Looking ahead to 2017

[moonslav59]

2 games at the end of the year and a CF who defended at a gold glove level and hit 20+ is suddenly "not an all star."

 

Dear dog in heaven I hate the overdramatic flailing that happens on this forum when the team is struggling in the postseason.

 

I totally agree. The ups and downs of some of this forum over tiny sample sizes never ceases to amaze me.

 

Just weeks ago, people were saying we should "never trade JBJ" even for someone like Sale of Quintana, and now it's like totally the opposite.

[Dojji]

I still wouldn't trade JBJ straight up for Sale or Quintana. I happen to think that what JBJ could offer is rarer. There are not an awful lot of true power hitting CF's in the game. Of course it's only been the 1 year and I'm counting on JBJ not to backslide next year when saying that, and it could happen, but I'm gonna stand by my assessment anyway.

[Bellhorn04]

I would trade JBJ straight up for Sale, simply because I see no realistic better options for obtaining a starter of that caliber.

[S5Dewey]

I would trade JBJ straight up for Sale, simply because I see no realistic better options for obtaining a starter of that caliber.

 

I like the idea of Sale but I ain't touchin' that 3-B Outfield. IMO JBJ is worth more wins over the run of a season than the difference between Sale and whomever else we could pick up and still keep JBJ.

 

There's a reason every GM says "Bradley" first when trade talks start. Be strong, Dave.

 

And yes, I'm conceding LF to Benintendi for next year even before ST starts.

[moonslav59]

I like the idea of Sale but I ain't touchin' that 3-B Outfield. IMO JBJ is worth more wins over the run of a season than the difference between Sale and whomever else we could pick up and still keep JBJ.

 

There's a reason every GM says "Bradley" first when trade talks start. Be strong, Dave.

 

And yes, I'm conceding LF to Benintendi for next year even before ST starts.

 

There's another aspect to the equation on trading JBJ for Sale or Quintana.

 

Once we get an ace, we either have enormously upgraded our pen by moving Pomeranz, Wright or Buch to the pen or we get a fine player by trading one of our "excess" starting pitchers.

 

We could also sign Beltran to play LF vs RHP/DH vs LHP as a bridge to Basabe or a possible move of Moncada to LF. (Young could play LF vs LHPs.) The downgrade from JBJ to Beltran/Young is significant, don't get me wrong, but the upgrade at SP'er and bullpen would be gigantic.

 

I love JBJ and want to keep the 3 B's as much as anyone, but guys like Sale & Quintana don't come along very often (assuming they are available).

 

[Kimmi]

I would hate to give up JBJ or any of our young players, but if we could get back a young, cost controlled, #1 pitcher for a somewhat reasonable package, I think we have to make the move.

 

Signing an aging free agent pitcher to a large contract is not, and has never been, the way to go.

[Spudboy]

There's a dog in heaven?

[moonslav59]

I would hate to give up JBJ or any of our young players, but if we could get back a young, cost controlled, #1 pitcher for a somewhat reasonable package, I think we have to make the move.

 

Signing an aging free agent pitcher to a large contract is not, and has never been, the way to go.

 

Exactly, and the very low luxury tax cost of the two guys from the CWS would allow us to extend and sign future players and still stay under or near the tax limit.

 

C Sale $6.5M for 3 more years

 

Quintana $4.2M for 4 more years

 

(luxury tax cost not contractual cost)

 

JBJ will likely cost more than Quintana in arbs...maybe more than Sale too!

 

[moonslav59]

There's a dog in heaven?

 

Mine is.

[oldtimer]

I totally agree. The ups and downs of some of this forum over tiny sample sizes never ceases to amaze me.

 

Just weeks ago, people were saying we should "never trade JBJ" even for someone like Sale of Quintana, and now it's like totally the opposite.

 

Aren't you being overly dramatic. As far as I can see one person said JBJ should not be considered an all star based on his hitting slump and you infer everyone on the sight shares his opinion.

[moonslav59]

Aren't you being overly dramatic. As far as I can see one person said JBJ should not be considered an all star based on his hitting slump and you infer everyone on the sight shares his opinion.

