2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[SoxSport]

Cafardo's latest interview with Crawford:

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2012/02/crawford_surpri.html

 

Have to think his wrist was a factor in his hitting last year.

 

The dumbest off-season public remark was Henry blurting out on WEEI he wasn't in favor of signing Crawford.

 

Henry has expanded on his reasoning, which turn out to be all the obvious ones every Red Sox fan old enough to walk thought of immediately. Except Epstein.

[a700hitter]

Ostensibly the argument is that Iglesias couldn't be ready to play for the Sox' date=' since that was the context of the discussion and you are coming to the defense of those arguing that he isn't. The crux of your argument is that because the words "Ozzie Smith" were mentioned in a discussion with "Jose Iglesias" people are making direct comparisons of the two, saying Iglesias IS Ozzie Smith. Saying he has defense like Ozzie's is not saying he's Ozzie. Comparing the two is an illogical jump, [b']ergo, Iglesias couldn't be ready to play for the Sox due to his s***** offense.[/b]

 

If you aren't saying that then you are only obfuscating the discussion by saying people here are saying he is as good as Ozzie Smith, which isn't happening. In other words, at best you are making the discussion about something it isn't; at worst you are creating a strawman to defend the same point that everyone you are siding with is defending. Neither of those is very good.

 

And, it is Monday, so I can't argue with you there.

My participation in the Iglesias discussion has consisted of me stating an opinion that Bobby V will give him every opportunity to win the job and that he will not have to hit much to win the job. He gave the Mets starting SS job to a light hitting slick fielding SS in Rey Ordonez. I was not taking the position that he wasn't ready. However, the justification by people supporting Iglesias to be the SS that he fields like Ozzie Smith is just stupid. It's not an obfuscation of any argument. I am not making any argument for or against the kid. It's a comment on a stupid justification for the kid's case, not a strawman. Saying that he fields like Ozzie Smith is like saying "he's Ozzie", because ozzie was known for his D, not his offense.

 

I don't mind arguing with you about things, but if you are going to accuse me of using certain debating techniques, I'd like to know what I am arguing about. You have apparently placed me on one side of this argument without my participation on that side of the argument. Saying that people are being ridiculous for comparing him to Ozzie Smith is not a straw man, because I have not taken a position on the kid other than he will get his chance from Bobby V.

[a700hitter]

Remember, Youkilis, Bard and Ellsbury all had holes in their games at some point of their development. All you have to do is go back and read all of a700hitter's prognostications about their future to realize that they were anything but a sure thing.

Feel free to go back and check my prognostications about these guys. When I saw Bard in Spring Training 2009, I reported that he was doing nothing but throw strikes and that he had seemed to tame his wildness. I also stated that i expected him to make it to Fenway that year. Ellsbury, I liked him from day 1. In his second AB that I watched, he hit a triple and it was pretty exciting. I was very high on his skill set.

[a700hitter]

Ultimately, I think the important thing to take from any mention of Ozzie Smith as it relates to Iglesias has been hit on by others. Ozzie Smith is an archetype that represents a poor offensive player that plays transcendent defense in providing value to his team. Scouting reports for Iglesias put him in that group. Whether or not he's "Ozzie Smith" is irrelevant as long as he plays well enough in that archetype to provide value on the field.

A SS with over 2,400 hits and almost 600 SBs is not an archetype for a "poor offensive player that plays transcendent defense." There were plenty of other slick fielding SS's with long careers that contributed far less offensively than Ozzie Smith, eg. Bud Harrelson, Mark Belanger, and Larry Bowa. Ozzie became a very effective offensive player. He was not a poor offensive player. He was the archetype slap hitter, but he did a lot of good things on the offensive side.

[jung]

I do think that the comment about a guy needing to really be an excessive run inhibitor in order to make up for 0 bat is accurate. That might in fact be where folks are reading more into the Smith comparisons.

 

If for example Iglasias is currently as reported, having difficulty hitting AAA pitching, then if he does come up now would that not inhibit his ability to improve his hitting? Honestly it sounds like he should be back first trying to hit AA pitchers since that is a major transition point for pitchers making their way to the bigs. I was not kidding when I said earlier that if the kid never sees anything he can hit, he may never hit anything.

