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.

   1. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2006 at 01:39 PM (#2185904)
I just don't see it. Why is this trade going to work now when it didn't work any of the other times they tried? I think people are expecting a return that is highly unlikely. There are simply better uses of the front office's time.
   2. Darren Posted: September 23, 2006 at 01:42 PM (#2185907)
Maybe it will work now because Manny's contract is shorter and the economic picture (super happy!) of most teams is very good. I don't think we know a whole lot about how the FO spends their time, but I'll admit I'm a little concerned that this could eat up time that could be better used. Hopefully, they'll move on quickly if the process stalls out for some reason.
   3. Dave Cyprian Posted: September 23, 2006 at 01:50 PM (#2185910)
I think its a complete waste of time. That guy can rake.
   4. Dave Cyprian Posted: September 23, 2006 at 01:57 PM (#2185912)
OK I could be a little more constructive... If Manny's defense is so bad, shouldn't the Red Sox consider playing David Ortiz at first base and let Manny DH? Personally I think no, Ortiz has shown durability and a remarkable affinity for the DH role- He has been quoted as relishing the ability to study video and prepare during the game, and he enjoys the challenge of only being able to make an impact from the batter's box.
   5. AROM Posted: September 23, 2006 at 02:32 PM (#2185931)
His defense is not that bad. The park hurts him by more than 10 runs.

He's probablly a -10 to -15 fielder. If Joe Arthur shows up he's been tracking Manny's ZR in and out of Fenway - and early in the year Manny was close to average outside the monster.

Manny's never been a liability, but his contract was so long and so massive that there was always a fear he'd become a liabilty
in the future, lets say if he got hurt or he age dropped him to a .280/.370/.520 hitter - still good but he has to be elite to be worth his contract.

Now he's got 2 years left and has shown no signs of slipping. I wouldn't even pay attention to his bi-annual demand for a trade.
   6. Darren Posted: September 23, 2006 at 02:35 PM (#2185933)
So what would you (the Angels) give for him, ARM?
   7. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#2185947)
He's probablly a -10 to -15 fielder. If Joe Arthur shows up he's been tracking Manny's ZR in and out of Fenway - and early in the year Manny was close to average outside the monster.
Wow, I can't wait to see those numbers. They reinforce my existing prejudice!
   8. karlmagnus Posted: September 23, 2006 at 05:07 PM (#2185996)
It worries me that a trade attempt might work this year; Manny's options won't be picked up at this stage (though I'm sure he'd like them to be) but he's worth 4/65 or 5/75 and that makes 2/40 no problem.

Can't we trade the Boston Globe instead? Washington Post is a better paper, and has only lousy baseball teams to cover!
   9. Mister High Standards Posted: September 23, 2006 at 05:19 PM (#2186007)
Can we please stop quoting defensive numbers in re: to Manny.

Trading him at this point makes little sense. He is one of the teams few performance drivers.
   10. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: September 23, 2006 at 06:41 PM (#2186059)
Why does Many always want to be traded?
   11. Darren Posted: September 23, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#2186105)
Can we please stop quoting defensive numbers in re: to Manny.

By all means, let's just ignore Manny's defense, call him an alltime great, and keep sending him out LF. He's the bestest!
   12. Mister High Standards Posted: September 23, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2186119)
I've suspected your not bright - but you've proving it.

Some of us, who actually watch and score the games have been saying for years that these "metrics" are not accurately measuring opportunity for leftfields in fenway. This observation was po po'd because we didn't have "data" - despite we had sense enough to determine what we were being told was humbug. Now that someone has found the hole in the metric and it has come to surface that balls impossible to catch were being counted as in zone, your still throwing these "metrics" around as being meaningful. They aren't - no one in their right might is claiming Manny is the "bestest" however, their is little reason to think that these "metrics" are remotely meaningful at determining Manny's defensive value, which is probably not very much.
   13. Darren Posted: September 23, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#2186127)
Well at least you've provided some reason for your opinion this time, although it came with a clever insult. Personally, though, I've never po po'd anything.

Who's found a hole in UZR? Isn't it park-adjusted? Doesn't that compensate for the 'problem' with it?
   14. Swedish Chef Posted: September 23, 2006 at 08:36 PM (#2186132)
Who's found a hole in UZR? Isn't it park-adjusted? Doesn't that compensate for the 'problem' with it?