 

Maybe I should have said "a few people" not "people", but there are people down on JBJ on other threads as well, as they have been with various players as they slump in tiny sample size periods. This should not be something I need to explain.

[Wade Boggs]

I still wouldn't trade JBJ straight up for Sale or Quintana. I happen to think that what JBJ could offer is rarer. There are not an awful lot of true power hitting CF's in the game. Of course it's only been the 1 year and I'm counting on JBJ not to backslide next year when saying that, and it could happen, but I'm gonna stand by my assessment anyway.

 

I like JBJ. With saying that if I could get Sale for him and get that low cost contract with it, I'm doing it. They could move Benintendi over to CF, you could always find a player with Chris Young to platoon in left. I agree you are correct CF's that hit over 25 home runs don't fall off trees. I also think ACE's that win 18 games and have a low three ERA don't fall off trees.

 

The only problem is here we go again. It will take more than JBJ to get Sale. They will have to give other prospects up. But JBJ could be a center -piece of it, without giving up Moncada. The White Sox did ask for JBJ but not striaght up for Sale. They would never do that. No chance.

[harmony]

Is Rusney Castillo in a transactional purgatory?

 

Castillo is owed $46 million over the next four seasons but his salary does not count against the Red Sox luxury tax threshold because the 29-year-old outfielder has been removed from the 40-man roster.

 

However, any team seeking to acquire Castillo for its 40-man roster would need count his salary in its luxury tax calculations. The Red Sox likely would need to pay much of the $46 million remaining on the contract but would have less motivation to do so because the salary does not count for their luxury tax purposes.

 

But wait a second ... if the Red Sox pay part of the salary of a player on another team's 40-man roster, the Red Sox contribution should count in the Red Sox luxury tax calculation.

 

Hence, the purgatory.

 

This Seattle fan thought of Castillo because the strong-hitting Mariners need to improve their defense, especially in the outfield. I wondered how much the Red Sox would need to pay to close a trade of Castillo and one year of Clay Buchholz for a low-level Seattle prospect.

Edited October 11, 2016 by harmony

[moonslav59]

Is Rusney Castillo in a transactional purgatory?

 

Castillo is owed $46 million over the next four seasons but his salary does not count against the Red Sox luxury tax threshold because the 29-year-old outfielder has been removed from the 40-man roster.

 

However, any team seeking to acquire Castillo for its 40-man roster would need count his salary in its luxury tax calculations. The Red Sox likely would need to pay much of the $46 million remaining on the contract but would have less motivation to do so because the salary does not count for their luxury tax purposes.

 

But wait a second ... if the Red Sox pay part of the salary of a player on another team's 40-man roster, the Red Sox contribution should count in the Red Sox luxury tax calculation.

 

Hence, the purgatory.

 

This Seattle fan thought of Castillo because the strong-hitting Mariners needs to improve their defense, especially in the outfield. I wondered how much the Red Sox would need to pay to close a trade of Castillo and one year of Clay Buchholz for a low-level Seattle prospect.

 

Well, it's Henry's money. Chances are we'll be right about at the luxury tax limit next year, which is 50% for the Sox. For Henry to "break even" on Castillo, he'd have to pay about $30M of the $46M remaining, The tax would be $15M- making it about a wash.

 

Castillo still has some value to us as a far-fetched chance at redemption and OF insurance, so I think we'd want something back... not much. I doubt we'd deal Buch for a low-level prospect. If Seattle agreed to take Castillo and $20M plus Buch, I think we'd still want more than a low-level prospect.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Castillo didn't hit in the AAA: he finished with a .664 OPS. Everyone knows he is not a major league caliber hitter. As such, I can't imagine any team wanting him. While he might play above average defense, he is at that age when his defense should begin to decline. To be sure, the Red Sox would have to pay off the entire contract to move him, but then that money would count toward the luxury tax. Thus, I agree he is in "transactional purgatory," a situation he created through his inability to hit major league AND Triple A pitching.

 

I'm not convinced the Red Sox will pick up Buchholz's option. There is a lot of disagreement over this matter, but I wouldn't pick it up--I don't trust Buchholz from a performance or health standpoint. Brian Johnson could be the Red Sox's 6th starter next season, and he is only making league minimum.

