Red Sox 2012/2013 Offseason Thread

[Palodios]

The word "elite" gets thrown around way too liberally around here.

 

I'm assuming this is referring to me. If the #5 ranked prospect in the minor leagues isn't an elite pitching prospect, than what is?

[User Name]

I'm assuming this is referring to me. If the #5 ranked prospect in the minor leagues isn't an elite pitching prospect, than what is?

 

That's not quite how it works. The top 5 prospects at any position at given time aren't necessarily elite. Elite refers to a generational talent, which Bauer certainly is not. A prospect's ability and makeup makes them elite, not something as subjective as ranking.

[Palodios]

That's not quite how it works. The top 5 prospects at any position at given time aren't necessarily elite. Elite refers to a generational talent,

 

You're arguing semantics here, and even so, missing an important distinction. Generational is a step beyond elite. Pedro is generational. Greinke is elite. In just the same way, an elite pitching prospect can be very different from a generational pitching prospect.

[BSN07]

You're arguing semantics here, and even so, missing an important distinction. Generational is a step beyond elite. Pedro is generational. Greinke is elite. In just the same way, an elite pitching prospect can be very different from a generational pitching prospect.

 

I agree. I would consider Bauer and say Myers as "Elite" prospects. Strasburg, Harper, Felix and Trout were "Generational" prospects.

[Bellhorn04]

This reminds me of the 'ace' debate. There's no objective definition for any of these terms, at least not that I'm aware of.

[Dojji]

I've seen the word to mean both. But all that really means is neither of you can say with any confidence that the other is wrong.

 

When I think of something being elite, depending on the context what I think of is something in the range of top 10% to top quartile. A relative statement in other words. Generational talent is a whole different plane of discussion. A player can be the best in the league at his position -- elite in any reasonable definition of the word -- and not be generational.

 

CC Sabathia is probably elite. He was the ace of a very good team and in play for the Cy a few years straight. NWIH is he generational. Pitchers have come and gone on a regular basis that stand out more than he does. Ditto for Cliff Lee. The only real generational talent I can think of right now who's currently playing is Justin Verlander. That's the guy who's going to get remembered after he's done, if anyone is. I'm not convinced any other SP, or any hitter, is special enough right now. Stanton is on his way but has a ways to go. No one else is really doing it for me yet.

 

And then of course just to muddy the waters a bit, there's generational PLAYERS who are not generational TALENTS. A classic example is Curt Schilling. He's generational in the sense that Bill Mazeroski was generational. What he did over a short period of time was far bigger and added far more to the game than the sum of his numbers.

[BSN07]

I've seen the word to mean both. But all that really means is neither of you can say with any confidence that the other is wrong.

 

When I think of something being elite, depending on the context what I think of is something in the range of top 10% to top quartile. A relative statement in other words. Generational talent is a whole different plane of discussion. A player can be the best in the league at his position -- elite in any reasonable definition of the word -- and not be generational.

 

CC Sabathia is probably elite. He was the ace of a very good team and in play for the Cy a few years straight. NWIH is he generational. Pitchers have come and gone on a regular basis that stand out more than he does. Ditto for Cliff Lee. The only real generational talent I can think of right now who's currently playing is Justin Verlander. That's the guy who's going to get remembered after he's done, if anyone is. I'm not convinced any other SP, or any hitter, is special enough right now. Stanton is on his way but has a ways to go. No one else is really doing it for me yet.

 

And then of course just to muddy the waters a bit, there's generational PLAYERS who are not generational TALENTS. A classic example is Curt Schilling. He's generational in the sense that Bill Mazeroski was generational. What he did over a short period of time was far bigger and added far more to the game than the sum of his numbers.

 

Miguel Cabrera is a generational hitter.

[User Name]

The problem is that i have not seen anywhere other than some talksox posters who are enamored with Bauer for some strange reason, the kid being referred to as an upper echelon talent. The scouts refer to him as a very good talent with control and maturity problems, not elite. I will trust the scouts on this one.

[Lucienbel]

The problem is that i have not seen anywhere other than some talksox posters who are enamored with Bauer for some strange reason, the kid being referred to as an upper echelon talent. The scouts refer to him as a very good talent with control and maturity problems, not elite. I will trust the scouts on this one.

 

I'm also going to agree with this one. Especially after watching a few of his starts. The attitude problems even seemed to stand out some when he was on the mound. I've seen a lot of people speculating that this is why Arizona got rid of him, even though they claim it isn't. It certainly seems like it is to me though. Either way, it kind of seemed like they didn't want to deal with him anymore.

[Dojji]

Miguel Cabrera is a generational hitter.

 

No he isn't. He's elite. but he's not a player that makes my gut churn to see my best pitchers facing him the way Manny must have in his heyday, or the way Ichiro did as a generational caliber contact hitter. He's an exceptional cleanup type, incredibly valuable, I'd love to have him on the Sox, but he's no more generational than Kevin Youkilis was at his peak. Nor is he any more generational than, say, Adrian Gonzalez.

