sk7326
-
Posts
7,631 -
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
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by sk7326
-
And 14 for about 700 which is in line with a full season ... which is a reasonable expectation. The homeruns will go-up with the switch to Yankee Stadium most likely - probably won't get you to 20 (although I wouldn't be surprised if it did) but should get a guy who is not a slap hitter into double figures.
-
Dice-K did not work out but it was the sort of evaluation that made sense. 6 years of control of a 26 year old with a strong track record? Yes please. Of course, his unwillingness to change his approach for the US killed him. At least Tanaka has flashed from scouting reports more American approach a la Darvish. It's a plus. I tend to look at front office moves as 1) genuinely bad, 2) defensible, 3) genuinely good ... categories #2 and #3 can still have bad results. You can't predict the future, but if you are making percentage plays, you can only get so mad at a front office. (it's why the Gonzalez trade does not fill me with anger or anything)
-
He'll hit homeruns in NY. Nothing insane - but he is shifting to the best lefty power ballpark in the bigs, on that basis alone he should be a low double figures sort of guy there at worst. It is a reason why I think the signing is a bit more defensible for the Yankees - but not as part of the offseason strategy they have in fact actually executed i.e. letting Cano walk for Ellsbury.
-
SoxSport is half right - the compensation system is stupid. However, the logic of the compensation system is passe - just let the teams trade their picks and everybody would get more value out of it.
-
They changed inconsequentially at catcher, held at 1B and added some bullpen help which is never a bad thing. They have improved maybe - but they have not gotten worse. There is a bit more uncertainty, comes with putting high ceiling but unproven guys in key spots - but it's exciting. Verducci may not be wrong, but whatever the difference is is pretty minor.
-
The 2012 Dodgers won 86 games. It was not some sort of Hindenberg disaster. They also had the best pitcher in the NL (maybe either league). They were "contenders" they just missed the 2nd wildcard by 2 games. The Dodgers did not have some epiphany - adding Greinke moved them from an 86 win team to a better one (that and a shocking bounceback year from HanRam).
-
Appreciate the catch. Of course this all hurts smart small market teams and helps cheapskate owners. But in a way that was the point.
-
The simple example for how the draft slotting works. Imagine having 3 picks as slots A, B and C. The commish's office assigns slots: A: $3,000,000 B: $1,000,000 C: $500,000 This means your total bonus pool is $4,500,000. This is bonus money for ALL of your picks. And you only get the $4.5M by signing the 3 guys. Now suppose you DO sign the 3 guys for the following bonuses A: $2,900,000 B: $1,100,000 C: $250,000 You signed them for a total of $4,250,000. This means you have $250,000 to spend on bonuses outside of the slotted rounds (first 10 rounds). So you could try to lure a Middlebrooks or Westmoreland from a harder commitment with the $250,000 for instance. Now what if you cannot sign the B slot guy. Then your max pool drops to $3,500,000 in this case. That money is gone. The system forces you to take a few easy signs to keep you in the game on the harder guys.
-
It's based on number of picks etc ... what you probably expect with the sandwich picks is a bit of portfolio management. You only get access to the "slot" if you sign the guy. So the Red Sox' bonus pool is dictated by the picks and their value - but can only be realized by signing those guys. What this means is that while the position of the picks sound amazing - the fact is that the Red Sox are not going to use all of those picks in a straight "best player available" sort of way. Some of them will be used that way, but a number of them will just be easy signs (like senior college players) so they can get the bonus money which if they manage things right, might allow them to take a true "tough sign" in the later rounds like the olde days.
-
The way the Yankees have conducted the offseason is a little baffling. That they spend a ton of money is one thing - they are at the point on the ROI/Win curve where spending a lot actually makes a ton of sense if you can afford it. That they did not spend the money on keeping Cano while they were at it does not. You keep Cano plus the rest of the shopping spree and you have materially improved your ability to contend and the spoils that come with it. The Red Sox offseason has been quiet, neutral-ish. But that's fine. In their position you can make small changes, walk around with your bevy of prospects and contract absorption ability jingling away in your pockets waiting for an opportunity only you can pounce on e.g. if the White Sox ever SERIOUSLY took calls on Chris Sale or something equivalent.
-
I will agree with UN here. I defended their valuation and signing of Ellsbury. But that also was dependent on other moves, including figuring out 2B. Ellsbury for Cano is a net negative, even if Ellsbury could be particularly effective with 81 games of his fly balls finding the bleachers. Cano is one of the top half dozen position players in the league, full stop - so letting him go is basically letting 6 wins walk out the door without a backup plan. McCann is an upgrade and Beltran is less of one. And assuming they re-sign Kuroda and get Tanaka, the rotation is a little better. But this was not a 2009 goldmine offseason for the Yankees AT ALL. I'd say the Yankees offseason might be roughly 3 or 4 wins overall of impact - maybe. They spent an awful lot of money to just go into the Baltimore-Texas-Tampa soup. When they went shopping in 2009, it got them a wire-to-wire sort of dominance like the 2013 Red Sox had. BIG difference.
-
Considering what a "sell low" Middlebrooks represents today ... Allen Webster is about the return I'd expect. Now this doesn't mean I think Middlebrooks is better than that - I do. But you take 172 career games (off the top of my head) of non-special defense, .300 OBP and light tower power when he makes contact (which isn't that often) - for a guy who is not all that young ... an Allen Webster is reasonable. I think that sort of return is an argument for HOLDING Middlebrooks. But it's not at all an argument that it is an unfair return for what Middlebrooks represents. 30 HRs in 170 games is good - but take that with an OBP and defensive results which have not matched the ability - and you basically have a somewhat better Mark Trumbo. There is potentially a Kevin Towers out there to fool or an out-of-favor prospect to be dealt ... but that is the reality of Middlebrooks' market until he can find the June 2012 mojo for real.