Check this thread, from comment 60 or so... Balls of the Monster are counted in the zone by STATS.
   15. Darren Posted: September 23, 2006 at 08:57 PM (#2186149)
Swedish,

It ends at comment #56.
   16. Swedish Chef Posted: September 23, 2006 at 08:59 PM (#2186150)
   17. Darren Posted: September 23, 2006 at 09:00 PM (#2186152)
For another fielding stat, though, you can look to the fielding bible, which has Manny at -20 runs/150 games over 2003-2005. What would you guess he'd come out at in 2006? 2007?
   18. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2006 at 09:46 PM (#2186171)
I've suspected your not bright - but you've proving it.
What in god's name were you hoping to accomplish with this comment, other than some brilliant irony?
For another fielding stat, though, you can look to the fielding bible, which has Manny at -20 runs/150 games over 2003-2005. What would you guess he'd come out at in 2006? 2007?
You were saying that Manny was probably -30, though. If he's actually more in the -10 to -20 range, that's a major adjustment in his overall value. I am highly skeptical that there's a reasonable trade out there involving Manny that will make the Red Sox better in 2007. I don't think anyone (outside of km) is saying that Manny is a reasonably good defender. The question is whether he's unreasonably bad, or just reasonably bad. It sounds like the most granular data suggests "reasonably bad"- though, obviously, we're still waiting to see hte specifics.
   19. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: September 23, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#2186192)
I know this has no shot at happening because of his popularity, but I'd trade Ortiz instead of Manny.

He's cheaper, his perceived value is higher, he's not as good of a hitter, and I think he'll decline before Manny, too. If you can get a guy like Santana or Weaver and a Wood or Aybar for Ortiz, you could then move Manny to DH, have another young starter with tons of potential, move Crisp back to LF, and then sign either a stopgap for CF until Ellsbury is ready or someone like Sori who you could shift over to LF or RF in a year for Ellsbury. You could also take Wood and say Ellsbury and try and get Vernon Wells for CF instead.
   20. John DiFool2 Posted: September 23, 2006 at 11:24 PM (#2186218)
Problem with that is that from Boston's perspective Papi would be much harder to move than Manny. Yeah from
another team's perspective Papi has more value, but there'd be riots in the street if Ortiz was traded, but
a collective yawn if Manny was the one to go.
   21. dirk Posted: September 24, 2006 at 12:03 AM (#2186232)
"Balls of the Monster" is now my favorite imaginary metal band.
   22. karlmagnus Posted: September 24, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#2186236)
Depends who the fans are, JDF. Ceteris paribus I'd rather have Ortiz than not have him, but I think he'll be something of an albatross by '09. Manny is a historically great player; Ortiz is good to have, but basically another Mo Vaughan (and may get less fan-friendly as he ages, just as Mo did.)
   23. Darren Posted: September 24, 2006 at 03:01 AM (#2186301)
You were saying that Manny was probably -30, though. If he's actually more in the -10 to -20 range, that's a major adjustment in his overall value.

Yes, I know -20 is different from -30. I was only offering it as an alternative stat, not trying to say that it proves my previous claim correct. (However, I still think UZR's park adjustments and/or rejiggering of zones for UZR should make up for the balls off the monster problem. Otherwise, it would mean that O'Leary and Bichette were amazing fielders, and that Manny improved greatly upon his move to Fenway.)
   24. Flynn Posted: September 24, 2006 at 03:10 AM (#2186305)
Manny comes in at -41 R/150 games, which Chris attributes largely to park.

Yeah, this doesn't pass the smell test. There is no way a left fielder is costing a team over 40 runs a season. For one, if that was true the Red Sox wouldn't be anywhere near as competitive a they have been during the course of Manny's contract, several of those years where he was the main power source on the team.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced, especially considering the Sox' ability to evaluate talent the last two years, that spreadsheet baseball is ruining the team. I don't think it's as simple as moving production here to production there and bingo!
   25. Xander Posted: September 24, 2006 at 03:27 AM (#2186309)
That's because you are a little child about the Sox letting Pedro go.
   26. Mister High Standards Posted: September 24, 2006 at 04:55 AM (#2186338)
What in god's name were you hoping to accomplish with this comment, other than some brilliant irony?


Its called ### for tat. In 14 - he alluded to me being a fan boy - which is a pretty tough claim to make in re: to me - especially when I was in front of this Manny is minus 40 #### from day 1 when I said it wasn't remotly likely.