[a700hitter]

It's silly to argue over these terms which are themselves just part of current day popular parlance. Ten or twenty years from now we will be using different terms. Miggy is pretty great and he would be a top hitter in any generation. He is the best hitter in the game right now without question, and he's in his prime. He may be better than Manny, and he doesn't have the stigma of PEDs.

[SCM33]

......are we really arguing stupid terms like "generational" and "elite"?

[a700hitter]

......are we really arguing stupid terms like "generational" and "elite"?

It looks like that. What's next, arguing current pitching terms like whether a guy' s stuff is "filthy" or "electric".

[Emmz]

Haha Dojji. No, Miggy isn't a generational talent. As a constant MVP candidate and the first triple crown winner since 1967, he is only elite. Technically speaking, ofc.

[Bellhorn04]

No he isn't. He's elite. but he's not a player that makes my gut churn to see my best pitchers facing him the way Manny must have in his heyday, or the way Ichiro did as a generational caliber contact hitter. He's an exceptional cleanup type, incredibly valuable, I'd love to have him on the Sox, but he's no more generational than Kevin Youkilis was at his peak. Nor is he any more generational than, say, Adrian Gonzalez.

 

I think Cabrera qualifies as a 'generational' hitter. His career OPS of .956 is 20th on the alltime list.

[Rdsxmbnt]

A generation is roughly 25-30 years, IE the time someone is born to when they produce the next generation. Thus there have only been 3-4 generations in baseball history.

 

Pitchers wise there really isn't anyone that transcends the game. There is no Pedro or Randy Johnson out there right now and no one is even remotely close to getting 300+ strikeouts.

 

In terms of hitters it seems that Pujols is in that class. But when you think of Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, etc you don't jump to Cabrera.

[Emmz]

No sabermetrics to back that up?

[seabeachfred]

No sabermetrics to back that up?

 

I'm staying out of this one Emmz. Besides, as two people said, why the hell are we arguing semantics anyway over elite and generational. Can't an elite hitter turn into a generational one? Cabrera has been a solid hitter since 2003 and this makes ten years he's been one of the most lethal hitters in all baseball.

 

Hell, the guy just became the first player to win the Triple Crown in 45 years. That makes him an elite hitter in my book.....the ten years can eventually make him a generational one if he keep this kind of cannonading him.

 

Oh God, what did I say about staying out of this? Anyway, Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday Emmz---and just take what I wrote with a fine grain of salt.

[a700hitter]

A generation is roughly 25-30 years, IE the time someone is born to when they produce the next generation. Thus there have only been 3-4 generations in baseball history.

 

Pitchers wise there really isn't anyone that transcends the game. There is no Pedro or Randy Johnson out there right now and no one is even remotely close to getting 300+ strikeouts.

 

In terms of hitters it seems that Pujols is in that class. But when you think of Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, etc you don't jump to Cabrera.

people probably don't think of Miggy, because he has played in Florida and Detroit. Stan the Man played when there were only 8 teams in each league and yet he was still underrated in the press which paid much more attention to joe D and Teddy Ballgame. Musial was their equal, but largely ignored by people who do not come from the Midwest. Hank Greenberg was a giant of the game, but not from the east coast media Mecca.

[a700hitter]

I'm staying out of this one Emmz. Besides, as two people said, why the hell are we arguing semantics anyway over elite and generational. Can't an elite hitter turn into a generational one? Cabrera has been a solid hitter since 2003 and this makes ten years he's been one of the most lethal hitters in all baseball.

 

Hell, the guy just became the first player to win the Triple Crown in 45 years. That makes him an elite hitter in my book.....the ten years can eventually make him a generational one if he keep this kind of cannonading him.

 

Oh God, what did I say about staying out of this? Anyway, Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday Emmz---and just take what I wrote with a fine grain of salt.

Merry Christmas, Fred!

[a700hitter]

Five Teams Interested In Derek Lowe

By Mike Axisa [December 24 at 1:59pm CST]

Five teams have contacted Derek Lowe according to Nick Cafardo of The Boston Globe, and all five have expressed interest in signing him as a swingman. The veteran right-hander is looking for an opportunity to start, however.

 

“I’ve heard the same thing from everyone,” said Lowe. “I want to be a starter and feel I have a lot left in being a regular starter in a rotation and making my 30-plus starts. I can still do that. It’s frustrating to see other starters who have come off injuries get a shot, and I’ve never been hurt and can still help a team. I’m sure things will get going for me in January. I want to pitch. I’m nowhere near ready to retire.”

 

Lowe, 39, pitched to a 5.11 ERA with his typically high ground ball rate (59.2%) in 142 2/3 innings for the Guardians and Yankees last season. He was much more effective in a relief role with New York (3.04 ERA in 23 2/3 innings) after signing in August. Prior to 2012, Lowe had made at least 30 starts and thrown at least 180 innings in ten straight seasons.