[harmony]

Castillo still has some value to us as a far-fetched chance at redemption and OF insurance, so I think we'd want something back... not much. I doubt we'd deal Buch for a low-level prospect. If Seattle agreed to take Castillo and $20M plus Buch, I think we'd still want more than a low-level prospect.

A net $39.5 million for one year of Clay Buchholz and four years of Rusney Castillo is too steep a price for two players with a combined age of 61 coming off a season with a combined fWAR of 0.5.

[moonslav59]

A net $39.5 million for one year of Clay Buchholz and four years of Rusney Castillo is too steep a price for two players with a combined age of 61 coming off a season with a combined fWAR of 0.5.

 

That's one reason I think the idea is a nonstarter.

 

We're keeping Buch. Castillo does not count on the luxury tax, and that's where he'll stay.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe I should have said "a few people" not "people", but there are people down on JBJ on other threads as well, as they have been with various players as they slump in tiny sample size periods. This should not be something I need to explain.

 

It's no different from the comment you made about Leon in the game thread about him looking lost and doubting he has the starting job next year. When a guy is looking bad people get down on him. You're no different.

[S5Dewey]

IMO Leon is in significant trouble in his quest to be the starting catcher in 2017. He came out like gang-busters offensively and now has reverted to his norm. The Sox rode the hot hand for as long as it was hot but now it's not. I was surprised that Farrell didn't send someone, anyone, even Vazquez - whose numbers aren't great either - up to hit for Leon in his last AB.

[Bellhorn04]

IMO Leon is in significant trouble in his quest to be the starting catcher in 2017. He came out like gang-busters offensively and now has reverted to his norm. The Sox rode the hot hand for as long as it was hot but now it's not. I was surprised that Farrell didn't send someone, anyone, even Vazquez - whose numbers aren't great either - up to hit for Leon in his last AB.

 

There was nobody, except Vazquez, and that wasn't much of an option.

[moonslav59]

It's no different from the comment you made about Leon in the game thread about him looking lost and doubting he has the starting job next year. When a guy is looking bad people get down on him. You're no different.

 

He's "looked bad" his whole career, except for a 2-3 month stretch. He's also looked bad over the last 5-6 weeks- hardly a tiny sample size. There's a big difference. I never get down on a player over a tiny sample size.

 

Do you doubt he has a lock on the FT catcher job next year?

[Bellhorn04]

He's "looked bad" his whole career, except for a 2-3 month stretch. He's also looked bad over the last 5-6 weeks- hardly a tiny sample size. There's a big difference. I never get down on a player over a tiny sample size.

 

Well, JBJ hit 216/303/387 in August/September, and looked awful in this series. So by your own definition, it's not a 'tiny sample size', so maybe you shouldn't be criticizing other people for getting down on him either.

[moonslav59]

Well, JBJ hit 216/303/387 in August/September, and looked awful in this series. So by your own definition, it's not a 'tiny sample size', so maybe you shouldn't be criticizing other people for getting down on him either.

 

No, I criticized how it seemed the site's mood went from JBJ was untouchable to let's trade him.

 

I'm not even sure, if it was the same people who flipped, so my criticism was probably off-base.

 

I'm fine with people getting down on slumping players. It's the definitive statements that bug me. Like early last year, we hard, "I guess we know JBj will never be able to hit ML pitching" and "Leon had proven he can't hit in MLB." And, those were based on bigger sample sizes than what we are talking about here.

 

Yeah, I got down on Leon, but it was more on JF for not PH'ing for him. I mentioned his starting catching job may be on the line. With Swihart and Vaz on the roster, that might have been the case, even if Leon had not slumped this badly.

 

[moonslav59]

Well, JBJ hit 216/303/387 in August/September, and looked awful in this series. So by your own definition, it's not a 'tiny sample size', so maybe you shouldn't be criticizing other people for getting down on him either.

 

...and yes, a 2 month sample size is small. Leon's history is longer than his most recent 5-6 weeks. He was god-awful in many previous sample size, as has been JBJ, I might add, but JBJ hqad nice minor league numbers: Leon did not.

