Red Sox in discussions with Rockies about Helton

[jacksonianmarch]

....impressive lineup to go with an impressive rotation and a deep bullpen.

 

I think you mean a deep throated bullpen.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

having players with "something to prove" typically means you are having players who sucked recently.

 

"something to prove" usually means a player coming back from an injury or not completely fulfilling their potential. It does not mean they "suck". Daisuke Matsuzaka has never sucked in his career but I think its safe to say he has something to prove wouldn't you? I believe every player going to a new team has something to prove to his new fans and teammates. Basically in the case of free agents JD Drew and Julio Lugo....they have something to prove to the Boston crowd that they are worth the money.

[Cityofchampions33]

"something to prove" usually means a player coming back from an injury or not completely fulfilling their potential. It does not mean they "suck". Daisuke Matsuzaka has never sucked in his career but I think its safe to say he has something to prove wouldn't you? I believe every player going to a new team has something to prove to his new fans and teammates. Basically in the case of free agents JD Drew and Julio Lugo....they have something to prove to the Boston crowd that they are worth the money.

 

Good call. And I think this could lead to an eitehr positive or really negative result.

A) They put in 110% and work their asses fof to start strong out of the gate and end up playing really well, especially with chemistry coming by the day.

They start to press and we have 2-3 hitters or pitchers not playing up to their potential.

[jacksonianmarch]

For those who want to know, here is a career breakdown of Helton

 

Todd Helton career splits:

 

Home 722 games 3124 PA .371 avg 176 HR 616 RBI 1.141 OPS

Road 702 games 2952 PA .294 avg 110 HR 380 RBI .900 OPS

 

Last season

Home 275AB .335/.445/.531 for a .976OPS

Away 271AB .266/.360/.421 for a .781OPS

 

It looks like he was a solid hitter, but Coors made him amazing.

[example1]

I imagine that his production stats would increase in the Sox lineup, perhaps enough to mitigate the difference in rate stats from moving from Coors (an A+ hitters park) to Fenway (an A- hitters park).

 

If he's hitting behind Drew, Ortiz and Manny he will be driving in some serious runs. If he's in front of them he will get great pitches to hit.

[jacksonianmarch]

Fenway is an A+ hitters park for righties and a terrible hitters park for lefties. Having a 384 foot fence in close to dead RF is death to power for lefties. It is just sheer common sense. Righties should own in Fenway. Short LF porch, huge fence which will lead to lots of cheap hits and a short LCF wall. But CF, RCF and almost all the way to the RF line is insanely deep. Helton is a lefty. Fenway is a negative for him.

[a700hitter]

700' date=' our lineup is still better top to bottom and nobody soils themselves facing us. It will be tough, but not unbeatable.[/quote']Plenty of pitchers have soiled themselves when facing the yankees the last couple of seasons. Last season, pitchers were able to pitch around Manny and Ortiz, but this year will be a different story with or without Helton. Add Helton to the middle of that mix and it will be fearsome.

[EvilDonut]

Fenway is an A+ hitters park for righties and a terrible hitters park for lefties. Having a 384 foot fence in close to dead RF is death to power for lefties. It is just sheer common sense. Righties should own in Fenway. Short LF porch' date=' huge fence which will lead to lots of cheap hits and a short LCF wall. But CF, RCF and almost all the way to the RF line is insanely deep. Helton is a lefty. Fenway is a negative for him.[/quote']

 

 

 

I can think of a few decent lefties at Fenway.

[a700hitter]

Fenway is an A+ hitters park for righties and a terrible hitters park for lefties. Having a 384 foot fence in close to dead RF is death to power for lefties. It is just sheer common sense. Righties should own in Fenway. Short LF porch' date=' huge fence which will lead to lots of cheap hits and a short LCF wall. But CF, RCF and almost all the way to the RF line is insanely deep. Helton is a lefty. Fenway is a negative for him.[/quote']Despite it's dimensions, lefties have always done well at Fenway, especially if they can go the other way like Helton.