If Darren didn't post number 14 he wouldn't have gotten a word out of me, but prick couldn't help it but to try and get a jab in.
   27. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: September 24, 2006 at 06:37 AM (#2186355)
Wow, alot of love in this thread.

I'm not gonna offer anything constructive this time of nite, but Flynn's comment intrigues me. And, if you ever Lounge, you know my stance on band names.
   28. Darren Posted: September 24, 2006 at 12:08 PM (#2186387)
Its called ### for tat. In 14 - he alluded to me being a fan boy - which is a pretty tough claim to make in re: to me - especially when I was in front of this Manny is minus 40 #### from day 1 when I said it wasn't remotly likely.

Not believing it's likely and finding a flaw in the defensive method discussed are two pretty different things. Comment #10 sounded like you were dismissing the defensive #s with no reason for doing so. That's silly, and any time Manny's defense is discussed (or Jeter's for that matter), there are a dozen posts that have basically that same message: "Oh, come on, he's not that bad. He's just not."

If you had actually included your reasoning in the first place, your post wouldn't have sounded so ridiculous to me.
   29. philly Posted: September 24, 2006 at 01:51 PM (#2186400)
Wow, alot of love in this thread.

Yes, it's the Boston media that gets thin skinned and quick tempered when the team goes south.
   30. The TVerik of Lordly Might Posted: September 24, 2006 at 02:00 PM (#2186403)
I asked this in a different thread yesterday, but I forgot to look back on it, and now I don't remember what thread it was. So I apologize if a thoughtful answer was lost to cyberspace ether. But it seems appropriate here.

At any rate, do you think Manny's trade value is better or worse today than it was a year ago or even two years ago? His contract is shorter and he's shown no appreciable decline yet, but he's a year older and his attitude and LF defense is... (with no stats, MHS) kinda sketchy.

I know that market forces likely will make him a more valuable guy to have on your team this year, but without considering those, what do you guys think?
   31. 1k5v3L Posted: September 24, 2006 at 02:00 PM (#2186404)
Wow, alot of love in this thread.


It's a shame I'm a day late and a snarky comment short... I could've really spiced up the party.
   32. AROM Posted: September 24, 2006 at 02:18 PM (#2186407)
So what would you (the Angels) give for him, ARM?

I'd pay his contract. I think he's worth his contract but not more than that, so I wouldn't give up an underpriced asset (Santana, Wood, etc.) for him.

I know the Red Sox aren't going to trade him without getting an underpriced asset, so in all seriousness I would not pursue a trade here. Angel corner OF/DH spots are full anyway. I want Ramirez hitting behind Vlad, hitting 35 HR, and playing poor defense - but at 3rd base. So Aramis is the target.
   33. 1k5v3L Posted: September 24, 2006 at 02:22 PM (#2186408)
[darren]

ARM, you obviously hate the Red Sox and all of their players.

[/darren]
   34. Kanst Posted: September 24, 2006 at 02:45 PM (#2186418)
The thing here is that if the Red Sox trade Manny Ramirez it is not about getting equal value in return it is about freeing up a lot of money and getting some good young players. If I was the Sox I would offer to pay a lot of Manny's contract to the Angels and ask in return for a young pitcher (Santana or Weaver) a good position prospect (Aybar or Wood) and either Figgins or Shields. If you could get that value I would make the trade right now. You could replace Manny by signing Carlos Lee or Soriano. Or if you wanna go the cheap route you could bring back Trot and have an outfield of Trot, Crisp, and Pena. Wood and Aybar could both be in the big leagues right now. And Santana or Weaver would give you one of the best young cores of pitchers in baseball. That would also give Theo an elite prospect to use if he wanted to go after Andruw Jones or Vernon Wells. If you could simply replace Manny with Wells I think you have a better team.
   35. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: September 24, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#2186420)
We'll give you Buerlrhlrhlhre for him. I think we need more DH/DHs on the roster.
   36. 1k5v3L Posted: September 24, 2006 at 02:52 PM (#2186425)
You could <strike>replace</strike> "forget" Manny by signing Carlos Lee or Soriano.


I'm sure the Angels are so stupid that they cannot realize they could just keep Santana or Weaver, Aybar or Wood, and Figgins or Shields, and simply go after Soriano or Carlos Lee. Stoneman strikes me as a really dumb GM, so I'm sure he'll grab his big toes and let Theo have his way with him... in a gorilla suit. Yes siree.