-
It's #62 - in all of baseball. Probably the #2 or #3 pitcher in the Marlins org. For what its worth, the preseason list there had Casey Kelly, Allen Webster in that same ballpark. I don't think you were going to get a Strasburg level guy by dealing Middlebrooks. A pitcher with some mid-level or higher upside or a position prospect is probably what you'd expect for somebody who has had spotty results in his big league career to date (but is still young and all).
-
Hot start in 2012 which led to a .325 OBP - right on league average in his rookie campaign. Burden is on him to show he can get there. But the athletic ability and light tower power are there. Reason Trumbo is a poor player is not the low OBP - it is the low OBP combined with having no other baseball skills.. I like Middlebrooks - a good defensive 3B with light tower power and below average on-base skills ... that is a legit starter. I'd want to get a real guy if you're going to move him. There are limitations, and there are strengths, and there is a lot of raw potential which come with the sort of development background he had. If he can get to .315-.325 sort of OBP - right around average, shade below and yes, better than Reddick - he can be a very valuable guy,
-
#62 on Keith Law's 2013 Top 100 http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8878129/mlb-top-100-prospects-2013-nos-51-75
-
What is odd is that I don't see the issue with interpretation. Kemp is a Top 5 player - when healthy, as a CF. Both of those things are in peril. As such, you have to downgrade him. If you had any sort of solid probability that the Top 5 Kemp is likely for the next 2 or 3 years even, I'd back the truck up with the Cecchini's etc. But I am very pessimistic about that. I'd love to have Kemp roaming LF for us. His bat and a decreased outfield responsibility with reasonable health means we'd have the best outfield in the league possibly. But the probability of him achieving that is not at all a slam dunk, and it would be way too expensive for us to find out.
-
It's all part of the soup ... WAR incorporates at least the best attempts in the industry to value the rest of baseball aside from hitting stats (let alone those awful context dependent ones)). No single stat is "standard", but WAR did a nice job capturing just how fantastic a season Victorino had in a way that the ones you cite would have completely missed (for instance).
-
Fangraphs 4.5/2.7 BB 4.8/2.6 Is 2.6/2.7 "sniffing" 3? Depends on your level of charity. Considering the Sox got 2.8 out of the LF pu-pu platter (and we were happy enough with it) the numbers are not too bad. The OBP skills are weak - it's why we traded him - but they improved a little in Oakland (and in a tougher hitter's environment) and made him into a useful player. The OBP skills for Middlebrooks are suspect - but it doesn't mean that he can't be an above average to pretty good 3B. Reddick's rise to a useful everyday player is solid inspiration therein. Reddick has the athletic tools to overcome that part of his game with other stuff - and Middlebrooks athletically offers quite a bit of that.
-
I am sure there is one - although whether that one will part with a Bogaerts, or Oscar Tavares level guy is dicier. Maybe Seattle given its moves is that one team - which I wouldn't discount. Texas in theory lines up - but Daniels has generally been a lot smarter than that. Right now, I don't think they could trade Kemp for anything other than salary relief. Yes, there is a level of salary they can pick up where the return would officially be "something" other than just savings. But to me that threshhold is pretty high.
-
Indeed it does - but he also was a 3-4 win player (pick your flavor of WAR) during those time frames too. Low OBPs don't fill me with joy, but they are not death sentences either, especially when you have a guy with a lot of athletic ability.
-
I think the size is an uphill thing for Bogaerts - but he showed enough the last year and change for scouts to have changed their tune from "surefire 3B" to "yeah, he could stay at SS for a while". That is the entire source of the hype. Middlebrooks will never be an on-base machine. But he also is a superior athlete to say, Napoli, and could offer a lot more in terms of defense and versatility. He showed he could at least fake 2B, and I'd have no problem giving an athlete of his caliber turns in a corner OF position. If he concentrates on becoming a really good defensive 3B (which he isn't yet, but clearly able to), the total package along with the raw power can make up for low OBPs. The comparison I always use is Josh Reddick. Reddick does so many good things that his OBP can be low but acceptable enough to access all the good stuff. Last couple of years, Reddick has been OBP enough to be a solid starter. Can Middlebrooks get to that level (which would still be below average)? I think he can.
-
This is the kicker for me. This is not Jacoby Ellsbury having freak accidents running into things (and people). Kemp has suffered from 2 years of "old guy" sort of injuries which have a high likelihood of being chronic things. He already has to be downgraded a little because he has to play a corner to preserve his legs. I think the Dodgers are dreaming if they think they can get a premium haul for him, even if they eat half of the contract.
-
Small sample sizes, not a lot of big league tape on him ... if it comes as easily over the marathon as it did in the tournament - it's because he is really that good. I think the slash line I noted would be a very successful rookie season, and I think there's a good chance he exceeds it. And playing shortstop will be an uphill battle for him - it's the only question mark on his scouting dossier.
-
It is possible. My view of him will be defensively - is he adequate? I am not expecting great (which is fine, the Yankees have won titles with "adequate" defense). Offensively, how quickly will he make adjustments. If he can give a .270/.340/.400 sort of season with double digit homeruns - that would be a good start. But yes, you expect developmental leaps with guys like him who have conquered levels above his age level consistently. It's the "freshman playing with the varsity" thing.
-
I know. I think Brad Stevens with the Celtics said something to that effect ... you are never as good or as bad as you seem at any given time (or something like that)