[Bellhorn04]

...and yes, a 2 month sample size is small. Leon's history is longer than his most recent 5-6 weeks. He was god-awful in many previous sample size, as has been JBJ, I might add, but JBJ hqad nice minor league numbers: Leon did not.

 

I guess I need a copy of 'The moonslav guide to sample sizes'.

[Wade Boggs]

Well, JBJ hit 216/303/387 in August/September, and looked awful in this series. So by your own definition, it's not a 'tiny sample size', so maybe you shouldn't be criticizing other people for getting down on him either.

 

I think JBJ has a better chance of hitting 260/270 .. Leon will be lucky to hit 230 next year. I want Vazquez behind the plate. He's had a year to knock off the rust from his past injury. If he has to play winter ball that's fine as well. I would like Swihart as the back up. When they put him in LF it was a mistake. They both should split the time behind the plate. His value is at catching. If Vazquez hits 230 fine , he's young go with him. I would only trade JBJ in a package with other prospects for a Sale like pitcher. If not he stays which is cool as well. IMO Vazquez/Swihart if healthy and they will be, should catch.

[Wade Boggs]

I guess I need a copy of 'The moonslav guide to sample sizes'.

 

I don't know about Moon's guide.... Bill James handbook might be a better fit. Not always 100% on the money but 75%. See Bell , you brought my evil ways out. lol. I hate when my teams lose.. I understand its a part of life... but I don't care lol

[moonslav59]

I guess I need a copy of 'The moonslav guide to sample sizes'.

 

I don't make definitive judgments on even a full season sample size, especially with a young player. That doesn't mean I disregard smaller sample sizes or trends. To me, a players minor league numbers matter, especially, if the sample sizes are more than 500 PAs each per AA and AAA levels.

 

Take Shaw, for instance, I showed how he has been below his AA & AAA norm in 5 of his last 8 half seasons. I thought his ending to 2015 and start to 2016 were likely not sustainable. I never said he definitely would fall back to his norm, but I thought the odds were that he would.

 

JBJ had very good numbers on the farm. I thoguth his slow start was likely a fluke. I also mentioned his torrid August of 2015 was probably a fluke as well and that he'd probably end up somewhere between his minor league norm and his 2015 final numbers. I realize discounting his 2014 ML numbers, especially a pretty significant sample size may seem like cherry-picking, and maybe it was. His recent slump looks a lot like 2014.

 

I'm not perfect. I don't pretend to think my system of beliefs is better than anyone else's, especially the Sox brass, but I do try to stay consistent in my methodology.

[Maxbialystock]

IMO Leon is in significant trouble in his quest to be the starting catcher in 2017. He came out like gang-busters offensively and now has reverted to his norm. The Sox rode the hot hand for as long as it was hot but now it's not. I was surprised that Farrell didn't send someone, anyone, even Vazquez - whose numbers aren't great either - up to hit for Leon in his last AB.

 

Maybe he didn't for the same reason he sent Bradley--who was dead, dead, dead at the plate--for his final at bat. Players can surprise you.

[Wade Boggs]

Castillo didn't hit in the AAA: he finished with a .664 OPS. Everyone knows he is not a major league caliber hitter. As such, I can't imagine any team wanting him. While he might play above average defense, he is at that age when his defense should begin to decline. To be sure, the Red Sox would have to pay off the entire contract to move him, but then that money would count toward the luxury tax. Thus, I agree he is in "transactional purgatory," a situation he created through his inability to hit major league AND Triple A pitching.

 

I'm not convinced the Red Sox will pick up Buchholz's option. There is a lot of disagreement over this matter, but I wouldn't pick it up--I don't trust Buchholz from a performance or health standpoint. Brian Johnson could be the Red Sox's 6th starter next season, and he is only making league minimum.

 

IMO Clay will be here next year. The cost is reasonable. If anything for depth reasons. We know what he is, we know what kind of pitcher he is, we know he will be on the DL at some point. We know they will be a stretch he pitches great and bad. IMO he stays. Plus if they let him go on a contract year and wins 15 and era in the high3 or low 4 , do you take that chance... I'd say no. IMO