[example1]

Evaluations of players change. The fact that they were highly regarded at Draft time doesn't mean that they currently think they will be stars.

 

okay, between Buchholz, Bowden, Ellsbury and Bard what have they done after the draft to change that trajectory as far as the sox are concerned? Bard has done nothing, except show that he can hit triple-digits without much difficulty. Ellsbury has played gold glove caliber defense, gotten on base at a very solid rate, and shown some of the best speed in every league he's been in.

 

As far as projectability for most guys, I think its relavent to look at size, age, natural skill set, pro-success to this point, and injury history when looking at the pitchers in particular.

 

Few of them have much injury history. I believe Bowden may have had a minor injury in HS, but I'm not even sure of that.

 

At 6'3 (Buchholz), 6'3 (Bowden), and 6'4 (Bard) size doesn't seem to be a problem at all. At 22, 20 and 21 respectively age is not a concern at all either. Buchholz is the oldest, but he's right on track development wise, as are the other two.

 

All three have tremendous natural stuff, even relative to the other top pitching prospects at the same ages. The arm most comparable to Bard's is Verlander, although Verlander is definitely the better pitcher and has more refined stuff. Fastball ways they are similar as starters. Both Bowden and Buchholz have control and K's, which is the type of thing that sticks with players into the bigs.

 

Finally, both buchholz and bowden have done everything that anyone--even those with high expectations--has ever asked of them since being drafted. Bowden (as I tried to point out elsewhere) had numbers last year that were considerably better than Jon Lester did his first season in the minors, at the same age. Buchholz was even better in his first full season.

 

Ramirez was clearly a better prospect and more advanced than any of the players being discussed for Helton.

 

I think Ellsbury is closest, and is probably more polished than Hanley. Let me clarify that: I remember Hanley having the reputation for not always having his head about him. He was a 'gut' player who played with lots of passion and athleticism but wasn't the most intelligent player. I think Ellsbury has the same athleticism as Hanley, both play a defensively important position (Ellsbury is better defensively) but Ellsbury doesn't have the reputation for power or absent-mindedness. He will be MLB ready by next season, if not before. I think its easy to underestimate the amount of maturity that being on a good college team can provide. Ellsbury was essentially the leader on that very good Oregon State program that has produced a number of MLB draftees of the past fw years.

 

Hanley was signed by the Red Sox in 2000, so by 2006 he was major league ready. Five years of seasoning is a long time.

 

My reasoning is that for guys signed out of HS I think a 6 year window is appropriate (by the time they're 24 or 25 they should be close to the bigs if they're going to be above average players), for those who go to college for four years, a 2-3 year window is appropriate if they're going to be stars or above average. Ellsbury went to college for three years and is 2 months older than Hanley. If he had been drafted out of HS they would have had the same gestation period, Ellsbury just did some of it in college.

 

The Red Sox traded him for a young stud pitcher with major league success. This deal is for an older guy and the talent being discussed is not at all equivalent to Hanley Ramirez.

 

If they're talking about Ellsbury + then yes, it is at all equivalent to Hanley Ramirez.

 

During his 5 years in the Red Sox organization opinions about him changed back and forth. At certain times they were not very high on him. The development of kids is an inexact science.

 

But kids with tremendous ability to make contact, get on base, run quickly and catch the ball at the age of 21 tend to only get better at it as they age. If they're better than all of their peers at a certain age, chances are they will continue being better than their peers. The most HRs Hanley had at any level was 8 (2003, Augusta). In the majors he had 17 in his rookie season. It is inexact but there are certainly signs that guys will make it and by treating all prospects the same (i.e., "they don't mean anything until they've proven themselves in the majors") is to completely overlook that fact.

