himself but I am obviously just spitballing. Just seems like he has bet on himself thru out his career. What is being a great team player worth?
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 17:30:08 GMT -5
But you can see how fans might grow tired of being told “give me a few years” right? I mean, when does trading now for later start to mean there is no now? Once again "there is no now" yet they were just in the ALCS and this is just the beginning of the offseason. There are still moves to be made.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 16:28:09 GMT -5
Lots of information and strong opinions on here about the trade and the way Bloom seems to be running things. Interesting and amusing at the same time. I will just say a greatly improved farm system and a trip to the ALCS should buy him some respect.
The only way I see this deal making sense is that there is another move Coming that will be an upgrade over Renfroe. They have to be using the value Renfroe created this year by getting some prospects for him before replacing him. We have all been talking about where to put Schwarber, well now there is room. Then he can mostly DH come 2023, he would be good as a backup also.
So Bloom is not done, maybe he goes hard after Suzuki, that would be ideal for me. There are RF options out there beyond reshuffling the OF and signing KS, Bryant, Castellanos, Conforto, Canha. Regardless of who it is I expect it will be an upgrade over HR and that is why they did it. So smart move in the end, it won't end any other way.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 15:04:47 GMT -5
Remember when Renfroe signed off the scrap heap and struggled the first month and people were mad that the Red Sox were wasting a roster spot on him? And then he played really well and the Red Sox traded him for two legit prospects and people complained that it made the team worse? Everyone likes the idea of selling high, but nobody likes it in the moment. Anyway, Bradley is a secondary part of this deal to me. If the Red Sox had traded Renfroe for a Hamilton and Binelas and taken on $3.5 of Renfroe's salary, I'd think that was pretty good. Well, instead of that they took on Bradley, adding $3.5M to their payroll. Maybe Bradley's bat rebounds (hard to see, he looked like toast at the plate with Milwaukee), but more likely he's a defensive replacement who allows the team to sign Schwarber or a similar bat-first corner outfielder. If they don't do that, then yeah, the MLB team is worse in the meantime. But as part of a roster-building and organizational-building exercise, this trade makes a lot of sense. I get this attitude, and I agree in my own case, I didn’t like the signing and I don’t like the trade. But being wrong the first time doesn’t mean simply acquiescing the second. More to the point: why trade high *now*? They were better than everyone thought last year, but the clock is ticking. Eovaldi, JDM, X, and Devers are all potentially nearing the end of their run. Getting more prospects for two years from now doesn’t help this core, and it doesn’t address the issues they’ll face then. I guess I am not a fan of a strategy that keeps punting two years down the line. Two years ago, a Mookie trade that would pay off later. Last year a Benny trade that would pay off later. Now a Renfroe trade that will pay off later. And people keep saying the FA signings are short term so they won’t hurt long term. How soon is now? I guess making it to the ALCS along the way to every move is for years down the road doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 14:34:38 GMT -5
Also not forget about; Connor Seabold Josh Winckowski Kutter Crawford And a possible surprise, Jay Groome Brayan Bello All can be called up to start some games I am picking Groome as the big breakout pitcher this coming season. He finished the year strong and has always had the potential, this could be his year.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 13:46:27 GMT -5
Sale 165 Eovaldi 165 Wacha 120 Hill 110 Paxton 55 Pivetta 160 Houck 115 Whitlock 110
Here's your 1000 innings. I don't think that's an ambitious forecast for a single one of these pitchers. Of course it's likely that one or another of them gets hurt and doesn't reach that total, but there's also a lot of fungibility between all of them to allow others to pick up the slack (e.g., if Wacha gets hurt Hill could get more innings, or vice verse).
That is what makes it exciting! Feels like a very fair over/under. Incandeza those are pretty much the numbers I had in mind and yes their is all kinds of fungibility there. I can see Pivetta as being improved just based on the experience and success he had in the playoffs. But I also think their is a real possibility that one of the Wacha, Houck, Whitlock or Hill group could be a good surprise. They all have it in them to pitch at a high level, which could lead to a lot more innings. I actually like the way it looks going in and I haven't even mentioned Seabold who could also be a strong contributor in the same type of role. It would be a very fair over/under. And it is a little ambitious but then again not, depends on usage and health. BTW as someone who used to gamble a lot but realized that bets too often are decided by the bounce of the ball I have stepped way back, but I do often bet season wins over/under totals. Like the Sox this past season and the Pats this season. I thought both were good gambles and laid 4 figures as I have for a long time with the Pats, it has been a great run of hitting on those. Then once I know I have won that I can start gambling with house money. Then it is easy to go with parlays and hit big.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 11:56:05 GMT -5
