Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 17, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4326729)
Guess I can delete the Word document I got up on my computer. This is better anyway.

One thing I'd like to see happen is Aceves punted. I don't think it makes sense to make the moves they've made in the interest of a positive clubhouse and keep him around. He's not so good that he's a "must have." That said I love the bullpen. Two lefties give Farrell some flexibility and Tazawa, Uehara and Bailey are a 7-8-9 set up that I think should be expected to be very good.

My other hope is that Kalish gets the LF job ahead of Nava. I think there is upside with Kalish that does not exist with Nava. In both of Nava's MLB stints he has faded badly after a fast start. I think he is a classic guy who can do some things but gets exposed as teams see him. I don't think Kalish is likely to be worse than Nava and I think he has a good chance to be better.
   2. Dale Sams Posted: December 17, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4326785)
If they can’t, there isn’t really any point in projecting anything, because the Sox won’t win. I can understand the case for Dale Sams style pessimism of “they’re terrible until they prove they aren’t


I got a shout-out!

'Behaving like a normal baseball organization' would do wonders for my confidence. I would also note:

Last year the Sox paid about 55 million to four players for 2.1 WAR.

If we take the new guys salaries and compare them to last year we have:

Gomes, 5 mill, 1.6 WAR
Napoli, (if they sign him), 13 mill, 1.4 WAR
Dempster, 13 mill, 3.6 WAR
Victorino, 13 mill 2.4 WAR
Drew 9 mill, -.5 WAR

No real point. I just thought it was interesting. Those numbers are a bit underwhelming but a lot better than the fab four.

also, re: 'How much they have to spend next year'. Doesn't the tax penalty reset, so theoreticly, they can spend as much as they want in 2014?
   3. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 17, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4326793)
The 2014 luxury tax threshold is $189M, an increase of $11M from the 2010-2012 threshold. So there's an extra $10M to play with, along with money they likely won't spend this year and money freed up from contracts ending.
   4. Dale Sams Posted: December 17, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4326800)
Are those tax threshold numbers, CBA numbers or are they fluid? Meaning are they set in stone or based on something like annual FA averages or some other formula?
   5. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 17, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4326813)
The luxury tax payroll is calculated based on contract AAV (so Ortiz' salary for luxury tax reasons is $13M even though he makes $14.5M this year), and it is re-calculated at the end of the year to include incentives, length of time on the roster, and so on.

The luxury tax payroll calculation also includes salaries for players on the 40-man but not on the 25-man, as well as some other random costs. A good rule of thumb is that the major league roster has a luxury tax threshold ~$12M under the official number.
   6. jmurph Posted: December 17, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4326815)
That isn’t enough to justify great confidence in a 90+ win team in 2014.  I can definitely see the case for Jittery McFrog style pessimism here, that the Sox have failed to position themselves as true contenders for either 2013 or 2014.  I’m willing to wait and see.  2014 is still a ways off, and given the cost in talent or dollars for front-line stars, I don’t see a path to 2013 contention that I would have preferred the Sox to take.


My pessimistic take on this: 2014 will give us worse projections for Ortiz, Ross, Gomes, Victorino, and Napoli. Is Pedroia to the point of regression yet? Either way, let's say your eyeballing projection of 86 wins for 2013 is right on. Wouldn't this same roster, next year, project slightly worse? Not wildly, but something like 2-3 overall wins, combined? I'm only thinking of Middlebrooks and Drew as guys who would potentially project to be better in 2014 than in 2013.

Sorry if this is an overly simplistic point (or a wrong one, but please correct me!), but I think that's why I'm a bit... confused about this off-season. I like that they're not into Victorino, etc, for the long term, but they will all still be under contract next year. Which is going to mean a need for even more improvement to get to 90+ wins, but with less roster spots available.
   7. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 17, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4326828)
I'm only thinking of Middlebrooks and Drew as guys who would potentially project to be better in 2014 than in 2013.
Doubront, not Drew, right? Plus Lavarnway, maybe Kalish. The other note of optimism is that the Sox are hoping to have Rubby De La Rosa in the rotation and Jackie Bradley Jr in the outfield in 2014, with Bogaerts, Barnes, and Webster all possible additions as well. (Or any of those guys could be traded for MLB talent.)

I don't mean to imply that I think getting to 90+ wins will be easy. As I said, it looks like 2014 is a hill to climb, and the moves this offseason have made it more likely that the Sox will be non-shitty in 2014 bu they have not made it that likely that the Sox will be as good as they ought to be. I'm just feeling that with 15-16 months before the 2014 season starts, there's room to wait and see and not be overly pessimistic.
   8. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 17, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4326834)
One thing about 2014 is the Sox will have the money and a spot in the outfield to acquire a star-caliber player. Now, that player may already be here in the form of Jacoby Ellsbury but at least they have that opening and the money to spend. I think that's the key to 2014. They've built a bit in reverse of what Duquette did in 1998-2001. They have the surrounding pieces, the key now is finding that superstar. They have the money for it and between an outfield spot and shortstop I think they have the roster spots to put that player in.
   9. Jittery McFrog Posted: December 17, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4326880)
I can definitely see the case for Jittery McFrog style pessimism here

Oh no, I didn't mean to spearhead a style of pessimism!

For a moment let me try not to be a complete pessimist: even though I do not agree with the Sox strategy this offseason, there is enough upside on the roster for a pleasantly surprising season. Middlebrooks, Lavarnway, maybe de la Rosa or Iglesias are young, any of them could take big step forward. Pedroia could stay healthy, Lester could return to being Lester. Who knows what Ellsbury is at this point, but maybe he's much closer to his MVP self than he looked last year. Maybe not being managed by Bobby Valentine will bring out the best in the team.