 

To expect that the sox recent drafts will be only as fruitful as most drafts is to overlook the facts that

 

1. They've had the 2nd and 1st ranked draft the last two years, largely because

 

2. They've earned/saved lots of priority draft picks (10 1st or 1st sup picks in last 2 drafts) by letting aging FA's go, which has meant that

 

3. If they were to get the best players in the draft they would have to spend a lot of money in the draft, which they have. More than all but 1 other team, I believe.

 

I think its easy to just disregard the whole prospect issue under the guise that "well, you don't know who is going to be good", but it causes you to look at the glass as half empty in discussions that center around how the "franchise" as a whole is doing.

[CrespoBlows]

Fenway is an A+ hitters park for righties and a terrible hitters park for lefties. Having a 384 foot fence in close to dead RF is death to power for lefties. It is just sheer common sense. Righties should own in Fenway. Short LF porch' date=' huge fence which will lead to lots of cheap hits and a short LCF wall. But CF, RCF and almost all the way to the RF line is insanely deep. Helton is a lefty. Fenway is a negative for him.[/quote']

 

Wrong.

 

Helton is a line-drive hitter in a doubles and triples park. Fenway Park is actually an asset for him.

[jacksonianmarch]

any retort other than just "wrong"? It is common knowledge that RF in Fenway is one of the toughest places to hit it out of.

[riverside sluggers]

Ortiz is one of the few Sox lefties in recent memory to have as much HR success in Fenway Park as he has since he joined in 03

[example1]

The Sox won't need Helton to hit HRs as much as he has in the past. Between he and JD Drew you could realistically be looking at .300/.400/500, 45 HR, 200 RBI, + defense next year. That would hopefully be in addition to the .295/.400/.580, 75 HR, 240 RBI that you'll get from Ortiz and Ramirez. You're also talking about three guys who could come into Yankee stadium and cause some mild-heart attacks with the short porch in RF.

[jacksonianmarch]

I am not knocking Helton in the least. I consider him a wash for Abreu aside from speed. I just think that downplaying his home field advantage and power drain is overlooking very important stats. He'll still post a .380+ OBP and hit you around .300.

[riverside sluggers]

No doubt he wont hit the same ammount of HRs as he did in his glory days, was just point out that somehow Ortiz has defied logic as a lefty playing at Fenway. At the very least I could see Helton getting 20 HRs

 

Considering how the lineup seems to be left-handed stocked, I think some still have their minds set to Trot Nixon.. Ortiz, Helton, Drew, these guys know how to hit against their opposing southpaws. Ortiz & Helton just outright f***ing mash. Really a lineup this good coupled with a starting rotation that is poised to be one of the best this season, would put much less stress on a bullpen still trying to find its way to at least being decent

[jacksonianmarch]

Helton is a lefty who hits lefties like a righty. I was looking at his splits and he MASHES everything righty. Fastballs, sliders, curves and surprisingly he hits over .400 on changeups. He hits lefty heat to the tune of .330 something, but as most lefties do, he hits lefty breaking balls very poorly (.200s range).

[example1]

I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't swing at many breaking pitches from lefties, and the ones he does swing on he is fooled on. He's the type of hitter who could happily wait for a pitcher to prove that he can throw strikes with breaking pitches, or take a walk trying.

[CrespoBlows]

I am not knocking Helton in the least. I consider him a wash for Abreu aside from speed. I just think that downplaying his home field advantage and power drain is overlooking very important stats. He'll still post a .380+ OBP and hit you around .300.

 

Fenway usually boost left-handers batting average by 5%. If he plays for the Red Sox in 2007, I project him to hit:

 

.320/.430/.510/.940, 18 HR's.

[a700hitter]

okay' date=' between Buchholz, Bowden, Ellsbury and Bard what have they done after the draft to change that trajectory as far as the sox are concerned? [/quote'] None of us would know. The numbers that they put up at the lower levels are meaningless. The coaches and scouts need to evaluate progress on many different levels. We have no idea what is in those reports. A guy might have bad work habits, etc.

