sk7326
-
Posts
7,659 -
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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by sk7326
-
I think in 2011 the teams were also figuring out how to portfolio manage in the new slotting system, the balance of easy signs with risky upside. Merrero had an awful senior year but a terrific junior year. He went to a program with a really strong history of producing pros - including of course the Sun Devils' former undersized shortstop. I think they saw some projection, or at least a quick path to the bigs - they got neither. It's ok - 24th pick has a fairly low ROI to begin with. The draft SEEMS like a roll of the dice, and in baseball the "sure thing rate" is lower than other sports. But the top of the draft is still a very good predictor of pro success. Note how Tampa's system took off as they drafted high year after year, and the rankings have slipped as guys have graduated as well as they have stopped picking at #1.
-
It's Farrell's job to say that. The Sox have to simultaneously develop and win - they are defending a title, and the public are gouged way too much for otherwise. If you could get Drew for 300 PAs and he'd be happy with that, why wouldn't you? Indeed, there is a non-zero chance that Bogaerts starts in Pawtucket anyway (we know he can work an at-bat, we don't know if he can crush mistakes, and could use those reps). That said, I understand why Drew is hesitant to take a deal with so little upside personally.
-
The trade bait thing is one thing, but he is clearly a grown up about that. The trade market is much larger than the FA one - and there is a better chance to go to a contender later in the season. Mets don't have to pay the same draft pick price other teams do ... they brought in Granderson, so there is some use in a veteran holding a spot. Just collecting assets If he gets 2 years, then he and the Sox got exactly what they wanted from their marriage last year.
-
First round pick is protected. Price is a third rounder - which is not nothing, but they could probably spin him for more at the deadline than the expected value of a third.
-
I think Gammons is right here - Mets for 2 years is the likely answer. Makes sense for everybody, and there is a lot of posturing going around right now.
-
This changes very little with Bogaerts or 2014 playing time. The thing is - if you are going to sign Drew, then getting him for 2 years is a must. Signing him for one year gets rid of the trade asset - and I suspect his market would be much larger via trade then via FA with a draft pick tied to him (I think he is more valuable with a reasonable salary and 1 year of control than as a pending FA). This why the Mets not signing him has surprised me - their pick is protected, and getting him for a 2-year hitch makes him a very useful trade chip later on.
-
AL East: Sox, Rays, Yankees, Orioles, Jays Central: Tigers, Guardians, Royals, Twins, White Sox West: Rangers, A's, Angels, Mariners, Astros WC: Rays, A's Tigers over Rays NL East: Nationals, Braves, Mets, Marlins, Phillies Central: Cardinals, Pirates, Reds, Cubs, Brewers West: Dodgers, DBacks, Giants, Padres, Rockies WC: Pirates, Braves Dodgers over Nationals
-
It tells you what the qualifying offer can do for some guys ... Drew was right in the heart of that cohort. Same with Ervin Santana and Ubaldo Jimenez. I am surprised at the Mets here. Their first round pick would be protected and Drew at a decent salary is a pretty good trade asset to have - and the Mets have been pretty shrewd with trade assets in their rebuilding.
-
This was pretty obvious. Dell is lucky NESN is sticking with her in any capacity at all - not that she would not have found a gig, but saves her the trouble. Even as a sideline reporter who was basically just rattling off social media questions - there is sufficient credibility issues when the relationship was revealed. Of course NESN given its ownership makes that position fairly empty - not like the network level with the Doris Burke's or Pam Oliver's who actually get interesting information during the broadcasts.
-
Keith Law's Red Sox farm report: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10363490/american-league-east-top-10-prospects-team-2014-mlb Org Top 10 1. Bogaerts 2. Owens 3. Bradley 4. Cecchini 5. Swihart 6. Betts 7. Barnes 8. Webster 9. Ranaudo 10. Ball
-
Keith Law's Red Sox farm report: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10363490/american-league-east-top-10-prospects-team-2014-mlb Org Top 10 1. Bogaerts 2. Owens 3. Bradley 4. Cecchini 5. Swihart 6. Betts 7. Barnes 8. Webster 9. Ranaudo 10. Ball
-
Well the small sample size alert siren comes out for this. I noted both sucked pretty hard last October. But Drew IS a much better offensive player than Iglesias, and as such I'd rather have had him at SS. That neither he nor Iglesias did well in a 2.5 week sample of games (in Drew's case) says more or less nothing about the players as a whole.