 

If that happens then you are more or less left with two potential outcomes:

1. The guy is the next coming of and is an embryonic Smith or close to it

2. You are grooming a guy and spending a good deal of money on him to end up with somebody that comes in late in games for defensive purposes

 

So maybe it is a good time to add some color to the Smith end of the discussion. For me, the player that sits behind the stats can be described this way. Smith covered about half a position in every direction beyond average SS, including the short outfield positions. He not only got to balls that far away in every direction but made plays on them. That might not sound like much until you really try to visualize a SS doing that. He made plays beyond what you would call deep in the hole one way and past 2nd base the other way just as examples. As for short outfield, Smith is the only SS I have seen that outfielders would be run off of by as far away as yards, almost like it is easier for Ozzie to make what we would think is a spectacular run and catch than it is for me as an outfielder to make a very good run and catch. So for the good of the team I am going to peel off here.

 

I probably got to watch more Smith play than I had a right to mainly because I really went out of my way to see him play. It was that much of a treat. If Iggy is the next coming of the Wizard, I can promise you that as a fan you are in for the treat of a lifetime. There is almost nothing more exciting and exhilarating than watching somebody that dominant making plays from the SS position because there are so many balls that can be within reach if you possess the speed and quickness of the Wizard while also getting an excellent jump on every ball hit in any direction. If you have all that going for you and a magnet for a glove it is no wonder that you might treat fans to 162 magic shows at least while in your prime.

 

But I don't know where to draw the "inhibits runs but has no bat" discussion if Smith is the context and myself I am not comfortable with using Smith archetypical as a starting point. I can't thing of another SS that I saw play that got close to Ozzie. He was that much more dominant as a defensive player than any of the other great SS that I saw or have seen before or since.

 

At any rate this is the best I can describe why the discussion is difficult for me. I don't know if others that have difficulty with using Smith in any context with regard to Iggy have the same issues I have or not. I guess the whole thing might not matter if we were not trading off on Iggy improving his 0 bat if we bring him up now but I just don't see how he improves his hitting from where he appears to be today.

 

I do think V will know what he is looking at when he sees it. I also think that the Sox pre-V have been pushing Iggy up the ladder faster than he might should be pushed. That is the part that worries me. There is some pressure that appears has been moving Iggy along at a faster pace than is best already.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm glad Mark Belanger's name came up. I'll be happy if that's the guy Iglesias is ultimately compared to.

[example1]

Feel free to go back and check my prognostications about these guys. When I saw Bard in Spring Training 2009' date=' I reported that he was doing nothing but throw strikes and that he had seemed to tame his wildness. I also stated that i expected him to make it to Fenway that year. Ellsbury, I liked him from day 1. In his second AB that I watched, he hit a triple and it was pretty exciting. I was very high on his skill set.[/quote']

 

They were prospects at one time, and at that time your stance on prospects was well known.

[a700hitter]

They were prospects at one time' date=' and at that time your stance on prospects was well known.[/quote']Yes, my stance on prospects is to keep the best prospects unless you can get a Superstar for them, and hype and trade everyone else.

[a700hitter]

Jenks may be long way off

Globe Staff February 20, 2012 04:49 PM

 

By Nick Cafardo, Globe Staff

 

FORT MYERS, Fla. — It appears reliever Bobby Jenks, who missed most of last season with assorted injuries, including a pulmonary embolism, may not be able to take part in spring training, according to manager Bobby Valentine.

 

"Bobby said he’d like to take one week at a time," Valentine said. "That means he’s a long way about thinking baseball activities. He's really had a terrible off-season health-wise. He’s a real back-burner guy. I don’t think we’ll see him in baseball activities for quite a while if at all this spring."

Valentine also indicated the team may hold veteran Aaron Cook back based on his past shoulder problems. Newly-acquired Ross Ohlendorf will be in the same boat.

 

"Aaron Cook’s has had shoulder issues in the past where he’s come back too soon. He's done the step-forward and two-step-back thing and we’re trying to prevent that from happening again. We‘re trying to get him to cruise on through. He’s not hurt just trying to learn from the past," he said.

 

On lefty specialist Rich Hill, who is also coming back from Tommy John surgery: "Rich Hill will not pitch in games down here to the best of my guestimate. But he’s very recovered and on his way to pitching in games. I’ll bet he uses this month of March to get to the month of April where he’ll pitch in games to possibly, if everything is smooth, possibly get there in May," Valentine said.

 

Are Daisuke Matsuzaka and Hill on similar paths?

 

"Yep. Pretty similar. I think Rich is throwing a little better. I think recovery and healing process is very similar and I think it could be a similar pace," Valentine said.

 

Valentine spoke about Kevin Youkilis and admitted the third baseman was limited defensively last season because of his injuries.

 

“I think he was limited, percentage-wise I don’t know how to answer that. His ability to turn and throw and turn and catch were not what he want it to be I’m sure. Someone mentioned how did Mike (Aviles) look. How Youk looks is going to affect the left side of the infield and the other side is going to be the shortstop, so it’s going to be important how he moves.