From a simple rooting perspective next year should be fun. It's essentially a given that this team will be more fun to root for than last year's, but I think it'll be much much better. I expect I'll quite enjoy rooting for Victorino, as ambivalent as I may be about his signing; seems like my sort of player. Assuming Napoli's not broken, we should once again have a 1Bman who can hit some dingers. Dempster instead of Beckett is a massive upgrade in the easy-to-root-for department. I'm eager to see more from Middlebrooks and Tazawa, and I'm pretty hopeful about Lavarnway.

I'm not actually that pessimistic about the team per se, I just think they had a hell of an opportunity and didn't make the best of it. Not making the best of it might still be enough. If so, I'll gladly eat my words and go along for the ride.
   10. Cmax Sox the Box that Rocks? Posted: December 17, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4326931)
Can we do a best-case scenario evaluation, MCoA?

Let's sat Pedroia performs in his "I'm better than Cano I swear" manner, and Ellsbury, maybe not out-of-his-mind levels, but plays like he should and doesn't get injured.
Let's say Will Middlebrooks performs at his "I want to be the next D-Wright/Evan Longoria" level, or at least Youkilis level.

Let's say Gomes is replacementish level, and Victorino with his defense is whatever.
Let's say Lackey doesn't have the highest ERA in baseball history.
Let's say Lester and Buchholz pitch as they should, or close to it, along with Dempster.

What do we need at this point? To be contenders for 90+ in 2014, we need a legit outfielder, we could use a short stop, and we could use a catcher.
And we could definitely use a starting pitcher.
Edit: I guess De La Rosa might be that SP, but I have massive doubts.

I'm fairly confident, if anything, in our bullpen. Lots of depth, some of those guys will be traded to shuffle the roster a bit.

Who do we target, how do we get there..and if all "goes well" how do we get to 90+ in 2014? Short stop..Catcher..a SP..an outfielder.. stay healthy..?
   11. Dale Sams Posted: December 17, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4326967)
If everyone on the team equalled their career best...at the same time, I'm fairly confident they would reach the World Series.
   12. jmurph Posted: December 17, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4327095)
Doubront, not Drew, right?


I was actually thinking just about the hitting side of things, but your post and Jose's make lots of good points. Especially this:

They have the surrounding pieces, the key now is finding that superstar.


That's a very succinct articulation of what this off-season has delivered, for better or worse.
   13. Mattbert Posted: December 17, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4327123)
Who do we target, how do we get there..and if all "goes well" how do we get to 90+ in 2014? Short stop..Catcher..a SP..an outfielder.. stay healthy..?

In the hypothetical world where "all goes well" I think the following things happen:

- Iglesias demonstrates a whiff of ability to hit AAA pitching. Bogaerts and Marrero make strides in the lower minors and earn mid-year promotions. Iglesias takes over at short in 2014.

- Doubront continues to emerge as a solid mid-rotation starter. Young power lefties who can strike out a batter per inning don't grow on trees. Doubront is a few refinements away from being a real asset.

- Kalish is more recovered from his shoulder injury and hits well enough to be half of a useful platoon in an outfield corner. Justin Upton gets called out by Arizona's ham-fisted ownership and they trade him to Boston next winter for pennies on the dollar. Yay!
   14. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 17, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4327161)
My other hope is that Kalish gets the LF job ahead of Nava. I think there is upside with Kalish that does not exist with Nava.
Ryan Westmoreland has a better chance of contributing significant value on the field to the Red Sox than Kalish does. Kalish can't hit.


I think we should all be rooting for Arizona to have a really disappointing season. Guided by the rest of youse guys, I think this offseason's approach can be best understood as the foundational moves in preparation for the acquisition of Justin Upton (or a Justin Upton-type player). And that's how I'm looking at things from now on.
   15. Cmax Sox the Box that Rocks? Posted: December 17, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4327165)
- Iglesias demonstrates a whiff of ability to hit AAA pitching. Bogaerts and Marrero make strides in the lower minors and earn mid-year promotions. Iglesias takes over at short in 2014.

- Doubront continues to emerge as a solid mid-rotation starter. Young power lefties who can strike out a batter per inning don't grow on trees. Doubront is a few refinements away from being a real asset.

- Kalish is more recovered from his shoulder injury and hits well enough to be half of a useful platoon in an outfield corner. Justin Upton gets called out by Arizona's ham-fisted ownership and they trade him to Boston next winter for pennies on the dollar. Yay!


Hah. I am much less excited about Iglesias... I see him desperately trying to get on base and not succeeding. He'll play great D but be a liability at the plate.

Bogaerts seems more Hanley Ramirez-esque but who knows. I still think trading one of them for a possibly realistic short stop would be nice.
Doubront I have not seen enough of but I'll your take word on it that he can be a mid-rotation asset.

Justin Upton I don't like. He's gonna be too expensive, and he has too much of his brother/Carl Crawford in him to make me that excited. I'd rather see us go after someone like Trumbo, and I don't think Kalish is going to be a full time star left fielder in the majors, is he? We need a legitimately productive batter in LF.

We aren't to far from being there, but our SS is still a big question mark, as is one outfield spot, a catcher, and starting pitcher.
   16. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 17, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4327167)
Kalish can't hit.


Certainly the last two seasons of lost development are a major concern but through 2010 he was playing like a guy who was capable of becoming a decent MLB player.

   17. Nasty Nate Posted: December 17, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4327168)
Ryan Westmoreland has a better chance of contributing significant value on the field to the Red Sox than Kalish does. Kalish can't hit.


How Ryan Kalish of all people could generate an irrational hatred is beyond me, considering he's barely been around.
   18. Mattbert Posted: December 17, 2012 at 08:20 PM (#4327260)
I am much less excited about Iglesias... I see him desperately trying to get on base and not succeeding. He'll play great D but be a liability at the plate.

A lineup with above-average bats everywhere else can afford to carry a liability in the nine hole if he's saving you buckets of runs with his D. Obviously it remains to be seen whether the Sox will run out such a lineup, but it's conceivable.

