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. Sean in Sydney Posted: January 29, 2007 at 01:52 AM (#2287797)
Well... to be fair Lowell, as a highly reliable doubles hitter may be exactly the type of hitter the Rockies look for. Helton's ~.400obp would mean more to the Sox than many other teams. I'm not hot on the sox downgrading their defensive alignment (shifting investment from 3B >> 1B), and so I'm glad media reports continue to say the deal is driven by the Rox with the Sox unimpressed.
   2. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:00 AM (#2287802)
I've been so out of the loop that I didn't even know there was a possibility of a Helton deal.
   3. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:08 AM (#2287808)
Yeah, I don't know what to do with Helton. The drop to a 119 OPS+ with most of the damage coming in power, the back injuries, the insane contract length - there's a lot there that says, stay away.

If the Sox dump Clement ($9M) and Lowell (9M), and get $40M from the Rockies, then Helton costs 5/28, with most of the savings coming in hte first year, right when you want it. As long as the Sox were ok with making Helton a reserve in the not-too-distant future, I'd do it.

I don't really see why the Rockies would, though. Basically, the Sox need to get incredible amounts of cash from Colorado. Anything like 5/40 for Helton, and I don't really see the point.
   4. NTNgod Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:25 AM (#2287814)
Mike Lowell is being discussed as if he is dead weight, just another $9 mil of salary to offset Helton, but is he?

Bear in mind all reports I've seen are in agreement that the Red Sox have INSISTED on Lowell being included from the get-go; it's a sticking point for them.

They WANT to dump Lowell.
   5. Sexy Lizard Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:32 AM (#2287818)
I'm glad media reports continue to say the deal is driven by the Rox with the Sox unimpressed.

I wonder if the Rockies know something about Helton.

Bear in mind all reports I've seen are in agreement that the Red Sox have INSISTED on Lowell being included from the get-go; it's a sticking point for them.

They WANT to dump Lowell.


I wonder if the Sox know something about Lowell.
   6. The Holiday Armadillo Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:35 AM (#2287820)
The marginal wins are very valuable to the sox. Plus, Lowell can't be counted on to produce anything like his 2006. See his 2005.
   7. The Holiday Armadillo Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:39 AM (#2287822)
By the way, I'm not saying 6 years of Helton is the answer, but I'm not sure that losing Lowell is the reason why it isn't.
   8. Xander Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:39 AM (#2287823)
See his 2005.

See his 3 prior year.
   9. The Holiday Armadillo Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:41 AM (#2287824)
I didn't say he was never good. I just said he couldn't be counted on to be good.
   10. JB H Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:44 AM (#2287825)
Doesn't Helton have superhuman UZR numbers?

Helton looks a hell of a lot better than Jim Thome did a year ago.

I kinda feel like Helton is either gonna be underpaid for the rest of his contract or be toast by June 09, depending on whats up with his body. If the Sox have reason to believe he'll bounce back then they have a chance to rape the Rockies here.
   11. Xander Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:46 AM (#2287827)
I know what you were saying. And if you look at his career, 2005 would look like an outlier. Of course he COULD be absolutely horrid again, but the chances are against it. I can pretty easily count on Lowell for .290/.340/.460 and excellent defense.
   12. The Holiday Armadillo Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:57 AM (#2287830)
It's an outlier, but it's such a dramatic outlier. Never knew what to make of it. In any case, I think your prediction is more likely than not, but I think if the sox can buy some more certainty, they should. Don't know if Helton is it, but it's interesting.
   13. Darren Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:07 AM (#2287832)
I didn't say he was never good. I just said he couldn't be counted on to be good.

He can be counted on as much as most players can be counted on. He's been consistently good at the plate in the field for years, with only one bad year. He projects to be good next year with average variability.

If the Sox dump Clement ($9M) and Lowell (9M), and get $40M from the Rockies, then Helton costs 5/28, with most of the savings coming in the first year, right when you want it.

This is what I was talking about in the intro. You can't just subtract off Lowell's $9 mil like it's dead weight. In that scenario above, you'd have to say you're getting Helton for 5/37 in place of Lowell for 1/9. That could be worth it for a reason that I failed to address in the intro: the Red Sox have very little on the near horizon at corner infielder. Locking in to Helton for the next 3-4 years might be preferable than trying to re-sign Lowell or find another solution.

And let's face it, Helton, if you assume his health will allow him to hit something like his .315 .432 .517 Coors-adjusted projection (which we don't know from out here in dorkland), is a great bargain at 5/37. Even at a little worse than that, it's a pretty good deal when you consider what Konerko got and what Thomas just got.
   14. Darren Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2287835)
The middle of the lineup becomes very lefthanded with Lowell leaving and Helton coming in.
   15. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2287836)
Doesn't Helton have superhuman UZR numbers?

I think so, but I don't remember seeing them for 2006. His 2006 numbers under Dial's system were below average, which sort of makes sense since his stomach ailment took a lot out of him.

