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
-
True to a degree, but still a lot of projection left in him. He is established somewhat. I mean, he has been good, but the Cards unforgiveable mothballed him the 2013 playoffs (not unforgiveable that they shut him down, but that they burned a roster spot to do so) and have been slow to take the training wheels off. Now, what is the equivalent of these two packages for a year of Cueto or Zimmermann. Is it Betts and XB, or one of the two? Or something less? i don't know. I'd think Betts or Bogaerts + something less (like a toolsy A'er) might be your ceiling.
-
His platoon split limits him. He figures prominently among "switch hitters who frankly should stop". That said, I like him a lot as a platoon partner. Not sure the room is there here without them moving one of their many, many righties.
-
It's why I hate this question "should the Red Sox move Napoli". He is one of the more desirable properties they have contractually. So he could fetch a solid return - more than other guys. And Allen Craig (whose value frankly needs to be rebuilt) is best moved to 1B right now. So the math works out. But the team does not need to get rid of Napoli nor should they without a good returrn.
-
I am sure the Reds think that. The relevant comps I think are: Price - the Rays got a mid-upper rotation young starter for 2 years of a true ace Heyward - the Braves got two premium pitching prospects for 1 year of a good outfielder (with elite potential) for a team that is basically one outfielder away
-
Zimmermann is a better pitcher, but you'd only be getting a year of him. The Nats might also just decided to say screw it - we're the best team in the NL, we should maximize our shots at the big prize.
-
Nava is good for what he is. He and Holt could be dealt not because they are bad but because they can free up a logjam and get something of value coming back. But if Nava is our fourth OF, that is not bad.
-
It is hard to justify not playing your 3 best outfielders. Betts by the end of the season was.
-
His OPS has declined from his one monster year - that is a problem. But he also has been very consistent since. The raw power is there, but his approach limits it some. (the focus on contact and using the opposite field, think of a version of stuff people said about Wade Boggs and Ichiro at various times) I do think the move is solid from a baseball perspective. I do not love the deal, but if you are going to do this, doing in on a 28 year old with some projection left (due to being a good athlete and exceptional contact skills) is the sort of thing which makes sense. It is tempting to look at a body like his and come to a conclusion about him being at 1B in a couple of years - but his actual athleticism belies that. (http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/49972/third-baseman-pablo-sandoval-is-giants-most-valuable-defender)
-
It is quite a testament to the baseball people who have worked under this ownership. Because you are right, yet this team has managed to win a ton and basically be the most successful franchise in the game over that time. (the Cards have lacked the bad seasons, but 1 fewer title) The talent evaluators have remained excellent. For most of this ownership's tour (2004-2011) the on-field coaching staff was elite. Now it is not as good, although I certainly don't put the entirety of 2014 on their shoulders. It is a weird frustrating part of an ownership that has been phenomenal in many important areas.
-
I think the more interesting question regarding this is who is actually driving? We know Cherington has had a lot of experience in org development, and the scouting is top notch. This franchise has drafted well year after year. I think ownership priorities shift very violently - and Cherington and the baseball working stiffs are left to make the best of it baseball-wise. That is a flaw in the machinery. I think at times the dynamic in the front office is more or less like what we saw in the Gonzalez trade. Ownership made the dump with the Dodgers, and it was up to Cherington's folks to swoop in and identify prospects to make it a tractable (in fact, quite good by salary dump standards) baseball deal. I am not trying to exempt him from accountability or scrutiny, but I do wonder how empowered he is at times. (or whether the level of empowerment has been consistent, if that makes sense)
-
I forget where the literature is - but your best place to put your best hitter is 2nd ... balancing number of plate appearances with RBI opportunities. Now most lineups do not act that way. Right now the way I look at the "Top 13" C: Vasquez 1B: Napoli 2B: Pedroia 3B: Sandoval SS: Bogaerts LF: Ramirez CF: Betts RF: Castillo DH: Ortiz OF: Nava (platoon value - still a solid on-base dude) OF: Victorino IF: Holt (plays a lot of positions) C: (Somebody) Clearly there is a squeeze for Cespedes and Craig here. That will need to be resolved. Now theoretically they can only carry 11 pitchers, but it is not how staffs work in 2014-15, and I doubt Farrell will do differently early in the season. Given this, a starting lineup: CF: Betts LF: Ramirez 2B: Pedroa DH: Ortiz 1B: Napoli 3B: Sandoval SS: Bogaerts RF: Castillo C: Vasquez
-
Youk and Pedroia fall in that time frame. So did Lester and Buchholz (who has fallen on his face as a #1, but not as a viable starter). Some misses, lot of hits. And many that were valuable trade assets, which has to count. There are real questions as to whether this staff is up to dealing with young regulars - that is legitimate. At the same time, Bogaerts' falling on his face is a pretty phenomenal overreaction when considering how Pedroia and Iglesias did in extended trial runs at first. Now I wish Bogaerts had a Trout season so we could (correctly) dream of Hall of Fame things for him. Alas, that did not happen. However, he has hung in at the big league level at an age when most of his buddies are in AA - that is an overwhelmingly positive sign. The odds are still very good that he will have a strong career playing baseball for a living.