Any interest in DLowe for depth?

[Rdsxmbnt]

people probably don't think of Miggy, because he has played in Florida and Detroit. Stan the Man played when there were only 8 teams in each league and yet he was still underrated in the press which paid much more attention to joe D and Teddy Ballgame. Musial was their equal, but largely ignored by people who do not come from the Midwest. Hank Greenberg was a giant of the game, but not from the east coast media Mecca.

 

See I don't see Musial as Ted William's equal. I think the best stat to compare players across different eras is OPS+ and ERA+ since it adjusts for ballpark and is relative to the competition level. Williams had a 190 career OPS+ and Musial had a 159 which is good (all-time good even) but quite a bit away. That's how I feel about say Pujols vs. Miggy. Pujols is at 168 and Miggy at 151. Both awesome but Pujols is clearly in a different class.

[a700hitter]

See I don't see Musial as Ted William's equal. I think the best stat to compare players across different eras is OPS+ and ERA+ since it adjusts for ballpark and is relative to the competition level. Williams had a 190 career OPS+ and Musial had a 159 which is good (all-time good even) but quite a bit away. That's how I feel about say Pujols vs. Miggy. Pujols is at 168 and Miggy at 151. Both awesome but Pujols is clearly in a different class.

Musial was a more complete player than Williams. He was an excellent fielder and base runner too. Williams was not a good base runner and his fielding was just adequate.

 

Edit: The debate has always been DiMaggio vs. Williams, because they played in the bigger media market. Musial belongs in the debate. He was a better all around player than Williams, and he was versatile playing 1st and OF at an excellent level. He was a better hitter than DiMaggio. Williams was the best hitter of the 3, but he was one dimensional compared to the other two. They were the 3 giants of the generation, but you hear very little about Musial.

[seabeachfred]

Merry Christmas, Fred!

 

And a very Merry Christmas to you Ted. Here's to you and yours for a wonderful Christmas Day.

[SCM33]

Any interest in DLowe for depth?

 

I would.

 

If he is willing to pitch at the end of the rotation and pitch out of the bullpen.

[SoxSport]

Yeah, Ted was really a one-dimensional player. Played the wall well at Fenway, and had a decent arm. But he was an average player except for hitting.Babe Ruth was a better all-around player--being an ace LHP in his prime and great hitter as a Red Sox. Players like Mantle, Mays, Musial, Joe Dimaggio and Aaron were better all around players. Williams always said Joe D. was a better all around player than himself.

 

Happy Holidays to all.

[Emmz]

Who necessarily cares that muvh about being complete when you're a significantly better hitter than evetyone else? I'll take Williams' offense over most players' completeness any day. Yeah DiMaggio and Mays and several others might be better in the field, but they also have nowhere near .500 career OBP. Williams very rarely failed to get on base.

 

@fred: I was mocking how pointless it is to squabble over the terms. That quote was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.

[a700hitter]

Who necessarily cares that muvh about being complete when you're a significantly better hitter than evetyone else? I'll take Williams' offense over most players' completeness any day. Yeah DiMaggio and Mays and several others might be better in the field, but they also have nowhere near .500 career OBP. Williams very rarely failed to get on base.

 

@fred: I was mocking how pointless it is to squabble over the terms. That quote was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.

Williams was in a class by himself as a hitter. He was beyond being a generational hitter. Generations have passed and no one has come close to being as good as the Splid Splinter. The only point that I was making was that Miggy like Stan the Man is not at the top of everyone's mind because he suffers from not being in a media capital. If DiMaggio can be in a discussion with Williams, Musial must also be considered, because he was a better hitter than Joe D. Miggy can be compared favorably with any hitter on any day.

[Dojji]

I think Cabrera qualifies as a 'generational' hitter. His career OPS of .956 is 20th on the alltime list.

 

*double-checks numbers*

 

OK I don't know whose numbers I had mixed up with Miggy's in my own mind, but I'm wrong, you're right. Miggy pretty much picked up where Manny left off.

[Dojji]

Any interest in DLowe for depth?

 

Three years ago? Definitely. Now? NWIH. We have "depth," we're 9 deep if you count Morales and de la Rosa breaks camp in the Pawtucket rotation. We need high end pitchers or nothing.

 

Right now our rotation is set. Lester, Buchholz, Dempster, Lackey, Doubront. Some of you might not like Lackey, and the rest of us flat out hate him, but he breaks camp in the rotation, no way he doesn't.

 

Depth is Morales, Aceves, de la Rosa, plus possibly Miller, Barnes and Webster.

 

Miller, Aceves and Morales can probably each "swing" into a starting role though there's a distinct heirarchy in terms of which guy I'd prefer first, (Morales first, followed by Aceves and then, in desperate situations, Miller). I have to think we're loading up so much in bullpen arms because they're going to try to pull guys from the pen to spot start if they have injury trouble this year so this "depth" isn't as illusionary as it would have been under Tito..