Justin Upton I don't like. He's gonna be too expensive, and he has too much of his brother/Carl Crawford in him to make me that excited. I'd rather see us go after someone like Trumbo, and I don't think Kalish is going to be a full time star left fielder in the majors, is he? We need a legitimately productive batter in LF.

Upton's deal runs through the 2015 season, so three years remaining for a total bill of under $40M. That's entirely reasonable for a power bat just entering his prime. Further, I can't think of two corner outfielders much more dissimilar than Upton J and Crawford. Upton's approach at the plate is light years more advanced than Crawford's (and has been ever since he broke in at 19), and while he's by no means a bad defender he'll never be confused for a CF playing out of position. The guy he reminds me of the most is Giancarlo Stanton, but with slightly less raw power and more speed.

Trumbo, meanwhile, is a year and a half older than Upton and has never shown the ability to consistently get on base at any level. And he's a much worse defender and baserunner. Not a bad player, certainly, but not a guy I'd target, particularly.

Kalish is a good enough defender that he doesn't need to hit like a classic slugging left fielder to be valuable. Before the injury, he looked like a decent bet for a not quite as good as Trot Nixon sort of career. Labrum rehab is brutal, even for non-pitchers, so he's hopefully nearing the end of a long road back. This is probably his make or break season.
   19. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 17, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4327277)
How Ryan Kalish of all people could generate an irrational hatred is beyond me, considering he's barely been around.

I know, it's odd, isn't it? I think it's the confluence of several factors - I had high hopes for him, then he had all these setbacks, and then when he finally has a chance to pitch in it's the worst stretch the Red Sox have had in a long time... and he just shits the bed, repeatedly. He LOOKED awful to me at the end of the 2012 season, and I guess a lot of my frustration at last year (and the year before) sort of landed on him. Which is unfair to him, personally, but luckily for him he doesn't care what I think of him. Because I still think he's terrible, will never hit, and needs to be traded while there's still a whiff of bloom left on his blossom.

Which I also feel about Iglesias, minus all the irrational hatred stuff. I just don't think he'll ever hit enough to justify a roster spot, much less a starting spot, and he should also be traded while anything can still be gotten out of him. I fear that spending ANOTHER year 'finding what we have' in Iglesias is going to be the year we finally find out he's actually probably worthless.
   20. Cmax Sox the Box that Rocks? Posted: December 17, 2012 at 09:11 PM (#4327292)
Which I also feel about Iglesias, minus all the irrational hatred stuff. I just don't think he'll ever hit enough to justify a roster spot, much less a starting spot, and he should also be traded while anything can still be gotten out of him. I fear that spending ANOTHER year 'finding what we have' in Iglesias is going to be the year we finally find out he's actually probably worthless.


^this. I appreciate Mattbert modifying my opinion of guys like Trumbo and Upton tho. I know that Trumbo isn't the best D or the fastest, but put him in Fenway and in LF and his D is minimized and his bat is maximized. I agree that there are other options, but I am unsure how Justin Upton fits onto the team. I worry about him "fitting in" with the team and that he is frankly, with all his hype, only provided one stellar season. I guess he is still quite young tho.

I was reading this and remain vaguely skeptical on him, but I was unaware of how cheap he was for the next 3 years. That makes it entirely worth it.
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/31290/is-justin-upton-a-top-10-player (I am not sure if I can link these types of things, sorry guys, new to the rules)

Finding talent like Upton at that price tho, does sound nice. I would like a legit corner OFer instead of Gomes/Victorino being our L/R out there.
   21. villageidiom Posted: December 18, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4327881)
I fear that spending ANOTHER year 'finding what we have' in Iglesias is going to be the year we finally find out he's actually probably worthless.
He's a glove guy in AAA at age 22. When should we know what we have?
   22. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 18, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4327993)
EDIT: Nevermind.
   23. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: December 18, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4328027)
he should also be traded while anything can still be gotten out of him.

I wonder if the 8.2M the Red Sox spent on signing Jose Iglesias has made them somewhat gun-shy in trading him. When you drop that much money on a 19 year-old prospect, it'll sting not to get a good ROI on him. At least Casey Kelly netted A-Gone.
   24. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 18, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4328042)
Does anyone think Iglesias has any trade value right now? I'd be stunned if he did. I think right now it makes more sense to hold him and see what happens. I think the return in an Iglesias trade at this time would be so small that hanging onto him and letting him develop is the way to go. He's got one option left so that's 2013 then you keep him around for a couple years as a backup/defensive replacement. I'd rather that and hope somewhere in there he figures it out at the plate enough to be useful. I mean, if he spends 2014/2015 as Bogaerts' caddy that's not necessarily the worst outcome.
   25. Nasty Nate Posted: December 18, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4328057)
Can't Iglesias become Pokey Reese to Drew's/Bogaert's Mark Bellhorn? If all he is is a defensive specialist and pinch-runner, so be it.
   26. Cmax Sox the Box that Rocks? Posted: December 18, 2012 at 08:03 PM (#4328097)
Can't Iglesias become Pokey Reese to Drew's/Bogaert's Mark Bellhorn? If all he is is a defensive specialist and pinch-runner, so be it.


Sure, but he is also one of our top touted prospects that is supposed to be part of this in-organization regrowth everyone keeps talking about. I just don't see him as filling out that role. I see him as being exactly what you say, a defensive sub in the 9th and a pinch runner/backup. Not exactly the savior of our next 10 years.
   27. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 18, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4328121)
I wonder if the 8.2M the Red Sox spent on signing Jose Iglesias has made them somewhat gun-shy in trading him
I'd guess that if the Sox have been gun-shy about trading Iglesias, it had more to do with the Spinal Tap drummer / Hogwarts Defense against the Dark Arts teacher shortstop rotation the Sox have run since the Nomar trade. I'd prefer to keep any plausible long term shorstop in the organization, too, if I had that kind of track record. I'd also guess that he never had all that much trade value in the first place, since he never actually hit outside of the AFL.