Why does Stoneman hate the Red Sox and their players?
   37. Darren Posted: September 24, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#2186442)
I know the Red Sox aren't going to trade him without getting an underpriced asset, so in all seriousness I would not pursue a trade here. Angel corner OF/DH spots are full anyway.

Not if you throw Juan Rivera in the trade! :)

Are you happy with Garrett Anderson at a corner/DH spot, though? Isn't his contract pretty much sunk costs at this point? I think I kind of agree with your general assessment, though. If a team is going to pick up Manny's whole contract, they shouldn't be giving too much up in return. As the Angels, I certainly wouldn't give up any of their top prosects. Maybe I'd consider Aybar, who's slipped a bit.

The catch here, of course, is that the Angels are going to want to explore Aramis/others before settling on Manny; and the Red Sox are going to want to deal Manny quickly so they can get in on the others. So I'd say Boston would have to knock LAA's socks off to get a deal done.
   38. AROM Posted: September 24, 2006 at 03:52 PM (#2186458)
Are you happy with Garrett Anderson at a corner/DH spot, though? Isn't his contract pretty much sunk costs at this point?

1. No.
2. Yes

But it doesn't matter. He's 5/10 so a trade won't happen, even if the Angels want to throw in cash. We're stuck with him for 2 more years. I just hope he doesn't hurt us too much.

Aybar should be trade bait, but I doubt the Red Sox will be interested in giving up anything useful for him.

I like A-Ram over Man-Ram because of age, his possible free agent status (may not cost us players or even draft picks this year) and position. Man-Ram is a 2 year solution - I'd rather see a long term solution to complement our young players.
   39. AROM Posted: September 24, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#2186459)
Last I saw of Joe Arthur's stats, Manny had a zone rating of .825 on the road - if he did that all year he'd hurt his team by around 10 runs - about the same as other bad LF like Carlos Lee, Hideki Matsui, and Adam Dunn.
   40. karlmagnus Posted: September 24, 2006 at 08:58 PM (#2186643)
Anaheim Rallymonkey; that looks about right, which is why Epstein AND Lucchino should be run out of town on a rail if they deal Manny. This is pure "not invented here" syndrome of the worst kind. Once they've traded Manny, lost Nixon and failed to pick up their Wakefield option, they will have rid the organisation of all relics of the hated Duquette. They will then finish .450 for the next 3 seasons and serve them right, and serve Sox fans right if they don't take violent and immediate action.
   41. Rough Carrigan Posted: September 24, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#2186697)
After they've "lost" Nixon? Please. How many homers has the guy got? 6? 7? 8? He's been an eminently replaceable player this year. He was very good at getting on base till he had his annual "injury which should require him to sit out a week but refuses to do so, exacerbates it and plays lousy for a while till going on the DL". It's
   42. PJ Martinez Posted: September 25, 2006 at 12:02 AM (#2186728)
Yeah, Nixon has been a big disappointment since he signed his very reasonable extension. It's too bad, but I don't see how he comes back to the Sox unless he does so for pocket change and a realization that he could lose his (sort of) everyday job.

I think Wakefield can rest easy, though. No way the Sox pass on a 4m/yr starter, even if he did miss a lot of time this year.

Angels will certainly want in on Aramis, and/or possibly Lee or Soriano. Which does make a Manny deal unlikely, unless, as Darren suggests, the Sox blew them away, which seems even more unlikely. Probably the teams don't match up unless some of these other players end up elsewhere, and the Angels have nowhere left to turn.
   43. PJ Martinez Posted: September 25, 2006 at 12:07 AM (#2186733)
Maybe this winter Wily Mo can learn to play 1B? Is it really that hard?

Not that I know who becomes our RF in that situation, but he'd probably be a defensive upgrade, and he'd only have to hit better than Lowell for it to be a plus overall.
   44. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 25, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#2186761)
Not that I know who becomes our RF in that situation, but he'd probably be a defensive upgrade, and he'd only have to hit better than Lowell for it to be a plus overall.
Well, he'd have to be better than Lowell on offense to a degree greater than the defensive downgrades Lowell->Youkilis->Pena.

And according to the reports earlier this summer, Pena is a complete disaster at 1B, such that the front office terminated the experiment in the minors after only a couple games.
   45. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: September 25, 2006 at 01:40 AM (#2186781)
What about Wily Mo for CF next year? A Sox fan I talk to quite often says he looks a lot better there than in the corners for whatever reason, and I had heard the same from people when he was a Red as well.
   46. Darren Posted: September 25, 2006 at 01:45 AM (#2186785)
I thought Wily Mo looked better in both LF and CF than he did in RF. Some Cinci fans had also said he looked better in CF. But then what to do with Coco? You could move him to LF (if Manny's dealt) and then get a RF. He's got no trade value though, and as much as I think arm strength is overrated, his arm would be a disaster in RF.