Not many folks seem to bring it up in these threads--is his ailment really no longer a worry? Looks like it was diagnosed as acute terminal ileitis, although it's not clear if it's linked with Crohn's or was caused by an infection.
   16. The Holiday Armadillo Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:23 AM (#2287838)
"
He can be counted on as much as most players can be counted on. He's been consistently good at the plate in the field for years, with only one bad year. He projects to be good next year with average variability."

Most consistently good players haven't had 500 AB of 77 OPS+ in the last 2 years.
   17. MSI Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:15 AM (#2287854)
I have Crohn's disease. I don't really work out, but other Crohn's friends who do and try to take a very naturalistic approach. From what I understand, he could be going at 100%.....and if it recurs he can't play. So it's either or...it just means less getting drunk on road trips or hot wings while he's healthy.
   18. Darren Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:19 AM (#2287856)
Can he still get drunk at home?

Hey everybody, look who's here, it's the Hannukah Armadillo! (Sorry, that line just amused me quite a bit. And I think it was "Holiday Armadillo.")
   19. MSI Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:19 AM (#2287857)
I think Theo Fleury, Alex Trebeck and the lead guitarist of Pearl Jam have it too, so...
   20. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:22 AM (#2287863)
I think Theo Fleury, Alex Trebeck and the lead guitarist of Pearl Jam have it too, so...

So there's a two in three chance that Helton will be Canadian?
   21. MSI Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:25 AM (#2287865)
No, but he could go on tour.
   22. Cris E Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:43 AM (#2287881)
I wonder if the Rockies know something about Helton.

I wonder if the Sox know something about Lowell.


I think they both know Helton has six expensive years ahead of him and Lowell is only signed for one. That they both know this is shown by COL calling often and BOS turning away. It'll only get resolved if the requisite dollars make sense for both sides. It'll be a big pile, so there's a good chance someone blinks before Opening Day.
   23. Darren Posted: January 29, 2007 at 05:26 AM (#2287917)
Robothal's take:

O'Dowd, who has staked his job on the Rockies' rising youth movement, would need not just Hansen to justify the trade, but also Double-A outfielder Jacoby Ellsbury, the Red Sox's top position prospect.

So it's a young reliever AND a top prospect. Makes more sense now from Colorado's perspective.
   24. NBarnes Posted: January 29, 2007 at 06:23 AM (#2287982)
Get rid of Helton's contract, get a reasonably priced short-term 3b solution, and get two of Boston's top prospects? Yeah, I bet that makes sense from Colorado's perspective.
   25. Sean in Sydney Posted: January 29, 2007 at 09:42 AM (#2288046)
If they're including Lowell I figure it's because (a) They're selling after an up year (b) Given Youk, Helton, Lowell over the next 3 years they drop Lowell. Pity, I like his work ethic and production.
   26. Steamer46 Posted: January 29, 2007 at 01:22 PM (#2288051)
I think it's curious that we're not hearing anything about the Evil Empire in all this. Don't they need a 1bman a lot more than Boston does? Are they so wedded to their new strategy of accumullating prospects that they won't consider adding a top flight hitter to their lineup in the one spot that would give them a serious upgrade? When do we hear from George?
   27. The Holiday Armadillo Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:18 PM (#2288053)
"Hey everybody, look who's here, it's the Hannukah Armadillo! (Sorry, that line just amused me quite a bit. And I think it was "Holiday Armadillo.")"

Crap!
   28. Danny Posted: January 29, 2007 at 05:43 PM (#2288192)
I think some people have been overrating Lowell, though I agree with Darren than he's far from a total zero (and thus his salary is not a complete dump). Lowell had was very good defensively last year, but that was easily his best year by ZR, and it just raised his career ZR at 3B to the mediocre level. The Fielding Bible rated him as one of the worst defenders at 3B in baseball.

PECOTA has Lowell projected as the 37th best offensive 3B they project (by EQA). He's projected for a .269 EQA. Of the 30 3B with the most PA last year, the median EQA was .278.
   29. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: January 29, 2007 at 05:48 PM (#2288195)
I think it's curious that we're not hearing anything about the Evil Empire in all this.

I'm sorry; you're going to have to be more specific. I forget which franchise this refers to.
   30. Josh Posted: January 29, 2007 at 05:54 PM (#2288202)
I think Dany has the gist of it.

In 2007, I think Lowell will most likely be a tad above average defensively, and significantly below average offensively. The move from Lowell/Youks to Youks/Helton should be an expected increase of 2-3 wins.
   31. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 29, 2007 at 06:06 PM (#2288219)
If I were Cashman, one disease-ridden high-contracted firstbasemen is enough, I don't think they can risk another.
   32. Cowboy Popup Posted: January 29, 2007 at 06:18 PM (#2288240)
"Lowell had was very good defensively last year, but that was easily his best year by ZR, and it just raised his career ZR at 3B to the mediocre level. The Fielding Bible rated him as one of the worst defenders at 3B in baseball."

