sk7326
-
Posts
7,647 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by sk7326
-
#3 if I had to choose. Frazier kind of sucked last year - but he is probably not that bad. I am much too bullish on Rodriguez to deal him - so absolutely not given the choice.
-
Terrific news. As I noted, while you could certainly argue for others - Porcello was absolutely a worthy choice in a pretty crowded field.
-
The problem with doing the Miller thing is that then you have to plan for your relievers to pitch 40-50 times a season instead of the 60 or 70 you actually see. Also, part of the mission in the regular season is to cultivate some of these folks anyway. Figure out who the pitchers you trust are, etc
-
There is not a ton of evidence Vasquez is ahead of Swihart by any large margin to begin with. Vasquez is definitely a big league, but his range of outcomes is much smaller in both directions than Swihart.
-
The thing is - the scouting sorts who rate Swihart highly is because he should end up being a plus defender at the position ... right sort of build, outstanding athlete. Now he probably won't get to where Vasquez is defensively - especially in terms of framing and such. But his arm is fine and Vasquez was not some sort of game calling savant. There is real reason to believe Vasquez can't really hit - and even if catcher is a defensive position, you need a little.
-
My understanding is that teams use (in a lot of cases) their own recipe for WAR ... a sum of measured baseball accomplishments compared to a replacement level baseline. Of course they also have this massive amount of Statcast data that the public doesn't get ... so I am sure they use measures that differ from what we get and what other teams do. All I am saying is that the general principle is sound - this is not something like RBIs which don't mean anything to an org in terms of performance measurement. WAR after all is just a normalized sum of all of a player's measured accomplishments on the diamond ...
-
Well Espinoza is somewhere else, so there's that Moncada would be tough to lose - especially given the giant bonus ... but with his 40% AFL strikeout register, there are fair questions as to whether he actually is the best 3B option in the org on a longer term.
-
I think the Sox had a division to win - and the alarming state of their pitching early meant someone had to take the fall. Plus Vasquez was there as a viable option. With the offseason they can now try to see what they have. Will Vasquez hit? Can Vasquez work with pitchers? Is essentially six weeks of great baseball enough to overlook Sandy Leon's career overall?
-
Possibly - franchise might prefer to put Moncada in instead of Devers
-
That rise from 7 HRs to 21 HRs and being a 4-5 win player doesn't reflect ascending to upside - of course, he's 24 so his prime is over. Bradley is almost three years older than Bogaerts. Similar WAR, premium position, significantly younger, higher probability it will stick - decision is easy. Since WAR (or a wins-above-replacement computation of baseball accomplishments) is how teams evaluate players (though they have their own ingredients to put in the soup), that seems fair.
-
You're not wrong. But I will counter with a couple of small items: 1. Last year was a tiny sample, but a .365 OBP from that position is encouraging. There was a lot of evidence to me (warning: eye test comment) that he could actually hit. Of course he got hurt before he could lean into a good stretch. 2. Defensively struggled, and clearly needs work. At the same time just a better athlete than Salty to a degree that you could see him figuring it out. He needs reps - he never got them. His trade value is low now - because he is hurt. And I do think the Red Sox hurt his value some by abandoning the catching thing. I don't think he is the centerpiece of a trade anymore - but if healthy he is considerably higher value than the sack of potatoes value of Salty. After all (tiny sample from a time when players do still get better) his 2016 OBP was higher than any year Salty ever had.
-
Clay Buchholz - Is he worth the 2016 option?
sk7326 replied to Slasher9's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
Cost has nothing to do with it ... Consistent relief requires attrition and luck - throw "stuff guys" at the wall until you get paydirt. It's why the years are so hard to reconcile. Virtually every good reliever was a starter who couldn't cut it - couldn't turn a lineup over, couldn't find a third pitch worth a damn. Line em up and see where it takes you - and if any stink, line up some more. -
Cora has a good gig - and probably doesn't need an apprenticeship.
-
On some basic level, Swihart is the best chance to emerge into something special at the position. Vasquez might be limited by his bat (a limitation which could still be quite good) and Leon (though I like him) is essentially betting on about 6 weeks of MVP caliber work. (against a far larger body of work as Sandy Leon - including September and beyond this year) The Sox really ought to let Swihart catch - and let it ride. Either way, coming off of an injury - you'd be selling low on him.
-
At that point they were amassing interesting catcher prospects - Salty could hit and could play the position okay. Since catching is so hard to come by, getting as much potential as possible makes sense.
-
Not really - they just don't create as much value ... and they are easier to make (since almost all of them are failed starters - like Miller and Wade Davis)
-
I think Beltran for an Ortiz type deal (1 year, 1 option his, 1 option ours) works. Morales is not a bad second option. Again though, years are an issue.
-
It's one thing to have a dream job growing up as a fan. But once you're in the game - it's an industry, and it's a gig. Chicago offered him a promotion - imagine that.
-
If you add managers it's an even longer list
-
And he's barely 40. Too young to be in one job until you die.
-
i think they knew that last year. margot was always a high floor choice - and he looks like he will be a solid starter.
-
Relievers have so much volatility within and between seasons that as a cohort they are just less reliable in ways that starters are not. you are right about the importance of the role - but so much success in the pen is just getting lucky that paying a ton for it is a gamble. Very few of them offer certainty. The money who cares - but the years is more important. A 4 year commitment to any reliever is hard to stomach.
-
Paying relievers that much is hard to stomach on principle - and his emergence as a multi inning weapon is a fairly new development. I'd pay him for that work now.
-
Clay Buchholz - Is he worth the 2016 option?
sk7326 replied to Slasher9's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
I actually think he'd be more valuable that way - a guy who can pitch more than 1 inning at a time and then spot the 5th starter spot the times when it comes up. This postseason in particular (not that you'd manage the regular season that way in entirety) has given more motivation to reimagining how pitching staffs work in general. -
Chapman pitching Game 6 was dicey but understandable. If you don't trust any other reliever - the cost of a loss was so high that managing like it was the last game of the season was justifiable (because it was). After all if you put in (anybody else) with a 5 run lead, and he let a run score, then pulling the alarm for Chapman would not have received any comment at all. He obviously was gassed in Game 7 - coming into a situation with a runner on was tricky as he resorted to a fastball he couldn't command. When he went slider heavy (like in the 9th) it worked. The bunt with Baez was dumb - but Baez looked totally lost at that point, so a bunt almost made sense. Heck, even pulling Hendricks quickly was fine in theory (again, trying not to be greedy) but he was so hot, should have at least given him a look at the third go through the order.