 

"Statistically, I have digested stats on our play at third base. I think he was about three balls to the minus side to his right and five balls to the minus side to his left. And two balls plus coming in, which surprised me statistically. I was a little enlightened by that."

 

Valentine said he has reached a decision on whether there will be alcohol in the clubhouse, but wouldn't share it with the media until he tells the players.

 

He said the spring training rules for the team will be similar to last season but said players will not be able to drive to away games on their own. They will have to take the team bus.

 

"The manager and coaches will drive and at times there might be a player there because at times there might be a ( game that I’m gonna watch and the bus leaves early," Valentine said.

 

Valentine has also scheduled two "B" games, one with the Twins on March 1 and one with the Pittsburgh Pirates on March 7.

 

He said he's been met with resistance on trying to add two innings to the games against Northeastern and Boston College to open the new stadium on March. Valentine said he may use his own pitchers on the college side to get them more work, mentioning Vicente Padilla and Carlos Silva as candidates to pitch.

It doesn't look like there is much hope for Jenks. It doesn't look like Cook or Ohlendorf will hit the ground running.

[jung]

I am happier with Belanger being in the discussion as well. Of course Belanger played with Brooks Robinson on one side of him and Davey Johnson on the other side for a goodly part of his career.

[User Name]

Cafardo's latest interview with Crawford:

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2012/02/crawford_surpri.html

 

Have to think his wrist was a factor in his hitting last year.

 

The dumbest off-season public remark was Henry blurting out on WEEI he wasn't in favor of signing Crawford.

 

Henry has expanded on his reasoning, which turn out to be all the obvious ones every Red Sox fan old enough to walk thought of immediately. Except Epstein.

 

And how do you know this wasn't a Lucchino signing? Crawford signifies the opposite of everything Epstein ever stood for in regards to team building. Everybody knows that. Except you and the usual haters.

[ORS]

A SS with over 2' date='400 hits and almost 600 SBs is not an archetype for a "poor offensive player that plays transcendent defense." There were plenty of other slick fielding SS's with long careers that contributed far less offensively than Ozzie Smith, eg. Bud Harrelson, Mark Belanger, and Larry Bowa. Ozzie became a very effective offensive player. He was not a poor offensive player. He was the archetype slap hitter, but he did a lot of good things on the offensive side.[/quote']

Those are counting stats, easily explained by his long career, and not indicative of the ability to perform over a fixed period of time like the rate stats are. Even when position is taken into account he was a negative offensive contributor over his career, and this includes his baserunning. He had a stretch of about 8 years in the middle of his career where has was mostly average with a couple of years where he was almost 2 wins above average offensively. While it's probably more accurate to state he was "below average" than "poor", he is still, in the common parlance, the example used to consider such players. So, yes, he is the archetype, even if the common consideration of him is a bit hyperbolic.

[Muggah]

Cafardo's latest interview with Crawford:

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2012/02/crawford_surpri.html

 

Have to think his wrist was a factor in his hitting last year.

 

The dumbest off-season public remark was Henry blurting out on WEEI he wasn't in favor of signing Crawford.

 

Henry has expanded on his reasoning, which turn out to be all the obvious ones every Red Sox fan old enough to walk thought of immediately. Except Epstein.

 

Yes indeed. Another stroke of Blunder genius.

[VA Sox Fan]

Yes indeed. Another stroke of Blunder genius.

 

That's a bit premature after only one season.

[FredLynn]

Do you just not understand what he is saying?

 

Sox farm system average now. Reason. Most Sox top prospects currently on Red Sox ML roster or traded for player currently producing at ML level. Good drafts last 2 years. Good young talent, only 19-20 years old. Sox system rate higher as young players develop.

 

Separate all the emotion and butt-hurt in this thread and this concept is fairly easy to grasp. If you can not grasp this concept, you have an agenda. If you have one fine, just don't deny it. Jacko has an agenda, but he also doesn't deny it.

 

Let's all try to be big boys and be happy for the fact the Boys are in camp, Lot's of sun and green grass to follow.

 

I am not sure who you are addressing, but you are correct: the Sox farm system IS average now. Not good: average. There is some potential there, but not as much as either the Yankees or Rays. I don't like it, but thats the way it is.

[FredLynn]

The Red Sox have been drafting high-upside HS talent for years. The reason why the Sox farm system is "middle of the pack" is because that strategy gives you better overall talent at the cost of more development time, thus most of the upper-tier talent the Sox have amassed is in the lower tier of the minors. Any self-respecting talent evaluator will tell you that the Sox are loaded with high-impact talent, but they can't be ranked any higher because that talent will take a while to reach the Majors.