Yeah, I'm sort of curious where the myth that Mike Lowell has always been a good fielder came from. He was one of the worst defenders at third up until he won the gold glove which is when his stats got good as well and last year his numbers were way better then anything he had showed in the past. I know that ESPN kept trying to feed everyone some nonsense about him being a historically great defender at third last season, but I didn't think anyone here would buy that.
   33. chris p Posted: January 29, 2007 at 06:26 PM (#2288249)
lowell plays excellent defense, sure ... but so does helton. and in fenway, you could argue that first base defense is more important than third base defense--a significant portion of balls hit down the third base line that would be easy doubles elsewhere bounce back to the shortstop to become singles at fenway.
   34. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 29, 2007 at 06:31 PM (#2288254)
baseball prospectus shows Lowell and Helton with similar career fielding runs above average and above replacement.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/lowelmi01.php

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/heltoto01.php
   35. The Original SJ Posted: January 29, 2007 at 06:37 PM (#2288260)
Hey everybody, look who's here, it's the Hannukah Armadillo! (Sorry, that line just amused me quite a bit. And I think it was "Holiday Armadillo.")

Its probably the best five minutes in the history of a very mediocre show.
   36. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 29, 2007 at 06:44 PM (#2288271)
Its probably the best five minutes in the history of a very mediocre show.

I gotta disagree.

It's one of the following:
1) The "game show" where the guys had to answer questions about the gals and vice versa (where the apartment swap occured).
2) Joey trying to get around with a hernia because he doesn't have health insurance.
3) Jennifer Aniston's outfits during the first season. Humina humina!
   37. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: January 29, 2007 at 10:36 PM (#2288515)
Please forgive me for hijacking this with a Cubs-related question, but over in the Gonfalon Cubs blog, UCCF and I are having a debate and I'm hoping for some assistance from a less-interested public:

Who do you believe is worth more in a trade -- Rocco Baldelli or Matt Murton?

Who would you rather see your team acquire?
   38. Darren Posted: January 29, 2007 at 11:16 PM (#2288542)
Joey's whole involvement with the show "Mac & Cheese" was pretty funny to me. And don't go dissing Friends, Dan Werr will show up and start kicking butt.

dejesus--I think Baldelli's worth a bunch more because he's perceived to have great skills that were sidelined by an injury last year. He's also a great defender, reportedly, which Murton is not. If the Red Sox needed an OF, I'd want Baldelli more. With all that said, Murton's a very nice player who I think is quite underrated at this point.
   39. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: January 29, 2007 at 11:22 PM (#2288547)
Its probably the best five minutes in the history of a very mediocre show.


I submit a new nomination: The One Where Jennifer Aniston and Winona Ryder Made Out.

I mean, yum.
   40. Cowboy Popup Posted: January 29, 2007 at 11:47 PM (#2288577)
#41, Baldelli and Baldelli. Can Matt Murton play center? They're the same age, Baldelli has more experience and more success and plays a good CF. Who cares if he doesn't walk.
   41. Sean in Sydney Posted: January 30, 2007 at 12:03 AM (#2288598)
Wow - according to reports they're fine on the money and fine on Lowell and Tavarez, they just won't commit to one of Boston's young players, which is supposed to be a showdown between Luccino and Theo? Huh? Why does this sound like a feed from the Rockies? :D
   42. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 30, 2007 at 12:13 AM (#2288608)
#41 - my gut says Baldelli, but I'd have to take a long look before deciding for certain.
   43. Rough Carrigan Posted: January 30, 2007 at 01:58 AM (#2288685)
Somebody give Charlie Monfort a copy of "Owning a Baseball Team for Dummies" with a post-it marking the page about tampering.
   44. Darren Posted: January 30, 2007 at 02:39 AM (#2288717)
I agree Rough. The comments in the Robo article (which I posted on the Clutch hits thread) are textbook tampering, if I understand correctly.
   45. jordan Posted: January 30, 2007 at 03:45 AM (#2288768)
Can someone tell me how it would really help the Red Sox to trade Matt Clement since I am under the impression that insurance covers 80% of his salary if he does not pitch this season (which is likely the case)?
   46. NTNgod Posted: January 30, 2007 at 03:49 AM (#2288770)
Can someone tell me how it would really help the Red Sox to trade Matt Clement since I am under the impression that insurance covers 80% of his salary if he does not pitch this season (which is likely the case)?

He might actually be able to return by the ASB, according to some (effectiveness is another issue, of course).
   47. chris p Posted: January 30, 2007 at 03:58 AM (#2288773)
Can someone tell me how it would really help the Red Sox to trade Matt Clement since I am under the impression that insurance covers 80% of his salary if he does not pitch this season (which is likely the case)?

luxury tax?
   48. Sean in Sydney Posted: February 01, 2007 at 04:20 AM (#2289685)
I think the Clement situation has a chance to turn into him trying to get as much ineffective playtime as he can. In that case the Sox aren't claiming anything while he's playing, even badly.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3797 seconds
41 querie(s) executed