$8M over four years isn't that much for a prospect. It's hard to make comparisons because most kids who sign outside of the draft system are so young you can't justify a big bonus, and within the draft system a player's free agency is so constrained there aren't many useful comparisons. Junichi Tazawa, a merely ok prospect, got a million per season, compared to Iglesias' $2M per year.

I guess I'm a little surprised at the apparent investment folks had in Iglesias. I've pretty much always seen him as a fringe type. When you never demonstrate an ability to hit a baseball, I keep my distance. I wonder if it's partly a function of the weakness of the Sox farm system before the 2011 draft - Iglesias wasn't much of a prospect, but he was what we had. I hope he breaks out, of course, and pays off the hope and proves me wrong.
   28. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 18, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4328129)
Eh, maybe I'm overstating it. Iglesias was BA's #52 prospect before 2011. He jumped up to AA, and after a good spell in the AFL, he wasn't abject in the Eastern League. He probably had significant value then. I don't know if he's had all that much since - his 2011 was truly abject, and 2012 at best showed he hadn't developed as a hitter since he was 20.
   29. Darren Posted: December 18, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4328173)
I thought the expectations/investment in Iglesias was all about the huge bonus. Isn't the expectation, when you dole out that kind of bonus, that you're getting a special player? Then, at age 20 adjusting to a new world in the USA, he put up a non-embarrassing .285 BA.

I won't be disappointed if he turns into an all-glove averagish player (actually that's a better description of Reese, isn't it?), but a defensive caddy for that kind of bonus has to be a miss.
   30. chris p Posted: December 18, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4328182)
Isn't the expectation, when you dole out that kind of bonus, that you're getting a special player?

this is absurd. how much is a special player worth? surely more than iglesias' bonus of 6 mil. if you hit 1 of these guys out of 10, you're probably at least coming out even.
   31. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM (#4328431)
I think the mistake with Iglesias was a combination of the club trying to rush him and the press/fans sort of anointing him the 2012 starter back when he signed. In retrospect I wonder if he'd have been better off starting at Salem or Greenville in 2010 and easing his way through the system, learning the craft of hitting a bit more. Instead he started at Portland and while he had the .285 average Darren mentioned it was pretty empty and it was a small sample to boot. Then the next year despite just 70 games and being only 21 he gets thrown to Pawtucket.

In other news and to paraphrase Cliff Clavin; Mike Napoli, what's up with that? When do we start thinking about just moving on and signing Adam Laroche. I kind of get the feeling that Laroche is waiting for a Napoli deal to be finalized because he knows if that falls through he can take that 3/39 deal the Sox offered Napoli.
   32. Mattbert Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4328444)
In other news and to paraphrase Cliff Clavin; Mike Napoli, what's up with that? When do we start thinking about just moving on and signing Adam Laroche. I kind of get the feeling that Laroche is waiting for a Napoli deal to be finalized because he knows if that falls through he can take that 3/39 deal the Sox offered Napoli.

I have no idea what's up with that, although it certainly seems to have progressed beyond the point where the initial "Oh, he got the flu and couldn't fly in to take his physical" rumors are a plausible explanation. Is there a chance he learned that Victorino signed essentially an identical contract and thought (rightly or wrongly) "Hang on, I'm worth more than that guy"? Just spitballin'...
   33. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4328454)
The idea that there is a hang up from the physical seems the most plausible reason but there could be something more odd. I remember that while the JD Drew saga was in part due to the shoulder there was also additional delay because Theo had secretly gotten married and gone on his honeymoon so weird #### happens.

Given the recent track record of this club if the physical turned up something nervy I would simply punt and sign Swisher or Laroche. Bringing in someone pre-broken just seems like a bad idea.
   34. Mattbert Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4328503)
Given the recent track record of this club if the physical turned up something nervy I would simply punt and sign Swisher or Laroche. Bringing in someone pre-broken just seems like a bad idea.

I would strongly, strongly prefer Swisher if it comes to that.
   35. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4328533)
I kind of get the feeling that Laroche is waiting for a Napoli deal to be finalized because he knows if that falls through he can take that 3/39 deal the Sox offered Napoli.

Do you think the Sox would be willing to give up a draft pick for him? By my count it would be the 46thish overall pick (their #7 pick is protected). Should the Sox give up that pick for him?

I have no idea of next year's draft class but if there are talented guys who need convincing to sign, it may even be beneficial to lose the 46thish pick so that the earmarked money could go towards the 7th overall pick or the later-round tough-signing guys.

EDIT: No wait it doesn't work that way. Nevermind my second paragraph. I'm still wrapping my head around the draft implications of the new CBA.
   36. JJ1986 Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4328556)
If you want to go over on a particular pick, it's better to have as many other high picks as possible so that you can draft guys in those spots who'll accept underslot deals.
   37. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: December 19, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4328760)
In other news and to paraphrase Cliff Clavin; Mike Napoli, what's up with that? When do we start thinking about just moving on and signing Adam Laroche. I kind of get the feeling that Laroche is waiting for a Napoli deal to be finalized because he knows if that falls through he can take that 3/39 deal the Sox offered Napoli.


According to Edes, it took 52 days to sign J. D. Drew after reaching agreement with him. I don't think there's anything to worry about. If the Sox were really worried, they'd back out. I think they're just dotting i's and crossing t's.
   38. Darren Posted: December 22, 2012 at 12:27 AM (#4330737)
The solution with Drew was to give him a stupid clause that incentivized hiding any injuries from the club, so I hope they don't do that.


this is absurd. how much is a special player worth? surely more than iglesias' bonus of 6 mil. if you hit 1 of these guys out of 10, you're probably at least coming out even.


