sk7326

The tricky part of the match with the Cubbies is all of their blue chippers are bats. The Marlins have historically prized arms - and the Cubs system is barren as far as quality arms. The Marlins would have to either want what the Cubs are selling - or the Cubs will have to find some pitching. I also think the industry view on Bogaerts is way way higher than you think. The questions about SS/3B are real - but the industry sees a guy who was super young and struggled in the middle of sloppy management. (there is real question on that front in the post- Theo administration ... so far the evidence on how they have handled kids now vs how Theo and Tito did it is not good) He is still way too young not to project significant things. The worst you can say about him is that maybe he is a change of scenery guy - but I doubt even that. Bradley and WMB are different animals - you start getting to 25, 26 years old and plateauing, that is a major red flag. When WMB turned down a chance to go to AFL that was even worse. I think where the horse chips came from is the phalanx of pitchers we have. There are a lot of arms (which the Cubs don't have) but after the one month tryout - nobody with a Top 2 projection outside of Owens (who we didn't see). Workman and Webster look like short relievers, Barnes has some potential. Ranaudo looks wholly fungible. The Marlins would love live arms (like when we had Anibal Sanchez) - we have some work to do there. Now, great relievers matter - look at us a year ago and the Royals this year - but when that is the ceiling as prospect depth that is less awesome.

The Red Sox can put a good deal together. Problem is the Dodgers can put up a better one. They can build something around Puig and a couple of true star prospects. Red Sox have more depth but probably more debate around that depth.

I'll say this slowly: 1. Most of Bogaerts' peers just finished SINGLE A ... Tulo was not in the show at his age. He had a horrendous 2 months. But there is a lot there. One can say "well he is an underachiever compared to Ken Griffey and Mike Trout at that age". That describes a lot of people. 2. Red Sox have to make a real assessment on who to bet the catcher position on - Vasquez or Swihart. If Swihart is the choice (and he is the ceiling guy of the two) - then Vasquez is trade bait now. 3. The verdict on Bogaerts has not been given - aside from management dithering on him and listening to WEEI too much in handling him. His age and track record are too strong to not still be in on him. Betts is another strong buy. Those are guys you build around - the other guys you figure out.

Looking at his minor league numbers, Vasquez has seemed to be able to (after working through promotion) provide some decent on base skills. He's no 2007 Albert Pujols or anything, but he has the potential to be a .320-.330 on base which combined with an All-Star Glove would make him a clear above average starting catcher. Swihart's ceiling is clearly higher, but Vasquez is very likely to have a strong career playing baseball for a living.

Vasquez will start somewhere - if it's not Boston it is because Swihart is the answer. Glove-only is an issue at a lot of positions, but the replacement level for catcher is so poor that Vasquez really only has to be a .250/.300/.400 sort to be a solid starter assuming his defense holds. We are in a much more run-poor environment than we have been so quality run prevention is still very valuable. Up the contact rate a little bit, he'll be fine. He needs to get up to "average" to be an all-star, but he has clear "everyday catcher" promise.

I think they looked at it as a (relatively) free look at Cespedes. He has a spinnable contract, and serious talent. If you look at how little they gave up, the move makes sense. (2 months of control of Lester and Gomes, neither which they needed) Now, I was critical of the deal at the time because I was not sure they optimized Lester's value. However, when you saw how little the Rays got back for David Price, I think it was much more of a buyer's market than it seemed.

We have won 3 titles since 1918 - Beckett was indispensible to one of them. He gets a warm hat tip from this direction.

They tried to be patient with Bradley - and I'd still be willing to do so. At the same time, it is clear that Betts is the future and Castillo is worth a look. Bradley killed a lot of his value this year - definitely needs a change of scenery.

The only guy to get a hit for the Yankees in this game

But this is one of the rare years where the starting pitching will just cost money - you can land 2 of the 3 best FA arms without surrendering a pick. Think of it this way (and this won't happen, but pure theory) they could sign Price, Lester and Scherzer for a 2nd round pick. So it's not an either/or thing - the money will be used to address the pitching. Long term concerns about Puig's itch to get better are warranted, but the raw talent is undeniable. I'd kick the tires at least. That said, with Friedman in charge it won't be cheap.

A guy with light tower power on a reasonable contract but with poor on base skills ... it is worth seeing what they can get for him. The outfield is crowded - Betts is the only true untouchable.

And the only guy to get a hit on this night

and won 3 titles in 10 years ... the best era in post-1920 Red Sox history ... by a really long way. This year was a lot of bad luck, and management not committing to the kids they were committed to committing to. This is nothing that can't be fixed quickly.

Those differences are baked into the results, part of being good. There is no evidence that baserunner context, phase of the moon, time in the game have any impact on these differences.

One key will be if the Sox have a bottom ten record (good chance). Signing Lester becomes much more possible if the Sox don't have to surrender the first rounder.

