SoxFanForsyth

I dunno. If that was the case, I would have expected it to have fallen back down to normal ranges by now and it's stayed in the mid to high 30's ever since he came over. It was also trending in that direction prior to coming over (23.1% in 2009, 31.8% in 2010).

I have read they are among the favorites.

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! This is so so so wrong. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yoan-moncada-game-theory/

Think it's more that his discipline suffered. When he was with the Padres he was swinging at 28-32% of pitches outside of the zone. When he went to the Sox it spiked to 35.5% in 2011 and 37.3% in 2012

Adrian Gonzalez hit .347/.413/.516 at Fenway in 2011. The HR totals were a bit lower than I expected as well, probably because he didn't loft the ball enough and ended up banging line drive singles off the monster (he was SO slow), and this is reflected in his average more than his SLG. Regardless, he definitely destroyed the ball at Fenway. Hitting .350 is no small feat. For comparison purposes, when he played at Petco, at home he hit: 2010: .279 2009: .244 2008: .247 2007: .266 I don't think there is any question that Fenway boosted his numbers with a huge amount of significance.

A quote many on this site need to read regarding prospects. https://twitter.com/bencarsley/status/534540255509360640

I'm not drinking any kool aid. I'm looking at his statsvand actually analyzing. He got off to a putrid start this year but from 5/10 through the end of the year he hit .308/.345/.452, and that's over 502 PA so a very strong sample size. That's a 127 wrc+, which is what he was putting up at his peak. I don't know mechanically or health wise what changed but it certainly lasted long enough for it to be legit. So, no, not drinking kool aid, I'm actually looking at his numbers and trying to decipher what is real and what is artificial based on a bad start. And his BABIP during those 502 pa was .322. Career? .313, so not abnormal at all

you mean Headley, playing in an extremely hitter friendly park and division put up a better OPS than Panda playing in an extremely pitcher friendly park and division? Well I have never!! Panda, playing at Fenway, with his inside out swing would see a huge boost in his numbers too. Particularly his power numbers.

Pablo Sandoval is officially in Boston. Let the #PandaWatch begin. https://twitter.com/joeamorosino/status/534463056617955328

Reds have said they're bit trading him, so this is all for naught.

No, but you get him for a Marrero, Ranaudo, and Coyle.

Your problem is that, for 3 of those players, you're declaring them busts based on rookie seasons in their young 20's, or in Ranaudo's case, about 7 starts. Lester had a 7.96 K/9 and a 6.93 BB/9 in his first 7 starts. Scherzer didn't put it all together until he was 28. Shields had a 4.20 ERA in his first 150 games started. I know this might boggle your mind so strap in. Players have to adjust to the MLB level. It doesn't just happen. They don't just come out guns blazing. It's part of the transition and development.

?? Of course he could. Cueto has 1 year left. The Sox would never trade a player of as high of a caliber as Owens for 1 year of Cueto, even with a QO.

There are way way more scouts who say that Owens is going to be a solid mid rotation arm than those who are suspect to him based on his 92 mph fastball (which plays up thanks to an elite change up). At some point you have to look at his results. 2013: 2.67 era between A+-AA, 11.3 k/9, 4.5 bb/9, 3.2 years younger than average age of competition. 2014: 2.90 era between AA and AAA, 9.6 k/9, 3.3 bb/9, 4.1 years younger than average age of competition. What about those numbers makes you doubt him? And why not mention the fact that those same scouts love Brian Johnson, who isn't a hyped prospect? Isn't this just a 1-for-1 kind of thing? The depth remains the same regardless of whether you like Johnson or Owens. Or is the hype machine right on Johnson because it rates him low and wrong on Owens because it rated him highly? And what is this whole 'hype' crap anyway? You realize there are a ton of 3rd party independent outlets that are scouting heavily and ranking these prospects? When BA, Baseball Prospectus, Keith Law of ESPN, and MLB all agree that a prospect (Owens in this example) is an excellent prospect, how is there this 'hype machine' that teams force upon independent ratings?? Your argument has so many holes i can't even cover all of them. You find 1 negative review of a player and give it more weight than the hundreds of good reviews. That is called pessimism, not realism. You need to shift toward a bit more of a realistic approach rather than 'I hate all prospects all our prospects suck' approach. Prospects are going to flake out, it's the nature of the beast. But just because JBJ and Webster didn't pan out yet doesn't mean we have no depth. That's absurd.

Actually our best arm is, and always has been, Henry Owens. Followed by Eddy Rodriguez and Brian Johnson. Those are the elite arms. And Owens, being a top 15 prospect, is an elite prospect. Everyone seems to have given up on Barnes. Not saying he is an elite prospect, just saying he's a breakout candidate this year. Don't overlook him. Either way, the end of this year is when we should see the real elite pitching prospects.

I like this. Though I would probably give Headley 3/39 to play 3B because I'm not buying into Vic in RF w his injury history for more than 75-80 games, and that's too many games to use Brock Holt at 3B. Headley seems like a reasonably priced 3B option. Spend 23mm on Lester, 13mm on Headley, and send enough prospects to get Hamels (22mm AAV) down to 18mm AAV. That's 54mm spent between those 3. If the Sox went 20mm for Panda, 23mm for Lester, and 12-14mm for McCarthy or another #2, it's the same dollars.

