witesoxfan

I love what Adam Lopez brings and want to see him pitch a full and healthy season. Hoping he can be a fast riser this season and put himself back on the radar. Even if he starts next year, 2016, as a 26 year old in the minors, he's still young enough to give quite a few good years. Really hoping he does something. I am also intrigued by Kyle Hansen. He's a guy with good stuff and good peripherals too. Hoping he can succeed in AA this year and maybe get a cup of coffee in September.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 12, 2015 -> 09:08 AM) Does seem like a ton of arms that could at least be bullpen pieces. Is this typical, though? Or is our system legitimately deep in this area? Seems to me that, compared to previous years, the Sox actually have quite a few guys with ceilings and really good raw stuff. Not that they have completely avoided trying to find high upside guys in the past, but that those attempts have failed immensely, partly because they didn't spend anything on the draft or internationally. It also seems as though their coaching and development has improved over time as well, as it seems like they've actually been able to help mold a few pitchers, improving mechanics and adding changeups and sliders instead of the old standard cutter. Ultimately, most of these guys will bottom out, but any one of these guys always seem as though they can be one mechanical tweak away from taking a big step forward.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 05:48 PM) Michael Lewis wrote a book that was a true story. Hollywood made the fictionalized version. I'm guessing there was a bit of fabrication to it though.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 05:38 PM) If hes just saying it today, then I'm going Shields. Sox are never rumored to be in on anyone until a deal is close and the Padres, Cubs, and another unknown team or two were in the mix. I don't think Shields fit their MO this offseason. They were looking for moves that didn't cripple them in the long term, and given that Shields still got $19 mill a year, he's older, and his signing would have prevented several other possible moves (nevermind getting burnt as badly as they did on Danks), I think it was more geared toward a younger player. Right or wrong, I think they have enough confidence in Danks/Noesi/Rodon/Beck/Johnson/Penny to cover the 4 & 5 spots in the rotation. The Sox have a few different areas of weakness right now, but the 3 biggest are probably 3B, 2B, and C. They may have checked on Headley, but that sort of falls in line with the Shields dilemma - older player needing a sizable multi-year deal. It could have been Sandoval too, but I think that was more due diligence on their end. There could be 2B they looked into as well, but I think they want to see what they have in Sanchez and Johnson. That leaves catcher, and with the number of catchers they've brought in or had in house that are OK and really nothing more - Flowers, Brantly, Kottaras, Soto, Nieto, Smith - that, to me, seems like the most likely target. If it was Castro, I'm guessing they thought they may be able to buy low and when the Astros asked for Danish or Montas, the Sox backed away.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 04:31 PM) Scott Merkin ‏@scottmerkin 3m3 minutes ago Williams said there was one more move "that really would have been nice" that didn't materialize. Any guesses? Jason Castro

Alexei Ramirez was worth 3.3 WAR last year compared to Castro's 2.9. 2013 was a huge difference, as Ramirez was worth 3.1 and Castro 0.1, but 2012 also had a significant difference, with Castro at 3.2 and Ramirez at 1.9. Really, if someone says they'd prefer Castro over Alexei for any number of reasons, I'm not going to shoot them down. I'm perfectly content with Ramirez and am happy he's with the Sox.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 12:13 PM) It all depends on what other teams are involved, and who they are offering and who they're keeping off the table (and if the Rays decide to shop Longoria). Anderson plus the two most "helium at the moment" of Montas, Danish and Adams is at least a starter. At the same time, it has to be a worthwhile proposition for Tampa, which is why I view it less as "what other teams are offering" and more "what it would take for Tampa to bite." He's signed for another 8 years at a ridiculously cheap price, relatively speaking. Even if all 4 of those prospects increase their stock as the season progresses, you are still looking at a fairly raw player in Tim Anderson who has to prove over a full season that he can handle the rigors of SS or else he ends up in CF (which isn't a huge deal, but does cut into his value), two guys in Danish and Montas who you can easily pigeonhole as relievers, and a 19 year old who will likely be spending his season between the A-ball affiliates. Even a trade of all 4 of them is a risky proposition for a team like Tampa. I just don't see how it could possibly get done without Rodon being included. I don't think the Sox are in a position to be trading a mega package for Evan Longoria at this point either. We've been talking for 10 years or so about having the farm system feed into the majors, and they're at a point where it may actually be feasible. It doesn't make sense to damn it all and put all the eggs in one basket. As valuable and great as Longoria is, we've seen how quickly a 3B can see his career spiral downward with one twinge of the back.