In the context of international FAs, this is a really, really high bonus. Guys who get it are usually considered top prospects and that's why Iglesias was considered a top prospect. Maybe I went too far in saying that him not making it is a "miss," though. It's probably to be expected in a fair number of top prospects.
   39. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 22, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4330918)
Anyone have thoughts on the rumored request of Iglesias for Hanrahan by the Pirates? Trading players for relievers was not quite a winning move last year but if the Sox have decided Iglesias ain't gonna cut it I feel like Hanrahan is as good as they can realistically expect in trade for him.

I'd hate to deal Iglesias just as a fan. The few times I've seen him he is such a treat defensively that he's fun to root for. He makes some plays that are just impossible to comprehend.
   40. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 22, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4330921)
Selling low on Iglesias is defensible in the abstract - he might never have more value than this. Selling low on Iglesias in order to pay market value for one year of a good relief pitcher, when the Sox already have an overstocked bullpen, makes absolutely no sense at all.

I am expecting very much not to like the Hanrahan trade. The cost is surely going to be more than just Morales or Aceves, but that would be my clear maximum bid for a reliever.
   41. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 22, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4330925)
MLBTR says a deal is close but no word in who the sox are giving up.
   42. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 22, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4330940)
Not Iglesias. I'm wondering if it's gonna be Kalish, and this is Reddick for Bailey 2: El-Stupid Boogaloo.
   43. Textbook Editor Posted: December 22, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4330943)
So does this deal mean Bailey is really not plan A for 2013? Or is the thought that they can grab a 1st round pick by making Hanrahan a qualifying offer in 2013 and them assuming he'd walk anyway? I'm at a loss to explain the interest here, especially if it costs us anything of value.
   44. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 22, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4330950)
Hanrahan's BB/9 last year was brutal. I don't care for this.
   45. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 22, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4331012)
Jim Bowden is saying Sands and Pimentel. That's doesn't seem unreasonable. Whether or not the Sox should be unloading potentially useful resources to land a reliever...well that's a bit more puzzling but Hanrahan should help. They also pick up a 40 man roster slot which might have some value though that would be a pretty horrific reason to make such a deal.
   46. Dale Sams Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4331021)
Hanrahan's BB/9 last year was brutal. I don't care for this.


.230 BABIP too.
   47. OCD SS Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4331028)
Now sounds like Hanrahan + one player for Pimentel, Sands, and two players.

Looks like the Sox are clearing out their 40-man roster in one fell swoop.
   48. Nasty Nate Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4331052)
This doesn't make sense to me, unless it's a prelude to some other deal. The Sox are a little thin on 1B/OF depth which Sands could presumably provide, and they seemed to have plenty of RP depth.
   49. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4331061)
Well, I can't see Pimentel as having any particular value. Sands, though, I wonder how I'd feel about him if he'd come up through the Sox system instead of being thrown in to the Punto Trade. His CAIRO projection is really quite good - 330/459 for a .342 wOBA. That's not a first-choice 1B, but it's a darn good backup at a position where the projected starter can't be immediately penciled in for 150 games. He could also easily be a better LF than Nava/Gomes. And at 25, Sands could still take another step forward. I don't like giving him away for a pretty good reliever.

This isn't Reddick, where the kid had three plus tools and had shown the kind of skill development in the majors that made his breakout reasonably predictable, but it's still not good.
   50. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:39 PM (#4331074)
Hanrahan's BB/9 last year was brutal. I don't care for this.


As SoxScout points out over on SoSH:

for a 49 game stretch last year he was a 3.7 BB/9 with 51 K in 45.2 IP and .188/.280/.333 against.

His 10 BB in last 9 IP of last season is obviously not a huge concern for the Red Sox.


Those 10BB in the last 9 IP drive up the rate. And if you look at his career rate, I think you'll see it was an aberration. As I said in the main thread, I don't get the negativity.

And MCoA, slow down on Reddick. His "breakout" 2012 was a 110 OPS+, compared to his 109 OPS+ the year before. Reddick needs to learn how to hit better or he'll be a 4th outfielder or out of baseball in a few years.

And as for Sands, he put up the .900 OPS in the PCL. Let's not forget it's the PCL.

Let's all take a little toke on the objective pipe.
   51. Dale Sams Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4331075)
He could also easily be a better LF than Nava/Gomes


I don't like saying this, but this. For a reliever.

But you're right, it's not Reddick or even Lowrie who for even half a season has value.
   52. Dale Sams Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:44 PM (#4331077)
And as for Sands, he put up the .900 OPS in the PCL. Let's not forget it's the PCL.


As far as i can tell, Sands raked at every level but for his 1/3rd season in the majors. But, mostly I don't like trading field players for relievers.
   53. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4331078)
His "breakout" 2012 was a 110 OPS+, compared to his 109 OPS+ the year before. Reddick needs to learn how to hit better or he'll be a 4th outfielder or out of baseball in a few years.
With his baserunning and defense, Reddick is a plus player at a 95 OPS+. He had 4.5 WAR last year for Oakland. Even if you regress his defensive rating significantly, it was easily a 3 WAR season, at a cost of $500k. And he's 25 years old and you don't have to pay him real money until 2015 or so.
for a 49 game stretch last year he was a 3.7 BB/9 with 51 K in 45.2 IP and .188/.280/.333 against.

His 10 BB in last 9 IP of last season is obviously not a huge concern for the Red Sox.
There is no reason to cherry-pick his Apr-Aug stats and ignore his September stats.
   54. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4331085)
The other issue is that this club doesn't need another reliever. The replacement level in the bullpen is already Mark Melancon / Franklin Morales / Scott Atchison. Hanrahan looks like a pretty good pitcher (though almost surely a maddening one), and the Sox already had a three-man RH relief corps of Bailey, Uehara, and Tazawa. Hanrahan seems redundant there.
   55. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:13 PM (#4331103)
The other issue is that this club doesn't need another reliever. The replacement level in the bullpen is already Mark Melancon / Franklin Morales / Scott Atchison. Hanrahan looks like a pretty good pitcher (though almost surely a maddening one), and the Sox already had a three-man RH relief corps of Bailey, Uehara, and Tazawa. Hanrahan seems redundant there.


