A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I think Tony C makes the difference. The 1975 team had plenty of offense, and the 67 team did not by comparison
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    It turned out that Scutaro in fact wasn't a legit ML shortstop. Let's hope he and Aviles are not "similar."
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    SS WAR (FG) 2009 - 2011

    8th Scutaro
    9th  Rollins
    10th Drew
    11th Aybar
    13th Bartlett





     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    But just because one spends hours and hours spinning stats doesn't mean they will be right in the end either.
    Posted by TBSHBT1969[/QUOTE]

    1. Show some respect to Moon.
    2. Stop being a jock sniffer.
    3. Stop bringing up old predictions that can't be verified.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]It turned out that Scutaro in fact wasn't a legit ML shortstop. Let's hope he and Aviles are not "similar." Posted by expitch[/QUOTE] SS WAR (FG) 2009 - 2011 8th Scutaro 9th  Rollins 10th Drew 11th Aybar 13th Bartlett
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]
    Rankings depend upon the value that one assigns to any given stat.
    Scutaro hit pretty well for the position. But on defense he was hampered by limited range and a limited arm. To that extent, he fell below the line as a ML shortstop. He'll be more comfortable and do better at second base for Colorado.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    SS WAR (FG) 2009 - 2011 8th Scutaro 9th  Rollins 10th Drew 11th Aybar 13th Bartlett
    Posted by tom-uk
    Rankings depend upon the value that one assigns to any given stat.
    Scutaro hit pretty well for the position. But on defense he was hampered by limited range and a limited arm. To that extent, he fell below the line as a ML shortstop. He'll be more comfortable and do better at second base for Colorado.

    Scutaro had a slightly below UZR/150 from 2009-2011 (-1.2) which placed him just under average for that time period.

    On value, Fangraphs had him worth $42M/3 years, but had a -5 factor in fielding. I think expitch and I were talking more about his fielding (or lack there of), not his hitting. His hitting might have made up for his fielding. We can debate that issue all day long, but I really ddin't see Scutaro getting better in the field for 2012 at age 36 (almost 37).
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    When all is said and done, to me, it still seems surprising that they bailed on Scutaro considering the alternatives. The reason doesn't seem readily apparent. Look at the alternatives and was $6 mil really that much? The reasons?

    Speculation here for sure:

    1) His medicals showed concern maybe?
    2) They have a big trade lined up to obtain a SS?
    3) They really, really like Aviles as a SS option?
    4) They want to go with Iglesias now?
    5) Huge interpersonal problems we haven't heard of?
    6) Purely trying to save $6 mil?
    7) They have other concerns about Scutaro's ability to play at his recent levels this coming year?

    Think about it. Which one is the most likely? Maybe a combination of several? 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Fangraphs factors in fielding in their projections and they had him worth $14 mil per year over 3 years? And we traded him for relatively little at a signed $6 mil when we needed a SS?

    I'm sorry but I don't get it. Something is missing in this one.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'm not saying the Sox made a bad decision. I'm saying I don't have a clear idea of why they traded him. They needed starting pitching options and they obtained some starting pitching back. That's somewhat of a factor but Mortensen is considered depth, rather than projected as the number 5 right?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    One thing to keep in mind about Scutaro: the Red Sox are already over the luxury tax threshold for 2012, and will pay 40% tax on the excess amount.  So every dollar added to the payroll now costs $1.40, and every dollar cut from the payroll saves $1.40.  Scutaro's 6 million was actually 8.4 million. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    [QUOTE]Fangraphs factors in fielding in their projections and they had him worth $14 mil per year over 3 years?   Looking backwards over his 3.5 years of SS, he was certainly a worthy SS.  Of course, you must factor in his hitting and when you do he was a tick above average at SS.  Would he have hit enough for 2nd or would his fielding be better there?  Probably but a decent SS is harder to find.


    When all is said and done, to me, it still seems surprising that they bailed on Scutaro considering the alternatives. The reason doesn't seem readily apparent. Look at the alternatives and was $6 mil really that much? The reasons?
    IMO Hfxsoxnut is right the luxury tax plus $6M made Aviles the better option.  Moon deserves credit for highlighting it at the time that Scut or Salty were getting traded.
    1) His medicals showed concern maybe?   He has had plantar fascitis, torn rot. cuff, and trapped neck nerve causing bicep muscle wastage over three years.  He has rode his luck to not miss more time.

    2) They have a big trade lined up to obtain a SS?  I doubt it
    3) They really, really like Aviles as a SS option?  In house the talent evaluators might have looked at the two at SS and said Aviles has more range and a better arm.  Back to the injury bug, they both have had their share, but you go with youth if you can save ~$8.4M and get player from the trade.