 

Oh, and of the two links posted to "Rankings list" one is from before the 2011 season and the other one is Bleacher report, which is completely unreliable.

 

The reason why the Sox farm system is "middle of the pack"

 

Then you agree that the Sox farm system is neither good nor bad; its MIDDLE OF THE PACK, just as that gosh darned Bleacher Report said, right? If you disagree, find me a couple of references to support your position, if such references exist.

Also, all those guys who are "developing" are at high risk not to make it at all. Some will come through and help the club; most won't.

[FredLynn]

I'm glad Mark Belanger's name came up. I'll be happy if that's the guy Iglesias is ultimately compared to.

 

Belanger or Visquel...or a few other sub-Smith guys would be fine. Personally, I think he has a lot to prove before his value can accurately be assessed. There is a decent chance that he won't make it in the majors too.

[a700hitter]

Those are counting stats' date=' easily explained by his long career, and not indicative of the ability to perform over a fixed period of time like the rate stats are. Even when position is taken into account he was a negative offensive contributor over his career, and this includes his baserunning. He had a stretch of about 8 years in the middle of his career where has was mostly average with a couple of years where he was almost 2 wins above average offensively. While it's probably more accurate to state he was "below average" than "poor", he is still, in the common parlance, the example used to consider such players. So, yes, he is the archetype, even if the common consideration of him is a bit hyperbolic.[/quote']If you are looking at his OPS as the sole measure you would conclude that he was below average. That is attributable to the fact that he had no power at all. His OBP wasn't bad. He was very productive on the bases. He rarely struck out, about 30 times a year. He put the ball in play making productive outs. He wasn't noted for his offense, but he was far from the archetype that you think he was. Belanger and others were great fielders and basically automatic outs. Ozzie was not an automatic out.

[User Name]

The reason why the Sox farm system is "middle of the pack"

 

Then you agree that the Sox farm system is neither good nor bad; its MIDDLE OF THE PACK, just as that gosh darned Bleacher Report said, right? If you disagree, find me a couple of references to support your position, if such references exist.

Also, all those guys who are "developing" are at high risk not to make it at all. Some will come through and help the club; most won't.

 

John Sickels rated the Red Sox 2012 farm system at 11th with potential for big improvements. I believe John Sickels is a much better source of scouting than Bleacher Report, as should everyone else.

[Bellhorn04]

Belanger or Visquel...or a few other sub-Smith guys would be fine. Personally' date=' I think he has a lot to prove before his value can accurately be assessed. There is a decent chance that he won't make it in the majors too.[/quote']

 

All highly-touted prospects have to prove they can do it in the bigs. I've been saying the same thing about Lavarnway. Look at Anthony Rizzo last year. Absolutely tore it up in AAA, then couldn't hit his weight in the bigs. It's a huge step. Not just in level of competition, but in the psychological part.

[ORS]

If you are looking at his OPS as the sole measure you would conclude that he was below average. That is attributable to the fact that he had no power at all. His OBP wasn't bad. He was very productive on the bases. He rarely struck out' date=' about 30 times a year. He put the ball in play making productive outs. He wasn't noted for his offense, but he was far from the archetype that you think he was. Belanger and others were great fielders and basically automatic outs. Ozzie was not an automatic out.[/quote']

I'm looking at positional wRAA, weighted Runs Above Average for his position. He was below average over his career. And, he is, like it or not, the most common example used to consider light hitting defensive wizards at the SS position. I've already said the archetype doesn't fit him perfectly, but it is what it is. It's not what "I" think he is, it's how he is commonly used in conversation on the topic.

 

Are you denying this is the case? If not, this is a semantical argument where we are not in disagreement.

[FredLynn]

John Sickels rated the Red Sox 2012 farm system at 11th with potential for big improvements. I believe John Sickels is a much better source of scouting than Bleacher Report' date=' as should everyone else.[/quote']

 

Got a link to that?

Also, 11th out of 30 teams is still middle of the pack. Gotta crack the top 10 to be in the upper third. Both the Yankees and the Rays are in the top third, as are the Blue Jays.

[FredLynn]

All highly-touted prospects have to prove they can do it in the bigs. I've been saying the same thing about Lavarnway. Look at Anthony Rizzo last year. Absolutely tore it up in AAA' date=' then couldn't hit his weight in the bigs. It's a huge step. Not just in level of competition, but in the psychological part.[/quote']

 

True. Thats why I didn't mind trading some of our top prospects for AGON. He is a proven commodity; the others are just minor leaguers with potential. Look at Lars Anderson...Bowden...Doubront..and many many others who were labeled by talent evaluators as "can't miss" prospects, only to flame out. Same with Craig Hanson..many many others. This could very easily happen with Iglesias.