And Bard.

I mean I'm not super high on Bard but the Sox are sitting on a guy who throws 98-99 and a year ago was one of the best set up men in the game.

I'll repeat what I said in the thread about the trade; Sands/Stolmy is a reasonable package for Hanrahan but it's an odd use of resources for this team.
   56. Nasty Nate Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4331112)
The other issue is that this club doesn't need another reliever. The replacement level in the bullpen is already Mark Melancon / Franklin Morales / Scott Atchison. Hanrahan looks like a pretty good pitcher (though almost surely a maddening one), and the Sox already had a three-man RH relief corps of Bailey, Uehara, and Tazawa. Hanrahan seems redundant there.


I agree, although Atchison is not under contract. Tazawa should be getting some prime innings - last year he threw 86 shutdown innings, half in AAA and half in the American League, with 100 K's and only 22 BB's and 3 homeruns allowed, and the stuff to match.
   57. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4331122)
Dejan Kovacevic tweeted this;

Farewell to Joel Hanrahan, terrific closer and better human. Gave a lot, on and off field, to Pittsburgh.


Right or wrong I think it is quite clear that the Red Sox have made the clubhouse a major part of their decision making process this winter.
   58. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:19 PM (#4331154)
Nevermind. I give up.
   59. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:37 PM (#4331221)
Edes suggests Melancon might be included as well, which makes me curious as to who else the Pirates might be sending back. If it's someone like Jones, then I might feel better about this. Not that much better, but a little.
   60. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:08 AM (#4331243)
But you're right, it's not Reddick or even Lowrie who for even half a season has value.


For what it's worth, ZiPS still doesn't really love Reddick next year.
   61. Darren Posted: December 23, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4331535)
Yeah, with those numbers and a regression on defense, he's only about a 3-WAR player.
   62. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 26, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4332490)
It took a bit but the deal is done;

Sands, Pimentel, Melancon, DeJesus

for

Hanrahan and Brock Holt

Not a huge fan of this but the Sox aren't exactly giving away the farm and Holt at least looks good on a BBRef page. Middle infielder, .808 OPS in the minors. Don't know a damned thing about him other than that though so I can't really get excited but #### it, I'll get a little excited.
   63. Textbook Editor Posted: December 27, 2012 at 03:02 AM (#4332797)
So... Apparently interest in LaRoche is being floated in the media (Rosenthal just had an article up about it)... presumably (one would hope) in an attempt to nudge Napoli toward accepting whatever new/revised offer they've made as a result of whatever was found in the physical.

I say "one would hope" because I have zero interest in giving up a draft pick to get LaRoche and don't think he'd be any great shakes; even if he signed for just a 2-year deal (a big if), I'm not sure that would balance out the loss of the pick (and the slot money for that lost pick).
   64. Dan Posted: December 27, 2012 at 03:15 AM (#4332802)
If they give up the draft pick/allotment for Adam freaking LaRoche after refusing to do so for Swisher or Hamilton then this FO is hopeless.
   65. Toby Posted: December 27, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4332857)
If Washington brings back LaRoche, then Michael Morse probably goes on the trading block. Maybe the Sox should be looking at trading for Morse, though I'm not sure what the Nats would be looking for in return.
   66. Darren Posted: December 27, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4333261)
2nd round pick, right? Why are people so concerned about that?
   67. Dan Posted: December 28, 2012 at 01:50 AM (#4333458)
2nd round pick, right? Why are people so concerned about that?


I'm really not concerned about it specifically, but the Red Sox have shown that they ARE concerned about it in their specific choice of Free Agent signings during this entire offseason. For every position they were looking at filling, they've signed the option that didn't require giving up a draft pick and giving up the ~$1M in the draft pool that the 2nd round pick is worth. Personally I think that was a missed opportunity; the Red Sox won't often have a protected first round pick and during an offseason when they did have one they should have taken advantage of that and signed either a Hamilton or a Swisher or maybe even Greinke. But since they went with Victorino, Gomes, Dempster, and provisionally Napoli over those guys, changing their plans at the last minute and giving up a pick for the likes of Adam LaRoche would show a complete inability to execute a coherent and logical strategy for the offseason.
   68. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 28, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4333537)
2nd round pick, right? Why are people so concerned about that?


Two reasons;

1. Second round picks have value. It's not the 7th pick in the draft but it's a pretty useful spot in the draft that should be helpful.

2. It impacts the Sox signability issues. If the Sox lose the pick they also lose that slot money for the draft. It's possible that is a non-issue but if they are able to get the player in that spot to sign for below slot they have some money to spend elsewhere.
   69. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 28, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4333544)
Dejan Kovacevic tweeted this;


Right now, Dejan is trying to get the Pirates' front office fired, for what are apparently personal reasons. As such, take anything he says with a grain of salt.
   70. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4333581)
The reason I don't want Adam LaRoche is because he had an obvious fluke season at age 32 and doesn't project to be a good ballplayer. Dumber-than-Marcel:

+ 6 Bat - 2 Run + 15 Rep - 8 Pos + 5 Def = +15 RAR

He projects as a below average player. The Sox can certainly cobble together equivalent 1B production from Mauro Gomez and another minor league bat.
   71. Darren Posted: December 28, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4333602)
changing their plans at the last minute and giving up a pick for the likes of Adam LaRoche would show a complete inability to execute a coherent and logical strategy for the offseason.


That's a bit harsh, no? They lost out on one guy and had to go with their 2nd choice, thereby losing a nearly valueless pick? I don't see it.

I do agree, though, that LaRoche is not a good target.