I think Ellsbury is closest' date=' and is probably more polished than Hanley. Let me clarify that: I remember Hanley having the reputation for not always having his head about him. He was a 'gut' player who played with lots of passion and athleticism but wasn't the most intelligent player. I think Ellsbury has the same athleticism as Hanley, both play a defensively important position (Ellsbury is better defensively) but Ellsbury doesn't have the reputation for power or absent-mindedness. He will be MLB ready by next season, if not before. I think its easy to underestimate the amount of maturity that being on a good college team can provide. Ellsbury was essentially the leader on that very good Oregon State program that has produced a number of MLB draftees of the past fw years. [/quote'] It's funny that you have focused on Ellsbury, because he is one of the select few that I would be unhappy about losing.

To expect that the sox recent drafts will be only as fruitful as most drafts is to overlook the facts that

 

1. They've had the 2nd and 1st ranked draft the last two years, largely because

 

2. They've earned/saved lots of priority draft picks (10 1st or 1st sup picks in last 2 drafts) by letting aging FA's go, which has meant that

 

3. If they were to get the best players in the draft they would have to spend a lot of money in the draft, which they have. More than all but 1 other team, I believe.

 

I think its easy to just disregard the whole prospect issue under the guise that "well, you don't know who is going to be good", but it causes you to look at the glass as half empty in discussions that center around how the "franchise" as a whole is doing.

None of us on this site are in any position to judge whether they are doing a good job in scouting and drafting players until these prospects start to bear fruit in the majors or as trade bait. All of you earnest research is in the end not as accurate as a long term weather forecast. I applaud your interest in this aspect of the organization, but where I am in life, I don't have the interest in devoting the time necessary to researching speculative matters. There's enough for me to debate about the major league team without arguing about prospects or where the organizations prospects should be ranked.

[jacksonianmarch]

as for the ranking of their previous drafts, their 2005 draft class is now the class of their organization. Buchholz, Bowden, Hansen and Ellsbury were all from that class. The years before that have given MDC, Pedroia, Lester and Papelbon.

 

Therefore, you have a large gap between the 2004 and before prospects and the 2005 draftees. Buchholz and Bowden's ETA is really 2009. Ellsbury is 2008 and Hansen is ruined to this point.

[example1]

It's funny that you have focused on Ellsbury' date=' because he is one of the select few that I would be unhappy about losing.[/quote']

 

I don't think it's funny, I think it makes sense. Out of the 100 or so Sox minor-leaguers the Sox have, most of us identify about 3-4 players we wouldn't want to move. For me its Ellsbury, Bowden, Buchholz who are on the highest levels. Bard is a question mark, but there are some other pitchers (Cox and Masterson, in particular) who I hope they keep but could see trading because of their upside. that's it. We're not advocating NEVER trading a player, but simply that there are a few players that we have already used considerable resources (supplemental 1st round picks) to acquire who have not reached a ceiling and who seem to be good guys to have.

 

 

I applaud your interest in this aspect of the organization, but where I am in life, I don't have the interest in devoting the time necessary to researching speculative matters. There's enough for me to debate about the major league team without arguing about prospects or where the organizations prospects should be ranked.

 

Its easy to make a blanket statements about the value of prospects if you don't pay attention to the facts about them. I know you don't talk out of your ass and you know a bit about the 'specs, but to say that you don't have time to pay attention to the prospects and then to imply that those of us who do pay attention to them can't possibly forecast them at all seem contradictory. To take from philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". If you don't pay attention to them then you should say "I'm not sure whether or not we should trade Ellsbury or Bard or Buchholz or Bowden for Helton" rather than "no prospects work out, we should trade any prospects for Helton" (which I felt was implied by your statements on this issue).

 

I know you've had a lifetime of watching prospects fail to jade you, but there are plenty of people who make a living from watching prospects and judging whether they will pan out or not. I do not. However, I don't think its too hard to make predictions about certain players. Starting pitchers with + stuff, who haven't been hit at any level, guys who strike out more than 1 per inning, who have youth, size and a mid-90's FB, those guys get shots at MLB. You don't just trade them willy nilly if you're looking to make your team young and cost effective.