K's are a nonissue compared to the other stuff. That said, I agree the raw power and defense (the metrics recently more than the eye test) are enough that if he can move his OBP back towards "good enough" (league average or so), he can be a 3+win player and that would be tremendously useful.

Rules of thumb is fair, but there are also specific guys - considerations of mechanics and whatnot. Lester's low effort delivery and mechanics combined with his consistency show a guy who has shown no reason not to be considered durable. Now that said, I do think there was an understanding in the last few days between Lester and management that they might sell him off for the season because it's good business. And the Red Sox probably (if they play at this pace) will not have to forfeit a first round pick to sign a qualifying FA. As such, Lester's return might be more likely than postulated.

all true - but not a repeatable, specific skill. Good hitters are good hitters are good hitters. Some good hitters are better than other good hitters, but it is about the goodness, not the externalities.

129 PAs is literally nothing from a measurement perspective - I think the best example of clutch being narrative over facts was Papi at the ALCS. That homerun will live as it should - amazing. But he was also really terrible in a series where the Red Sox lost twice. I do not discount the psychological aspect of the game - just pointing out that those factors are baked into the results over a long period of time. Also, what is a big at-bat? They are all big - or the implication is that some players do not try all the time and that's cool. I tend to think (if you want to psychoanalyze) that assigning simplistic things like nerves and whatnot (which is what we'd feel as fans) to guys who do this their whole lives is a bit insulting. What I do think happens is that guys who have mastered the craft allows them to perform it when it is the hardest to do so. But that's what makes them good. I am not even necessarily saying "clutch" does not exist - but none of the definitions of what that means (runners in scoring position, when a new moon is out) have borne out any truth other than either A) luck or the variation you'd expect between good and less good players.

that is the question that management has to figure out - between trade market (Latos) and FAs (Lester, De La Rosa). The question is whether this becomes a sound-and-fury but ultimately kind of neutral offseason (like the Yankees this past one) or something truly productive (like the Yankees 2008-2009, or the Red Sox 2012-2013 one). They have the financial flexibility and prospect inventory to do some lifting on that front.

The players ARE human, but the dudes with poor makeups are weeded out by the process to make the show. If "clutch" existed, then it would be repeatable and a meaningful way to differentiate guys. Nothing in evidence shows any sort of consistent variation. It's like "knowing how to win close games" - aside from some small impact from having a good bullpen, year after year, records in 1 run games are basically coin flips, and those who are good (or bad) do not correlate with much of anything. The contrapositive to clutch players is also a bit alarming - that dudes are loafing during the other at-bats. The players will tell you in the biggest spot they want their best guy - stop the presses. When someone says "I want Nick Punto in there for a big at-bat" then that is newsworthy. Are there variations among stars? Of course - but there are variations among them already. There is no proof that such variation (in clutch spots) is outside of their variation in general.

I read the Reds were dangling Latos - so that is a real possibility. I think bringing back Lester is less than 50%, but a legitimate possibility still. Jorge De La Rosa is a solid idea (though I'd prefer him as a #3 option here) also. Between that and the higher ceiling guys in their org (De La Rosa, Owens, Webster), the chance to shore up the pitching is there. There is some considerable upside here for 2015, so I applaud and understand the Sox' desire to push there - just not sure these were the best moves to further that goal.

Oakland had a need - Cubs knew Hammel was a strong probability to turn into a pumpkin and Samardzjia is young and controllable. That was a fair trade for teams with different priorities. The Sox priorities were different than the Cubs even. Selling, but with 2015 as a major target - it was interesting to see what they did to balance those needs. To me, this move is a bet on Allen Craig to a degree - but more than that it is a bet on the kids, which is exciting. The Red Sox had some serious prospect inventory, but no organizational power to help the big league club. The moves shored that up, now it is on them to figure out the rest.

It is. Clutch numbers are not repeatable, and do not vary with hitter quality. Invariably when an announcer says "this is a guy you'd want up in a big spot" he is also a guy you'd want up in the other spots too. In other words, a good player. Given how difficult it is to make the bigs among all the people who aspire to play baseball - people without the ability to perform under pressure never sniff the show. For instance, David Ortiz is ascribed to be a great clutch performer, but he was total doggy poop in the ALCS, but since the tree fell where no baseball writer was looking, there was no narrative about it. For fans, there are clutch moments for sure. But the idea that there is something about RISP that fundamentally change hitters is just not borne out in any sort of data. Put simply, in basketball for example, you always heard the idea "I'd love to have Larry Bird taking that last shot". Of course you do, because you'd want Larry Bird (of 1986 vintage, not Indiana Pacers GM one) to take EVERY SHOT.

.800 OPS is a strong bat - not amazing, but above average (and he's being paid like an above average regular) I do agree that Craig is sort of the lynchpin to the deals.