-
True about Bradley. Only reason you'd say that about Middlebrooks was because it was a serious case of selling low. Hard to expect him to actually get LESS valuable than he was in 2013.
-
We'll see how it goes - in many of the essential ways it is the same front office it has been for the past decade, which has been a pretty good one. There will be upgrades in pitching. Whether it is Lester or something via trade (Latos, Cueto, Zimmermann?) or both. But fixing two positions where they got essentially zippo last season was essential.
-
Would be nice to have Beltre - although from the "things that we did not anticipate" area which was referred to earlier here. The Sox letting Beltre walk was defensible given the strategy - but Youk's body falling to pieces so quickly put a blowtorch to much of the plan.
-
The Sandoval contract is ok too - consistency is there, the youngest premium FA available (so there is at least improvement possible). Do I wish he hit more homers? A bit, although some of that is choice. He could be a Monster-hitting machine.
-
The key thing here also is that when guys like Fred or whomever worry about the budget - the luxury tax is a choice. The Red Sox have room under the tax, but they can also go over - and for the Red Sox, the market forces make it very desirable to do so if the right guy is there. I hate the $/WAR argument since each franchise has its own values for that thing. But no doubt the Sox and Yanks $/WAR is very high, enough to make bold moves (not stupid ones obviously).
-
What is interesting about Sandoval when you watch him is that: 1. He is a good athlete. He is tubby, but the feet are nimble and the hands are good. He is a legitimately above average 3B. 2. He obviously lacks the patience Wade Boggs has. But what he does have is the same sort of plate coverage and willingness to use the whole field, at the expense of maximizing his natural power. He is not a huge HR guy, but as much of it has to do with his approach than anything. He could make a killing peppering the Monster.
-
If you look at the last 3 years, he was MVP caliber in 2013 (over just 86 games!) and good last year. The salary looks bad but given the surrounding economics it's fine. It's just money that would go in John Henry's pockets or somebody at Liverpool.
-
I'd say sign Ross and live with it. If they want a starting caliber guy (not a true excellent backup like Ross), Geovany Soto is there and a guy who might be up for a 1-year "rebuild value" sort of deal.
-
He might have been able to hit well enough to play as a catcher - but he was a poor catcher. And not a good enough hitter to play anywhere else. If his bat were Jose Abreu like, they could have found a spot for him - but it wasn't.
-
Relatively close in terms of performance to date. Zimmermann if 5 years younger. He was a co-#1 on the best team in the NL last year.
-
Strasburg or Jordan Zimmermann (short hitches on both, but you asked)
-
That is more an aspect of his FA timing than anything else. Moving from the infield to the outfield is rare but not unprecedented. (Biggio, Yount to name two) Moves to preserve value - whether an incumbent team comes up with the idea or a FA suitor ultimately makes little difference. It's the same risk-reward assessment.
-
Cespedes + XB gets you a James Shields level pitcher? 2 years of David Price cost the Tigers less.