 

Thanks for calling my attempt to argue "ernest". I take that as a compliment and I appreciate all the work you put into discussing the MLB guys. What I said above (about you not paying attention to minor leaguers) can certainly not be said of your knowledge of the big club. You're as good a fan as any. I only recently started paying a lot of attention to the Sox minor leaguers, probably 2 years ago, so its new for me as well.

[example1]

Therefore' date=' you have a large gap between the 2004 and before prospects and the 2005 draftees. Buchholz and Bowden's ETA is really 2009. Ellsbury is 2008 and Hansen is ruined to this point.[/quote']

 

The Sox only had a 2nd Round pick in 04 and they took Pedroia. They lost their first when they signed Foulke.

 

What changed is that the sox let players go. They got Ellsbury and Lowrie by letting Cabrera go, they got Hansen and Bowden by letting Lowe go and they got Buchholz and Jonathan Egan by letting Pedro go. 7 picks in the top 60 will get you some good players. In 06 they had 4 of the top 43, which is also very good and they took two high upside high-schoolers and two established college pitchers. But then they also had 3 more picks in the next two rounds and got Masterson, Bates and Cox who are more reliable college players who slipped down. The 06 class has a higher upside I think (Place and Bard) but fewer players the sox will rely on to produce soon.

[jacksonianmarch]

My point was that they have a large gap between the talent pool. Which surprises me. Those deals last yr left the sox in the lurch.

 

At the same time, there arent any can't miss prospects in the sox organization at this moment. I think that is what 700 is alluding to. You dont have the Papelbon's in the minors anymore. You have a bunch of kids who havent even tamed A+ ball yet and a guy who was bad in his debut then was struck with cancer. I think this is the point that .700 is trying to make. None of these kids have cant miss tattooed on their foreheads, so dealing one is a crapshoot as they all seem to have the same upside and same drawbacks.

 

The only real prospect the sox have at this juncture is Ellsbury. After him, AA is barren and A+ ball will have 2 of the 3 B's. Other than that, the sox system, even with all those highly rated drafts, is devoid of big talent. The lower levels and the DSL could have something huge, but nothing highly followed or scripted. Time will tell.

[a700hitter]

I don't think it's funny' date=' I think it makes sense. Out of the 100 or so Sox minor-leaguers the Sox have, most of us identify about 3-4 players we wouldn't want to move. [/quote'] It was only funny for me in the respect that Ellsbury is one of the guys that I would not argue about with you.

Its easy to make a blanket statements about the value of prospects if you don't pay attention to the facts about them. I know you don't talk out of your ass and you know a bit about the 'specs, but to say that you don't have time to pay attention to the prospects and then to imply that those of us who do pay attention to them can't possibly forecast them at all seem contradictory. To take from philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". If you don't pay attention to them then you should say "I'm not sure whether or not we should trade Ellsbury or Bard or Buchholz or Bowden for Helton" rather than "no prospects work out, we should trade any prospects for Helton" (which I felt was implied by your statements on this issue).

I pay some attention to the prospects, but not as much as others. If your forecasting is 15 to 20% more accurate than mine, it would still be very speculative. I don't mean this as a criticism, because the people in the best position to make these decisions are far from 100% in their projections.

I know you've had a lifetime of watching prospects fail to jade you' date=' but there are plenty of people who make a living from watching prospects and judging whether they will pan out or not. I do not. However, I don't think its too hard to make predictions about certain players. Starting pitchers with + stuff, who haven't been hit at any level, guys who strike out more than 1 per inning, who have youth, size and a mid-90's FB, those guys get shots at MLB. You don't just trade them willy nilly if you're looking to make your team young and cost effective.[/quote']I don't want to trade them "wily nily", but I do think it is worth moving prospects at times when it means getting back a productive superstar. Helton is only 33. Alot of people on this site think 30 is over the hill. I am not one of them. I think Helton could have several productive years ahead of him.