[User Name]

Got a link to that?

Also, 11th out of 30 teams is still middle of the pack. Gotta crack the top 10 to be in the upper third. Both the Yankees and the Rays are in the top third, as are the Blue Jays.

 

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/1/23/2728027/2012-baseball-farm-system-rankings-prospects

 

Depends on your definition of middle of the pack. Also, the Jays and Rays are top 10, but the Yanks aren't after losing Montero. Let's of course ignore that the Rays and Jays have been amassing high 1st-round picks for years, yet the Jays don't have a homegrown core as strong as the Sox.

[ORS]

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/1/23/2728027/2012-baseball-farm-system-rankings-prospects

 

Depends on your definition of middle of the pack. Also, the Jays and Rays are top 10, but the Yanks aren't after losing Montero. Let's of course ignore that the Rays and Jays have been amassing high 1st-round picks for years, yet the Jays don't have a homegrown core as strong as the Sox.

And....

 

wait for it.....

 

Bleacher Report for 2012 has the Sox at 10 and Yankees at 15. The link posted earlier was from February of 2011.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1057599-power-ranking-the-best-farm-systems-in-mlb#/articles/1057599-power-ranking-the-best-farm-systems-in-mlb/page/16

 

It looks like B/R is just regurgitating Sickels list with a tweak or two to make it look original.

[FredLynn]

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/1/23/2728027/2012-baseball-farm-system-rankings-prospects

 

Depends on your definition of middle of the pack. Also, the Jays and Rays are top 10, but the Yanks aren't after losing Montero. Let's of course ignore that the Rays and Jays have been amassing high 1st-round picks for years, yet the Jays don't have a homegrown core as strong as the Sox.

 

Top third of 30 teams: ranked 1-10; middle of the pack: 11-20; bottom of the pack: 21-30. Pretty simple.

The REASON the Rays and Jays are ahead of us is that they have had better draft positions for years, but that doesn't change the fact that they ARE ahead of us. With all that minor league depth, the Blue Jays will be giving us a run for our money soon too.

[Bellhorn04]

And....

 

wait for it.....

 

Bleacher Report for 2012 has the Sox at 10 and Yankees at 15. The link posted earlier was from February of 2011.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1057599-power-ranking-the-best-farm-systems-in-mlb#/articles/1057599-power-ranking-the-best-farm-systems-in-mlb/page/16

 

It looks like B/R is just regurgitating Sickels list with a tweak or two to make it look original.

 

LOL

[FredLynn]

And....

 

wait for it.....

 

Bleacher Report for 2012 has the Sox at 10 and Yankees at 15. The link posted earlier was from February of 2011.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1057599-power-ranking-the-best-farm-systems-in-mlb#/articles/1057599-power-ranking-the-best-farm-systems-in-mlb/page/16

 

It looks like B/R is just regurgitating Sickels list with a tweak or two to make it look original.

 

But the Bleacher Report is unreliable, right?

Thrilled to see that we are at the 10th position rather than the 11th position. Not so thrilled that our hitting prospects have more potential than our pitching prospects because pitching is our major weakness right now; our hitting is decent. Maybe we could trade some of those hitters for a good SP.

[example1]

But the Bleacher Report is unreliable, right?

 

It's certainly unreliable if you're using the wrong year!

 

And cut to the immediate deflection from that embarassment...

 

Thrilled to see that we are at the 10th position rather than the 11th position. Not so thrilled that our hitting prospects have more potential than our pitching prospects because pitching is our major weakness right now; our hitting is decent. Maybe we could trade some of those hitters for a good SP.

 

Maybe they could. Certainly if a year from now they have a few hitters in the top 100 (especially OF) you can expect someone to get traded.

[FredLynn]

It's certainly unreliable if you're using the wrong year!

 

And cut to the immediate deflection from that embarassment...

 

 

 

Maybe they could. Certainly if a year from now they have a few hitters in the top 100 (especially OF) you can expect someone to get traded.

 

The truth of the matter is that ALL of those rankings change almost weekly, certainly every month, during the season. Its not a static assessment. I do not view the Red Sox farm system as "Good" right now, partly because of the talent level overall, and partly because there simply aren't enough high quality pitchers to help us in the most needy area for the team. We are going to have to buy our pitchers for the foreseeable future, and thats very expensive.