Using the $7M/WAR data, he has to be an above average player - 2.5-3 WAR - to justify merely the initial cost. The problem lies in idea that, intuitively, this is actually the opposite of how free agency is supposed to work. Teams looking to win and compete will currently borrow from the future - whether it be prospects or money (and that money can be giving a guy a 5 year deal when you really only want him for the next 2-3 years, OR it can be backloading a contract so you can spend less now and then give him more money later on). The Sox got 1 year of Jeff Samardzija and 6 years of Michael Ynoa for 6 years each of Marcus Semien, Chris Bassitt, Rangel Ravelo, and Josh Phegley. That's definitely borrowing from the future for the right now. However, in this instance, teams will be borrowing from the present to spend on the future - there is an immediate upfront cost to acquire this player, while he technically gets cheaper year after year (as opposed, at least, to the initial expenditure of ~$53.3 million ($40 million tax and $13.3 million in year one bonus paid)). Frankly, if there are teams who have money but not a very good team, those are the teams that make the most sense to splurge on a guy like Moncada. Frankly, with the Phillies payroll down, I have no idea why they aren't trying to put together a huge offer for him, because 2 years from now Ryan Howard and his atrocious contract are gone and then they have a guy in Moncada who can be a legitimately good player for them down the road. If the Sox bring him in, I'm most certainly not going to be upset, and in fact, will be very excited. But from a financial aspect, if you really believe that Yoan Moncada is going to be a very good player, I don't know why you wouldn't give him a $50-60 million bonus. Assuming $40 million paid to him via MLB contracts through his first 6 seasons, here are the approximate break-evens (based on $7M/WAR): $40 million - 2.9 WAR $50 million - 3.3 WAR $60 million - 3.8 WAR The risk/reward becomes substantially lesser the more you spend, as is akin to happen when you spend more and more money, but if he is as good as Yasiel Puig at the MLB level (approximately 5 WAR/600), then he's a relative bargain even giving him a $60 million signing bonus.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 12:43 PM) what is the total cost, including penalty and this is good for how many yrs??? It's like signing a 16 year old Dominican player, though the age restrictions will be a little different (as he'd probably be eligible for the Rule 5 draft after 3 years instead of 4, but that's not going to matter). It's any other ordinary minor league player. The penalty itself will be a virtual 100% penalty on whatever the signing bonus is. The signing bonus itself can be distributed over 3 years, but the overage tax has to be paid within 30 days. I'm not sure what exact amount the Sox have spent from their pool this year, but I'm sure it's close to the max. Thus, if he was given a signing bonus of $40 million, the Sox would owe Yoan Moncada $40 million over the next 3 years (at the very most) and they'd owe the Commissioner's Office a check for $40 million by March 10th. Once he reaches the majors, it's like any other minor leaguer - the first 3 years of service time are rookie eligible contracts (unless the player qualifies as a Super 2 player, which is a certain percentage of games played and I don't have the time to look at what that is exactly), and then he becomes arbitration eligible. Teams will be looking at the $80 million as total player cost, and if he's really as good as they say he is, he probably would make cost somewhere around $120 million until he hits free agency (using $500k, $500k, $500k, $8 mill, $13.5 million, $18 million as his six annual salaries...those could be incredibly wrong depending upon inflation and CBA changes, but we'll work with it for now). If we are basing his cost upon $7 mill/WAR, he'd have to average 2.9 WAR per season over those first 6 years to justify the cost. That doesn't seem like a lot. Normally, the reason teams build around young players is because they can provide insane surplus value - a $500k rookie putting up a 1.5 WAR, which is a below average player, is providing somewhere around $10 million in surplus value. I don't think that has to always be the case, and really, if a team can afford $40 million (or whatever his bonus ends up being), it'd be absolutely worthwhile. I don't see that being even remotely likely for the Sox.