[riverside sluggers]

I dont think Lester was necessarily bad in his majors debut this past season. Wouldnt it be conceivable that his cancer had affected his stamina some last year? Besides its not like he was like Sean Henn for us, he did finish 7-2 with a sub 5 ERA before finding about his illness. His future is still bright to mark his name someday in the rotation

[jacksonianmarch]

I dont think Lester was necessarily bad in his majors debut this past season. Wouldnt it be conceivable that his cancer had affected his stamina some last year? Besides its not like he was like Sean Henn for us' date=' he did finish 7-2 with a sub 5 ERA before finding about his illness. His future is still bright to mark his name someday in the rotation[/quote']

 

I think he was a bust for what he was billed as. He could still be a solid mid rotation pitcher, but anyone who listened to Gammons slobber over him would have thought he was the second coming of Koufax. After looking at his minor league #s, he never should have been billed that way. He was always a guy who walked too many and allowed too many batters to reach base. And his stuff was not what it was billed as.

 

His lymphoma may have snipped some speed of his heat, may have taken some bite off his curve, but the fact remains that his performance when healthy against inferior minor league talent was not as lights out as Gammons considered him to be.

 

As far as his production being "okay", that all depends on what you look at. His 4.76ERA may not have been TERRIBLE but his 1.65WHIP was. His ERA could have been 6+ if he didnt get a little lucky.

 

As for Henn, you may see some more of him, sadly. Henn was converted to a reliever last yr and had a solid second half. He is out of options, so he will get a shot to make the team. I wont shed a tear if he is cut though, he was AWFUL as a starter in NY.

[Rdsxmbnt]

come on it wasnt just Gammons, Lester was a top pitching prospect and still is going to be a #2 SP IMO.

[example1]

You say all of that about Lester, but I look at his longest pro-season, his AA season in 2005:

 

11-6, 148.1 IP, 163 K. 2.61 ERA, 9.89 K/9, 1.15 WHIP

 

and I say "that guy's a pretty good pitcher". He was 21 when he did that. He's still very, very young at 23 years old. He had a game last year where he struck out 10. His average game score was 47, but he had a high of 80 (compared to Beckett's high of 81). With more innings that would put him in the middle of this list:

 

Aaron Cook 48

Cliff Lee 47.8

Jarrod Washburn 47.7

Mark Hendrickson 47.6

Matt Morris 47.5

Tim Hudson 47.2

Brad Radke 47.1

Claudio Vargas 47.1

Jon Lester 47

Kris Benson 46.9

Zach Duke 46.8

Livan Hernandez 46.7

Miguel Batista 46.4

Paul Maholm 46.1

Joe Blanton 45.1

 

It's not a absolute lock statistic. But it does sort of speaks to what type of production one should expect from a pitcher in terms of innings, runs allowed, etc., and with these names I see a lot of reason to be happy about the performance of the 22 year old.

 

 

 

his best game score was an 80 (compare that to Beckett's best: 81,

[jacksonianmarch]

His 80 was vs the Royals. I could post an 80 against he royals.

 

His best season was a 1.15WHIP in AA. That is true.

 

But in 2003 he was in A ball and had a pretty poor 1.38.

 

In 2004 his WHIP was in the 1.33 range between A and A+ ball

 

In 2005, he had a career minor league yr in AA. 1.15WHIP, but his walk rate was only down 0.2/9IP. His H/9IP went down 1.2/9IP. This insinuates that even though his WHIP dropped, his control only minimally improved.

 

In 2006, he had a 1.46WHIP in AAA, which is pathetic. This is mostly due to a 1.5BB/9IP increase. His H/9IP went up by 1 per 9 as well as could be expected with a jump of level. Then he went to the majors and put up the stinker of a 1.65WHIP.

 

Therefore, you can see that his control was never strong and it ballooned worse when he was rushed.