    4) They want to go with Iglesias now?  Not the end of the world if he starts in April, and the job is his as soon as he shows some progress in AAA. 
    5) Huge interpersonal problems we haven't heard of?  I doubt it
    6) Purely trying to save $6 mil?  Plus other factors
    7) They have other concerns about Scutaro's ability to play at his recent levels this coming year?  BINGO, going forward he is a 2B if they could find a team with the need.

    Maybe a combination of several? Yup


    And we traded him for relatively little at a signed $6 mil when we needed a SS? I'm sorry but I don't get it. Something is missing in this one.  Boom I think you just hit the nail on the head.



     
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE][QUOTE]Fangraphs factors in fielding in their projections and they had him worth $14 mil per year over 3 years?   Looking backwards over his 3.5 years of SS, he was certainly a worthy SS.  Of course, you must factor in his hitting and when you do he was a tick above average at SS.  Would he have hit enough for 2nd or would his fielding be better there?  Probably but a decent SS is harder to find. When all is said and done, to me, it still seems surprising that they bailed on Scutaro considering the alternatives. The reason doesn't seem readily apparent. Look at the alternatives and was $6 mil really that much? The reasons? IMO Hfxsoxnut  is right the luxury tax plus $6M made Aviles the better option.  Moon deserves credit for highlighting it at the time that Scut or Salty were getting traded. 1) His medicals showed concern maybe?   He has had plantar fascitis, torn rot. cuff, and trapped neck nerve causing bicep muscle wastage over three years.  He has rode his luck to not miss more time. 2) They have a big trade lined up to obtain a SS?  I doubt it 3) They really, really like Aviles as a SS option?  In house the talent evaluators might have looked at the two at SS and said Aviles has more range and a better arm.  Back to the injury bug, they both have had their share, but you go with youth if you can save ~$8.4M and get player from the trade. 4) They want to go with Iglesias now?  Not the end of the world if he starts in April, and the job is his as soon as he shows some progress in AAA.   5) Huge interpersonal problems we haven't heard of?  I doubt it 6) Purely trying to save $6 mil?  Plus other factors 7) They have other concerns about Scutaro's ability to play at his recent levels this coming year?  BINGO, going forward he is a 2B if they could find a team with the need. Maybe a combination of several? Yup And we traded him for relatively little at a signed $6 mil when we needed a SS? I'm sorry but I don't get it. Something is missing in this one.  Boom I think you just hit the nail on the head.  
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]
    To your first point. It depends upon how heavily one weighs factors in judging a shortstop. Scutaro was a pretty good hitter but not good enough, IMO, to compensate fielding defects and thus bring him above average, all things considered. Much better ( much ) fielding shortstops than he who are not total wipe-outs at the plate are not impossible to find. The Sox let two go: Cabrera and Gonzalez. Then there were Renteria and Lugo and Lowrie and, finally, by default Scutaro.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Even if you take out the luxury tax hit that Scutaro's deal would have contributed to, it was a trade off financially. I could easily use Hf's $8.4M number to make my case, but I'll just stick to the $5.3M (about the differential between Scutaro's deal and a Mortenson's). In this light the deal was really:

    Scutaro $6M

    for

    Mortenson $.75M
    Cody Ross  $3M
    N. Punto     $1.5M
    Shoppach  $1.35M

    Now, and argument could be made that we'd be better with Lavarnway over Shoppach and Iggy over Punto, but I'd still take the four guys listed abover over Scutaro and his $6M contract.

    Seperate from this issue is my position that Aviles is a better fielder than even a 100% healthy Scutaro. (Maybe just slightly, but better all the same.) I also think Aviles projects to hit about as well as the 36 going on 37 year old Scutaro would have hit here this year (if healthy). I also think Iggy as the FT SS would be a net gain over even a healthy Scutaro. 