-
Terrific hitter in his Houston prime. St Louis he had a fascinating revival, and he played a principal role in what probably goes down as the current game which is used as "the greatest game since ____". (the Texas-Saint Louis Game 6)
-
Well, Drew v Iggy in the 2013 playoffs is confusing their ABILITY to hit with whether they actually hit or not ... Drew's ability far, FAR outstrips Iglesias offensively, well more than the defensive gap. Alas, he had a rough postseason. At the same time, Iglesias pulled a .231/.286/.231 in the postseason while Drew did .111/.140/.204. Both lines were pretty ghastly, certainly close enough to say both sucked it pretty hard at the plate.
-
The team needed Peavy - more to get through the marathon than the postseason per se ... and he cost them something meaningful. But Iglesias was a fair price for 2 years of a mid rotation starter. Dreams of Middlebrooks-Bogaerts-Iglesias sound good, but really there are not that many at-bats to go around ... three youngsters with starting ability means somebody is being dealt. So as it turns out - that happened, just a year early.
-
No way for the optics to look good, but the girl needs people to care for her. It is good he threw his hat in the ring, and if it works out it works out.
-
I will avoid the discussion of "clutchiness" or the correlation between errors and defense - same series he made a catch that literally three or four people alive could make. Since it's a short series - the mistakes are magnified, but in defense there is that "play you should have made" vs "getting to a ball nobody else gets to". Jeter can keep his errors low since ground balls zoom past him so regularly for basehits for example.
-
BTW, I will not sit here and say that I could not live with a .680 OPS vacuum cleaner at SS with the rest of our lineup. Iglesias would have been fine to me. But he's blocking a guy who has all of the markers of being "special" - yes, I know nothing is certain - and guys like that make guys like Iglesias trade bait, full stop.
-
There is very little you can judge about any hitter from a crappy 16 game stretch - which most players can have. Iglesias could hit .600 during that time and it would have proved just as little. Over a meaningful sample of ABs, Drew was a much more dangerous hitter - that wasn't really close. Drew was 8th among SSs in WAR last year with fewer PAs than anybody above him except for the out of nowhere year HanRam had. A 16 game slump is not dispositive of this.
-
And was so good defensively they had to keep playing him despite his horrendous slump.
-
He doesn't have to be especially good offensively to be playable with a glove like his ... especially in a situation like Detroit where they have enough pop to hold their nose and endure it. The Iglesias who was here in 2012 whose nearly half of his at-bats were either strikeouts or infield popups was not even that good.
-
Well, it talks to the single area where the manager can impact a game the most - the deployment of personnel, especially managing a bullpen. I think those who say they have "none" say it as a response to the sound and fury of things like sacrifices and hit and runs signifying nothing.
-
Clemens-Hurst-Boyd-Nipper was probably the best rotation - I'd give Boyd-Nipper the edge over Wakefield-Lowe and Schilling-Pedro 2004 vs Clemens-Hurst was closer than it seems. 1986 bullpen depth was not bad - Schiraldi was great until his meltdown ... but I'd rather have the Timlin-Embree-Foulke or Tazawa-Breslow-Uehara back of the bullpen. The 2003 lineup (with Varitek hitting 27 homeruns as a #9 hitter! And Bill Mueller winning the batting title from the #8 spot) is the best Red Sox lineup I've ever seen. In 2004 - replacing Walker with Bellhorn, and one of Damon's worst seasons with his best, offset by dropoffs from Varitek, I'm not sure where you compare 2004 and 2003. It's pretty close.
-
With Iglesias' glove ... an empty .270 or so works ... last year 25% of his bWAR came from defense. In 2012, all of his positive bWAR came on that side too. The caliber of the SS cohort has been shrinking a bit too offensively. He really could be a Mark Belanger equivalent or mid-career Omar Vizquel and be completely effective. (those are still open questions, but you get the idea)
-
The jury is out certainly - at the same time Bogaerts is an MVP-level upside ... with a resume to date which historically is a near guarantee of relevance. Trading Iglesias was not a mistake - you have to trade somebody to get help, and Iglesias was not one of your blue chippers. Regarding XB - Guys who can compete - not even be a superstar - in the bigs at his age almost never fail. The only argument is whether he will max out at "starter" vs "someone to tell your kids about".