How convenient, Bowden wrote an article today about who can land Hamels and what they would have to give up. http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=the-gms-office&id=10471&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B"ref":"http://t.co/He7YkG91no"%7D&ex_cid=InsiderTwitter_jimbowdenfourpotentialtradesforcolehamels&b=1416152554390 (Insider required) For the Sox here's what he writes: The Red Sox are desperate to rebuild their starting rotation, and if they're unable to land Lester or James Shields, they most assuredly will pursue Hamels. The Red Sox have a strong farm system and match up well with the Phillies. The Phillies should ask for Yoenis Cespedes, Deven Marrero and Anthony Ranaudo. This would be a strong package for the Phillies, especially if they can extend Cespedes at the time of the trade. Cespedes brings great power and a young middle-of-the-order bat, which the Phillies desperately need. His power would play great in the bandbox that is Citizens Bank Park. Marrero is a special defensive shortstop who hit .291/.371/.433 at Double-A Portland in 68 games before his promotion to Triple-A last year. With the Phillies also having middle-infield prospect J.P. Crawford coming through their system, Marrero would solidify their middle infield for years to come and offer a nice long-term replacement for Chase Utley and Jimmy Rollins. Ranaudo is arguably the Red Sox's best starting pitching prospect, and he would fit in nicely in the Phillies' rotation, considering he's ready now. The Red Sox might counter with Ranaudo and Marrero for Hamels. Their intention would be to keep Cespedes out of the deal, as he's an important bat for the team. Plus, they can argue the Phillies are already getting their best pitching and middle-infield prospect. But the Phillies will insist on another top pitching prospect if Cespedes is out of the deal, and they'll start by asking for left-handed pitcher Henry Owens. After getting turned down, they could accept Matt Barnes as the third player in the deal. A deal that could happen: Anthony Ranaudo, Deven Marrero and Matt Barnes for Hamels. Wow. How strange, Jackso. NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF BETTS. Almost like you are a Yankees homer and think the Sox are going to have to overpay enormously for Hamels. Ranaudo, Barnes, and Marrero would be a solid package for Hamels.

I can't stop laughing that Jackso thinks the Reds could get Betts for Cueto. That is hysterical. If the Phillies ate enough of Hamels deal to get him down to a 12-13mm AAV, I can see dealing Betts then, but that's as close as it gets.

The Sox have already turned down multiple offers from the Phillies for Hamels. Regardless, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying the Sox have the pieces to get a deal done for both Hamels and Cueto without having to deal Betts (or Bogaerts). Not that it will happen, but that, if they wanted to trade them and the Sox were interested, it can get done without Betts.

No. Elite prospects go toward players that are cost controlled for multiple years. Not for a 1 year rental or a guy who already had a 5/110 deal (Hamels no trade w Red Sox would force them to guarantee his 5th year). The Sox have already turned down multiple proposals from the Phillies for Hamels, and you can bet that they are turning them down because the Phillies have asked for Mookie. You don't trade Mookie Betts for either of those pitchers. If you're going to spend 5/110, keep Mookie and spend 6/140 on Lester. Like I said earlier, the whole trade structure is shifting heavily away from overvaluing pitching and toward overvaluing hitting. A bat first prospect in a offensive suppressed league is worth immensely more than a 1-year rental on an ace or a 5 year, slightly below market value deal on Hamels. Price got Smyly and Franklin. Lackey got Craig and Kelley. Lester got 1 year of Cespedes. You need to get with it. Pitching doesn't return as much as it did a couple years ago. Not even close.

No. Chance. In. Hell. That betts is traded for 1 year of Cueto or a 5/110 deal for Hamels. Zero chance. Negative chance. The Sox can get both of them without giving up Betts. Not either or. Both.

Yeah because that's a good comp. You never did tell me what part of his peripherals made him a regression candidate

I think the problem here is that offense is down and pitching related injuries have skyrocketed in recent years, so an everyday offense first player has gained s ton of value while the value of pitchers has decreased. Just look at what the Tigers gave up for Price, or the Cards for Lackey. The only way that the A's gave up Russell (who has about the same value as Betts) is because they got 1.5 years of Samardzija AND Jason Hammel, who had posted a 2.98 ERA with the Cubs prior to the trade. So essentially the Cubs gave up two guys who were performing as aces for 1 elite level prospect. The trade value of players is shifting significantly from overvaluing pitchers to now overvaluing hitters, and if you have a young, elite prospect hitter who has shown, even in a SSS, that he can adjust to the big leagues, that's going to land you an ace.

But this whole topic is never going to get figured out because Betts isn't getting traded so it doesn't matter

Ok. Then a ton of expert analysts (not Harold Reynolds) but guys who work for Fangraphs have said no to a downright laughable trade proposal. Trading a 6 year guy who projects to be a perennial 4+ win player with peaks of 5-6, with risk of uncertainty due to age for a guy who's WAR has been 4.3, 3.3, 4.1 the past 3 years, has thrown 200 IP exactly once in his career, has made more than 30 starts exactly once in his career, and you're only getting 3 years out of him? It would be the kind of deal that would make the Sox think about it. straught up, if the Nats were selling Stras, they take that deal instantly. Betts, if he was eligible, would be a top 10 easy prospect, and he's shown that he can handle the big leagues just fine without peripherals that are artificially inflated. You don't trade him for 1 year of ANY of those pitchers. It would be a disgusting overpay to give Betts for Cueto, who is the best of that bunch. The reason you don't count on small sample sizes is because peripherals can get skewed and it takes a while for normalization of those peripherals. Please show me why Betts peripherals were skewed and which ones will normalize. Because you won't be able to. Betts for Strasburg? I might pass, don't like the years of control. If I had Stras for 3 years I would take it. 2? Not sure, but probably pass.