   72. jmurph Posted: December 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4333603)
The reason I don't want Adam LaRoche is because he had an obvious fluke season at age 32 and doesn't project to be a good ballplayer.


This times a million. LaRoche is the guy you add as a free agent when you already have a lights out staff and 3-4 all stars on the roster. Let's hope this is just to motivate Napoli to sign a favorable deal.
   73. Darren Posted: December 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4333613)
This crazy Napoli business--does it happen with other teams or are the Red Sox the only ones who have these long drawn-out post-signing issues?
   74. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4333628)
That's a bit harsh, no? They lost out on one guy and had to go with their 2nd choice, thereby losing a nearly valueless pick? I don't see it.


I disagree with the idea that a 2nd round pick is "valueless." Beyond that while Dan may have been a bit harsh I am aggressively unimpressed with Cherington so far.
   75. Nasty Nate Posted: December 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4333632)
This crazy Napoli business--does it happen with other teams or are the Red Sox the only ones who have these long drawn-out post-signing issues?


Darren, your trade ideas for 1B look wiser every day that this Napoli business remains s.n.a.f.u. The Angels did end up trading someone to relieve their logjam - and not exactly for a king's ransom. I'm not sure if LAA would have dealt with Boston. The Cardinals guys all remain untraded.
   76. Darren Posted: December 28, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4333686)

I disagree with the idea that a 2nd round pick is "valueless."


How about "nearly valueless"? :) An early 2nd round pick averages, what, about 5 career WAR? And according to Wang, it has an excess value of a couple million dollars. Is that a couple million dollars going to be a major consideration when acquiring a free agent? Sounds like, ya know, nearly valueless.
   77. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 28, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4333712)
As Dan noted, under the new rules there's also the extra cash for the draft pool.

They lost out on one guy and had to go with their 2nd choice, thereby losing a nearly valueless pick?

Sorta. If they chose Napoli over Swisher based on the pick, lost out on Swisher during the medical brouhaha and then had to go with their *3rd* choice, it seems fair to criticize management. Of course, they may have liked Napoli over Swisher based on expected performance or the years involved rather than just the pick.

   78. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 28, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4333730)
How about "nearly valueless"? :) An early 2nd round pick averages, what, about 5 career WAR? And according to Wang, it has an excess value of a couple million dollars. Is that a couple million dollars going to be a major consideration when acquiring a free agent? Sounds like, ya know, nearly valueless.


I'll agree to "potentially valueless" and nothing lower! This is shaping up to be the Sox Therapy Cliff! (assuming the "impact player" brouhaha has been resolved).

Ultimately draft picks as a whole are "mostly valueless" but I think they help create a perceived organizational depth which can help in making a trade. Even if we accept for the moment the "nearly valueless" determination I don't think Laroche is a player to give up a lottery ticket for.
   79. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 28, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4333748)
The new slotting system has perhaps affected the value of draft picks. An early 2nd round pick is unlikely to turn into much of anything valuable, but an extra $1M might allow the Sox to sign a top 3 talent who drops to 7th for signability reasons. I don't know what kind of marginal value that has, or how much difference $1M might project to make. But it could make a rather large difference. Or not.
   80. dave h Posted: December 28, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4333847)
Do you mean a top 3 round talent? If so, isn't that just saying again that they lose a second round pick?
   81. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 28, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4333854)
I read MCoA to mean one of the three best players in the draft falling to the 7th pick in the first round (where the Sox are currently picking). In that situation, losing the 2nd round pick itself may not be a big deal, but the extra $1M in draft budget that comes with the 2nd round pick would be useful in signing the first round pick.
   82. dave h Posted: December 28, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4333861)
Ah, I see. So they lose the second round pick either way, but maybe upgrade from the 7th pick to a top 3 pick equivalent, which is presumably where the real big returns are. Why another team would allow this to happen is unclear, but it's certainly possible given the new system hasn't been entirely figured out (and I'm not sure the old one was either).
   83. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 28, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4333863)
Yes, that. "Top 3" as in actually one of the top three talents in the draft. The benefit to a lost season is that the Sox have their best draft position since 1993 - that seventh pick netted us Trot Nixon.

The current projection for the 2013 amateur draft is that this is one of the weakest draft classes of the last decade or two. That's annoying (and things could easily change this spring), but it does suggest that overdrafting at #7 is an even better idea than usual. If one of the best players drops to #7, and he won't sign for $1M over slot, the Sox can roll over that pick to 2014, when the draft class almost certainly has to be stronger.

EDIT: As dave h suggests, though, the same logic also applies to overdrafting at 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. You can risk losing the #5 pick because the 2014 #5 should be more valuable. It depends on the team, of course - some clubs need to show a return from the draft or maximize the near-future value of their draft picks. The Sox' payroll and the quality of the minor league system give us more leeway.
   84. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 28, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4333870)
This crazy Napoli business--does it happen with other teams or are the Red Sox the only ones who have these long drawn-out post-signing issues?
It really seems peculiar to the Henry/Werner/Lucchino Sox. They love anything which seems like an incremental step toward a non-guaranteed contract. Injury issues are pretty much the only area where the MLBPA won't fight like crazy to prevent non-guaranteed contracts, so this is where they usually look for the opportunity. I'm not particularly worried about the Napoli deal falling through. This is just how Lucchino conducts business.
   85. Darren Posted: December 28, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4333873)
If the draft class still looks bad, could they draft a normal number 7 and lowball him? (Seems scummy but a possibility)
   86. Darren Posted: December 28, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4333874)
I'm not particularly worried about the Napoli deal falling through. This is just how Lucchino conducts business.


Yeah, I'm more worried about it actually going through but with a JD Drew/John Lackey "Please play hurt and don't tell us" clause.
   87. Darren Posted: December 28, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4333880)
On this subject, who is Jen Royle? And with her willingness to cover this story while advocating for her friend Mike Napoli, shouldn't she really be covering national politics?
   88. The District Attorney Posted: December 29, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4334164)
   89. Textbook Editor Posted: December 29, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4334184)
It'll be the Yankees and they'll sign him to catch and he'll rake against us for 3 years... You just know this'll be what happens.
   90. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4334285)
BREAKING! A mystery team is interested in Napoli!