If the Sox do deal Manny, they could do worse than signing Mike Cameron for RF and putting Wily Mo in LF. Strikeouts for everybody!
   47. Norcan Posted: September 25, 2006 at 08:21 AM (#2186895)
I think Manny's defensive numbers at Fenway have to due with a combination of physical limations and positioning. The man is not very swift so playing shallow like he does as is the Fenway wisdom, a lot of catchable balls get over his head and land either on the warning track or on the shallow base of the wall. This could explain why he's much better on the road, where he plays a more normal depth left field. If I recall correctly, he wasn't an awful right fielder for the Indians either, just a below-average one. So when adding and subtracting numbers to get a total contribution number for Manny, is it possible to breakdown his calculated contributions home and away. Like an (Away Hitting - Away Defense) + (Home Hitting - Home Defense). For his Fenway numbers in particular, his throwing numbers may have to be factored since the Wall and his positioning relative to it give him opportunities.

If he's traded and he plays below average but not -45 or so runs defense while still putting up gorgeous numbers, then his new team will have made themselves one fabulous deal, so fabulous the Red Sox will need to demand a lot for him.
   48. AROM Posted: September 25, 2006 at 01:20 PM (#2186942)
If he's traded and he plays below average but not -45 or so runs defense while still putting up gorgeous numbers, then his new team will have made themselves one fabulous deal, so fabulous the Red Sox will need to demand a lot for him.

A new team would be giving up a lot no matter what they traded for Manny: 19 million per year.

This could explain why he's much better on the road

His ZR in Fenway is not much different than visiting left fielders. The reason he has better fielding numbers on the road has almost nothing to him and everything to do with the 40 foot monster lurking over his shoulder.
   49. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 25, 2006 at 01:34 PM (#2186953)
Nixon's going to have to get back on the juice if he ever wants to hit HR's again.
   50. Mike Emeigh Posted: September 25, 2006 at 01:38 PM (#2186957)
For those who don't want to bother reading the other thread:

The problem with ZR at Fenway is that balls off the Monster (which are clearly unfieldable by anyone) count as being "in the zone" because the back zone boundary is measured by distance from home plate rather than by distance from the wall (as it should be). This is going to depress everyone's zone rating.

The man is not very swift so playing shallow like he does as is the Fenway wisdom, a lot of catchable balls get over his head and land either on the warning track or on the shallow base of the wall.


It's not just that.

Fenway LFs, in general, have to make tough judgments on balls hit over their heads; is the ball going to hit the Monster above their reach, or not? If they go all the way back to the wall, they run the risk of the carom bouncing well past them for a sure double and possible triple. If they peel off and play the bounce, they might give up some hits on otherwise "catchable" balls but have a better chance of cutting down runners on wall balls. I think that Manny tends to err on the side of safety, backing off on balls unless he is absolutely certain they will land short.

-- MWE
   51. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 25, 2006 at 02:04 PM (#2186976)
Manny for Ichiro! ?
   52. Dizzypaco Posted: September 25, 2006 at 02:11 PM (#2186986)
Fenway LFs, in general, have to make tough judgments on balls hit over their heads; is the ball going to hit the Monster above their reach, or not? If they go all the way back to the wall, they run the risk of the carom bouncing well past them for a sure double and possible triple. If they peel off and play the bounce, they might give up some hits on otherwise "catchable" balls but have a better chance of cutting down runners on wall balls. I think that Manny tends to err on the side of safety, backing off on balls unless he is absolutely certain they will land short.

This is absolutely right - Manny does a very good job at keeping opposing hits off the wall to singles, although sometimes he plays it a little too safe. It does lead to abnormally low zone scores. I haven't seen anyone else bring up this point.

The Red Sox made the playoffs in 2003, 2004, and 2005. They led the league in scoring in 2003, 2004, and 2005. This is not a coincidence. Manny Ramirez was a big reason for this, not only because of his own production, but because he forced pitchers to pitch to David Ortiz as well. Losing Manny, whether to injury or trade, would hurt a lot. Freeing up money doesn't do any good unless there is another superstar to spend the money on.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4168 seconds
38 querie(s) executed