OK Mr Negative did you see the words "just about" and "could" in there right, it was there for a reason. I realize this about Pivetta and Wacha but 6 out of the 8 have a history of <4 but thank you for pointing out that 2 of the 8 don't. The x factors are not just Houck and Whitlock, the x factors are just about every pitcher on the Sox and in baseball for that matter. VERY VERY few pitchers in baseball can truly be counted on to be really good yr in yr out and they get paid BIG money. Which the Sox are avoiding, would you rather they spend big on a guy who did it for one season, Robbie Ray. And let me once again state the obvious. The whole idea about a staff that is constructed this way is that guys pitch fewer but more quality innings. Take a look at TBays staff from last season that led the AL in era and tell me it looks like a better staff than what the Sox have going into next year. BTW Tampa also had the fewest quality starts in baseball also. So once again, guys with a history of being decent to good starters can USUALLY dial it up in shorter stints which leads to better performance. That is just a reality that Bloom believes in and is building his staff around. So IMO the Sox now have 7 guys who should contribute between 120 and 180 innings along with a ? in Paxton that should add up to 1000 innings of hopefully very good production. Hopefully being a key word but that is what most teams are dealing with, hope. Who knows maybe Wacha is next seasons Ray, crazier things have happened. I picked those two as examples. But I view 1,000 innings as ambitious. Go with career highs: Sale 216 (2016) Eovaldi 199 (2014) Wacha 181 (2015) Hill 195 (2007!) Paxton 160 (2018) Pivetta 164 (2018) Houck 69 (last year) Whitlock 73 (last year) That is barely over 1,000 with many of those numbers inconceivable. Optimistically, Paxton will be short by 100; Hill by 50; Sale by 40ish; Wacha by a decent measure. It returns me to Houck and Whitlock. Can they both add add least 75 innings to last year’s totals? And even that might not get you to your 1,000. Houck and Whitlock have both been starters their entire lives and have both thrown 120 innings in the minors. Lets stop looking at 120 innings as being a big deal for guys who aren't expected to be ready to pitch every day and an inning at a time. If 4 of those guys average 150 and the other 4 average 100 that is 1000. Is that really all that ambitious to expect from 8 guys who should be and want to be considered starters? Maybe a little considering Paxton but so what that isn't the point. The point is the way in which the staff is being built. Which is around guys that can contribute more than an inning at a time while not being used as a traditional starter. Those totals you list above are not barely over 1000, it adds up to 1257, but that is irrelevant as they mean nothing next yr. And they mean nothing in the context of my post or what Bloom is putting together as far as the staff goes.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 11:02:49 GMT -5
Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, Houck, Whitlock, Paxton. That looks like maybe 1000 quality innings with the Sox embracing getting better performance per outing over innings pitched per start. It looks like the type of staff that Bloom and the Sox will be building for the foreseeable future. I like it and think it could turn into one of the best in baseball next season. Just about every one of them could have an era below 4, I know that is an antiquated stat but if your team era is 3.8 then life is good. Could 23-24 Paxton be the Eovaldi replacement plan? It could be but I hope it is not, I think Nate has a few good years left in him and hope the Sox pony up to keep him longer. Wacha has been under 4 once since 2015. Pivetta will be 29 and has never been below 4.50. The staff could be decent, but we should be realistic. To me, the x factors are Houck and Whitlock. If at the end of the year the staff order is Sale, Eovaldi, Whitlock, Houck, and the rest, I think the staff is likely better than expected. If Houck and Whitlock struggle, and the back end is the rest, it might be trying. OK Mr Negative did you see the words "just about" and "could" in there right, it was there for a reason. I realize this about Pivetta and Wacha but 6 out of the 8 have a history of <4 but thank you for pointing out that 2 of the 8 don't. The x factors are not just Houck and Whitlock, the x factors are just about every pitcher on the Sox and in baseball for that matter. VERY VERY few pitchers in baseball can truly be counted on to be really good yr in yr out and they get paid BIG money. Which the Sox are avoiding, would you rather they spend big on a guy who did it for one season, Robbie Ray. And let me once again state the obvious. The whole idea about a staff that is constructed this way is that guys pitch fewer but more quality innings. Take a look at TBays staff from last season that led the AL in era and tell me it looks like a better staff than what the Sox have going into next year. BTW Tampa also had the fewest quality starts in baseball also. So once again, guys with a history of being decent to good starters can USUALLY dial it up in shorter stints which leads to better performance. That is just a reality that Bloom believes in and is building his staff around. So IMO the Sox now have 7 guys who should contribute between 120 and 180 innings along with a ? in Paxton that should add up to 1000 innings of hopefully very good production. Hopefully being a key word but that is what most teams are dealing with, hope. Who knows maybe Wacha is next seasons Ray, crazier things have happened.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 10:01:00 GMT -5
Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, Houck, Whitlock, Paxton.
That looks like maybe 1000 quality innings with the Sox embracing getting better performance per outing over innings pitched per start. It looks like the type of staff that Bloom and the Sox will be building for the foreseeable future. I like it and think it could turn into one of the best in baseball next season. Just about every one of them could have an era below 4, I know that is an antiquated stat but if your team era is 3.8 then life is good.
Could 23-24 Paxton be the Eovaldi replacement plan? It could be but I hope it is not, I think Nate has a few good years left in him and hope the Sox pony up to keep him longer.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 1, 2021 10:35:25 GMT -5
As much of an optimist as I try to be I have to say that it looks as though the window is closing on the Bergeron/Marchand contending era. And based on the look of the system we could be in for some lean years. IMO if the B's still look like a middle of the road team at the deadline I would become a seller. They need to start building some future assets to have any chance of being really good again anytime soon. It would be hard to watch some guys go but the best ones will bring back the most talent or picks.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 1, 2021 10:27:52 GMT -5
Basically this is a calculated risk that Bloom is taking that makes sense especially if He comes back strong. Which should happen and who knows maybe it fixes what has ailed him in the past.
|
|
|