For the record, I don't think the Sox can put together a package that the Rays would accept without Rodon being involved, merely that they'd consider a package of Montas, Anderson, and Danish as the center pieces if Montas and/or Danish take a big step forward early in the year.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 06:51 PM) Hopefully he follows the Yordano Ventura trendline...he didn't come out of nowhere, but it sort of felt like it. Both with explosive stuff and their array of doubters. Where was Ventura the last two years on the Top 100 lists? Montas looks a lot more like Wily Peralta to me. Big body, easy motion, easy mid 90s velocity.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:07 PM) I was just thinking on my home from class today. Say the Sox are in contention and Longoria becomes available. What do you think it would take to get him without giving up Rodon? I think I would give up Davidson, Montas, Anderson and Danish for him. Would that be enough? Once again, I'm just thinking out loud here. Hard to say exactly. At this point, that's a definite no, but if Montas shows a more consistent slider and better and more consistent changeup, then he's probably approaching top 30-50 prospect status. They might consider it at that point instead of outright dismissing it.

QUOTE (Stev-o @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 12:43 PM) The [enter team name] NEED to sign Moncada...he's a perfect fit!

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 11:45 AM) No one in their right mind would take Quentin at $8 mil. San Diego would have to pony up half that to make it even worth considering. (And why wouldn't they? They have Kemp-Myers-Upton-Venable ahead of him.) Michael Taylor is just not very good, and the Sox lack of position prospects in the upper minors is the very issue. Quentin specifically may or may not be the guy, but the Sox should be looking for someone with that kind of profile for that last roster spot, either now, in Spring Training, or before the trade deadline. I think there are a couple teams who could, at the very least, afford to pay Quentin $8 million, so I don't see that as nearly as big of a problem. There is also the need to acquire him too. If the Sox somehow got the Padres to eat about $4 mill while the Sox gave up someone like Kyle Hansen, yeah, it'd be a worthwhile move, but I don't see that happening. I did like what I saw from Taylor at the end of the year. Good bat speed, but it's a really long, mechanical looking swing with big holes in it. I think he'd function just fine in a backup role. They'd be in trouble if he had to start though. I won't care if he doesn't end up in that role.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 11:22 AM) I agree that, at this point, Quentin is a luxury item, but finding someone to take LaRoche's at bats against lefties is still worth looking into. Besides, the Sox are one corner OF injury away from that luxury turning into an all-caps, blinking red NEED. At this point, that's a minor problem with the Sox current roster construction. At this point, it's safe to assume that the Sox will carry 12 pitchers. Here's what we're looking at otherwise (these names matter a little less, as some could change) C - Flowers 1B - Abreu 2B - Sanchez SS - Ramirez 3B - Gillaspie LF - Cabrera CF - Eaton RF - Garcia DH - LaRoche C - Brantly IF - Beckham IF/OF - Bonifacio There's one remaining roster spot. In theory, that could go to a guy like Quentin, but $8 million for a bench player with no real acceptable tool other than an ability to hit the ball hard is rather expensive even if you could get him for free player wise. I will agree with the contention that I wouldn't hate the move, but I wouldn't be particularly satisfied with it either. Ultimately, Michael Taylor may fill that role at a level slightly less than what Quentin would at a fraction of the cost. Regarding an injury putting the Sox in a dire position, you can say that about quite a few teams, but the Sox don't have a lot of high ceiling talent in the upper minors either, which also hurts.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) I don't completely hate this idea. There's an $8 million price tag that makes it incredibly unlikely, as well as his tendency to get injured and inability to really play the field at all. Plus I think there will be a team with a relatively full time opening come up at DH that will take a shot on him because he's still good against both RHP and LHP. If he could play 1B - it's not that hard, tell him Wash - it would make a bit more sense. The problem right now is that the spots he'd play - LF, RF, 1B, and DH - are probably 4 of the 5 most solid spots on the entire team. Quentin would be an extreme luxury at this point for the Sox and I don't think it's something that ultimately makes sense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 09:41 AM) I know people don't like things like the eye test and different roles making a difference, but to me Belisario was the poster boy for both. He got off to a horrible start, and then was a lock down set up guy, until they tried him as a closer. Once he hit that closer role, the self-destruct button was hit, and he was terrible again. I think Bellisario is a textbook case of not having enough between the ears to be a guy who does more than be a middle reliever and set up guy. You can see when Belisario pitches that he has a great arm. He gets great velocity and his pitches sink like they have lead in them. But when you leave them up, major league hitters tend to hit the ball hard. As an aside, no one should suggesting that we stop using the eye test to determine the quality of a player in general. If we did that, we wouldn't be able to figure out the talent of college or high school players or minor leaguers or majors leaguers who have talent but haven't put it together. The eye-test is still incredibly important. All anybody should say is that the eye test is not always going to tell us who our good players are based on a number of things - sample size bias, personal bias, a lack of information (think fielding here - we see a guy make a great play and have no idea where he started or how much ground he covered), and any number of other biases. With statistic databases, such as BP, FanGraphs, B-R, and any number of others, we can start to look at numbers that we wouldn't see because it is nearly physically impossible for one person to watch every single play of every single game throughout the course of a season while noting all of this information, forming an opinion on all of these players, and then ranking the players.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 05:19 PM) Yep. He did. But it's because he was unlucky, not because he's a bad pitcher. He'll probably be much better this year. No, Belisario was bad last year. There was some unluckiness to it all - a LOB of 57.7% screams regression to the mean of about 70% - but even with a very good GB% and GB/FB ratio, the one thing we can't tell merely from looking at his numbers was how hard those balls were hit. I didn't see a lot of Belisario last year, but I know I saw him give up of groundballs that were absolutely scalded. He had a tendency to leave the ball up, but with such heavy sink on it the ball still tends to get pounded into the ground. Javy Vazquez put up great fWAR's in 2006 and 2008 too, but if you are going to try and convince me that he was a good pitcher those years, I wouldn't be swayed. Some guys just don't pitch to their talent, which is more of what I think fWAR shows us, and some guys pitch well beyond their talent. This is why I don't wholly disregard bWAR and the like. There is value, because that is based on what they did, but it's not a great predictor of success.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 10:55 PM) I'm moving apartments soon, anyone know where to get a lot of boxes on the cheap? Liquor stores have a ton of boxes too.