If you follow mlbtraderumors, you'll know that the "mystery team" interested in Napoli was floated on the same afternoon that the LaRoche stories were floated. The simplest explanation for the "mystery team" rumor is to gain back some leverage in negotiations with the Sox.
   91. Swedish Chef Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:44 PM (#4334318)
The simplest explanation for the "mystery team" rumor is to gain back some leverage in negotiations with the Sox.

Equally simple and realistic is that Napoli is being shopped and some team is actually interested. Because he should be a pretty desirable signing, and there seems to be little reason for the agent to not find alternatives to the Red Sox at this point.
   92. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4334365)
I don't think Napoli is a particularly desirable signing at this point. If a big market team coming off a horrible season with gobs of money to spend in a ballpark that couldn't be more perfect for him is backing away I think most teams are going to be hesitant. Of course it only takes one and all that but I don't think there is a big market for Napoli right now.
   93. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4334431)
I don't think Napoli is a particularly desirable signing at this point. If a big market team coming off a horrible season with gobs of money to spend in a ballpark that couldn't be more perfect for him is backing away I think most teams are going to be hesitant. Of course it only takes one and all that but I don't think there is a big market for Napoli right now.

A team could easily give him a 1/13-15 deal, so he can prove his health. I'd have to think the Yankees would be interested in that.
   94. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 29, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4334439)
Assuming the Sox are offering 2/25 plus an option based on playing time I'd be surprised if that would appeal to him. Presumably he believes he will stay healthy. If he doesn't think he will stay healthy then all the more reason to take even the 2/25 over the 1/13.

I could be wrong but I would expect that Napoli wouldn't go to another team unless he got a 3 year guarantee (or maybe he's pissed and would take a similar 2+1 that I believe the Sox are offering). I doubt a 1 year deal is that appealing to him.

I'm making the assumption that the Sox' offer is 2/26 + 1/13 that kicks in at 800 PA or something like that. I haven't read anything concrete on that front but that seems reasonable. If the Sox were offering one year I think he'd have bailed.
   95. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 30, 2012 at 12:21 AM (#4334464)
Assuming the Sox are offering 2/25 plus an option based on playing time I'd be surprised if that would appeal to him. Presumably he believes he will stay healthy. If he doesn't think he will stay healthy then all the more reason to take even the 2/25 over the 1/13.

I could be wrong but I would expect that Napoli wouldn't go to another team unless he got a 3 year guarantee (or maybe he's pissed and would take a similar 2+1 that I believe the Sox are offering). I doubt a 1 year deal is that appealing to him.

I'm making the assumption that the Sox' offer is 2/26 + 1/13 that kicks in at 800 PA or something like that. I haven't read anything concrete on that front but that seems reasonable. If the Sox were offering one year I think he'd have bailed.


No point in bailing until you've got a fallback.

Your scenario makes sense, but if Napoli is unhappy with the 2 yr + option, he's going to make sure he has another acceptable offer before he cuts off talks.

   96. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: December 30, 2012 at 01:01 AM (#4334486)
Equally simple and realistic is that Napoli is being shopped and some team is actually interested. Because he should be a pretty desirable signing, and there seems to be little reason for the agent to not find alternatives to the Red Sox at this point.


Well, if you ignore that these two rumors were released within hours of each other, it seems possible that there is a mystery team. But the fact is that the LaRoche rumor was followed within hours by the mystery team rumor. There might still be a market for Napoli, but for the last few weeks he's been "off the market" having reached agreement with the Sox.
   97. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4334564)
A team could easily give him a 1/13-15 deal, so he can prove his health. I'd have to think the Yankees would be interested in that.
That makes zero sense. Napoli is fighting for a three-year deal rather than a two-year deal. A one-year deal does absolutely nothing for him. This may all break down, but the idea of the Yankees dropping in with a far less appealing contract offer to win Napoli is fanboy wishcasting through and through.
   98. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: January 03, 2013 at 12:48 AM (#4337663)
Yeah, with those numbers and a regression on defense, he's only about a 3-WAR player.


Did you look at the link? They actually give you a WAR projection! (Hint: less than 3)

Even after 2 averagish years with the bat, ZiPS projects a below average offensive year for Reddick. I'd call that "not loving", but you can call it what you like.

   99. Darren Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4338946)
I looked but I did not see those ZIPS WAR #s. Sorry about that and didn't mean to be so snarky.
   100. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 05, 2013 at 08:22 AM (#4339530)
So, instead of trading for one of the excess good 1B on the Cardinals major league roster, the Sox have picked up a cast-off 1B/OF from the Cardinals system. Mark Hamilton looks semi-interesting.

He's 28 and he's been repeating AAA since he was 24. His playing time in Memphis has been limited every year. He hasn't played a full season of ball since 2007. I'm guessing he's significanly injury-prone, but a quick google didn't turn up much information. He got called up to the Cardinals bench in 2011, so his limited PA in 2011 might have been about bench-warming rather than injury.

But the semi-interesting part. These are Mark Hamilton's hitting numbers in AAA before 2012:

319/406/530, 640 AB, 148/90 K/BB

That translates roughly to an MLE line of 355/435. Not bad.

Obviously, my exclusion of 2012 doesn't really serve any purpose other than to create pretty numbers. Hamilton was bad last year, hitting 230/340/420 and seeing his K-rate spike well over 25%. There's a reason he's getting cut. But this is a guy with some amount of potential, who's still around his peak age. He has played both 1B and LF, which makes him a pretty perfect fit for the bench if he can recover his batting stroke.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9880 seconds
41 querie(s) executed