Butthole is one of my favorite words.

Anything fewer than 73 homers is a massive disappointment.

QUOTE (TRU @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 10:11 AM) Oh my.. that's not really a tattoo of his swing logo on his right arm, is it? Oh yeah, it definitely is.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 10:19 AM) If he drops weights, improves his defense and offense, he'll find a job... As long as he does not drop those weights on his toes. And if he does, I hope he's being a girlyman and only doing 10 pound curls.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 10:09 AM) That's not really a matter of opinion, it's either true or it's not. You did make me curious, so I researched 2010-2014. Warning: Nerd stuff ahead. There's a minor relationship between strikeouts and wins. Minor. A 7.7% r-squared means that about 7.7% of a team's record in the last five years can be explained by a team's K-rate. But it's heavily influenced by the 2013 Astros, the only team in history to crack a 25% K-rate, and a team that happened to have the worst pitching in franchise history too. If you take them away, that 7.7% becomes 5.5%. There are a few other teams in that bottom right quadrant that bolster your claim, so if you wanna say "teams that really reallydon't make a lot of contact don't win consistently," I can maybe get behind that. None of the teams that led the league in K% these five years cracked 73 wins, so if the Cubs claim that honor we're gonna see what happens. But obviously you have to factor in pitching and defense. The 2015 Cubs are going to be an interesting case study regarding this because they are going to strike out a lot and I don't think there's any question of it. Ultimately though, strikeouts are only a portion of offensive output, and offensive output is only half of winning games. Logistically speaking, strikeouts will have an effect, but if the offense scores a lot of runs and the pitching staff limits opposing teams, strikeouts won't matter.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 09:44 AM) I'll still gladly take Viciedo over Beckham to have more homers from 2015 until the end of their respective careers. I will also gladly take Adam Eaton to steal more bases from this point forward than Jose Abreu. I don't understand your point, considering Beckham is not a power hitter, nor do I see how this is relevant.