    It seems very clear to me that the trade of Scutaro was a win-win-win.
    Win with Clay Mortensen, Cody, Kelly and Nick.
    Win with Aviles as a better SS for 2012 than Scoot.
    Win with Iggy as a better SS for 2012 as well.

    tom mentioned my early point about us being salry restricted and possibly needint to trade Scutaro or Salty to cut salary. While my point ended up coming true, I share boom's concern that the money saved was not actually used on our biggest weakness: pitching. Yes, we got Bailey and Melancon and a bunch of projects and question marks that perhaps one may emerge as a capable starter. Maybe trading Scutaro and Salty would have been necessary to get and pay for a capable, solid 4th starter, but not signed Ross, or Punto and gone with something like this:
    C: Lava/Shopp
    SS: Iggy/Aviles
    RF: Sweeney/DMac/Kalish/other?
    SP: Oswalt (not my first choice by a long shot, but maybe the only one we could afford)
    (I'm not saying I prefer this choice, but I think we dropped the ball on rebuilding our staff.)
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I hope they make Iggy the SS and just let him go for a while regardless of what he hits.  Sounds like he was showing off a little in drills today; good.  Young and talented should strut a little.  If he's below the Mendoza line in July...well then let's deal with it then.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I've been reading the reviews of today's ST events.  Just have to say I'm so happy with BV stressing drills for pitchers, fundamentals, running out grounders, and all hands going hard for pop ups.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I left the luxury tax issues out of the equation and they should have been factored. And they are more than just the 40% factor now if I remember correctly. It's more complicated now with revenue sharing changes etc... if I remember correctly. Good addition Hex!

    The more I look closely at the situation I think they are projecting Iglesias as imminent, by the all star break probably. Reaching a tipping point on this decision.

    I think most teams don't consider Aviles as a starting SS. Even the Royals didn't look at him that way. They played him mainly at 2nd and 3rd. He's a tweener. Not good enough probably to start at 3rd for a top team and can't field enough to do the job well over time at SS. He's a tweener guys in all likelihood but probably acceptable as a 90 day placeholder. A slight step above Alex Cora. 

    When looking at Aviles fangraphs numbers his best fielding spot appears to be SS but he has been getting a lot more PT recently at 3rd and 2nd where he was terrible. They even threw him out in the OF some. Maybe they are thinking if they are going to play him their best option is at SS, ergo another reason Scutaro is gone. I think the reasons for no Scutaro are extensive but it was proobably an accumulation of a number of factors.

    Maybe Aviles can give us good numbers as at least a PT SS. I just don't see the defense being a positive for him there long term but maybe the guy hits well in Fenway, is cheap and can approximately equate Scutaro defensively. And serve as a good RH bat / sub later when Iglesias emerges. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I left the luxury tax issues out of the equation and they should have been factored. And they are more than just the 40% factor now if I remember correctly. It's more complicated now with revenue sharing changes etc... if I remember correctly. Good addition Hex!

    The more I look closely at the situation I think they are projecting Iglesias as imminent, by the all star break probably. Reaching a tipping point on this decision.

    I think most teams don't consider Aviles as a starting SS. Even the Royals didn't look at him that way. They played him mainly at 2nd and 3rd. He's a tweener. Not good enough probably to start at 3rd for a top team and can't field enough to do the job well over time at SS. He's a tweener guys in all likelihood but probably acceptable as a 90 day placeholder. A slight step above Alex Cora. 

    When looking at Aviles fangraphs numbers his best fielding spot appears to be SS but he has been getting a lot more PT recently at 3rd and 2nd where he was terrible. They even threw him out in the OF some. Maybe they are thinking if they are going to play him their best option is at SS, ergo another reason Scutaro is gone. I think the reasons for no Scutaro are extensive but it was proobably an accumulation of a number of factors.

    Maybe Aviles can give us good numbers as at least a PT SS. I just don't see the defense being a positive for him there long term but maybe the guy hits well in Fenway, is cheap and can approximately equate Scutaro defensively. And serve as a good RH bat / sub later when Iglesias emerges. 

    Nice post, boom.

    I'd like to add that nobody thought Scutaro was a FT SS until he was about Aviles' age as well. Scoot had bounced around the IF as well. Maybe Scoot was a better fielder 4 years ago than Aviles is now, but my point is that Scoot wasn't ever going to get any better in the field as he nears 37. In all liklihood, he'd have gotten slower, and his health status is highly questionable at this point. If the choice was the spring of 2009 or 2010 Scoot vs Aviles now, I could see going with Scoot.

    As for the reason the Royals traded Aviles:
    1) They had last year's best range SS.
    2) They have salary issues, and while $1.5M doesn't seem like a lot to us, they probably felt they could get better value for that money elsewhere.
    3) They did get Navarro for him. I thought at the time, you really like Yamaico.

    The fangraph numbers are not large enough sample sizes, and I hate to base my judgements on just the 62 innings I watched him play last year with Boston. I realize I could be wrong about him being better than Scoot, and I know I have taken some criticism for holding the position that Scoot was one of the worst ranged SSs in MLB the last 2 years. (I place Jeter in the same group.) Aviles has a better arm, so I am assuming, he can't be any worse than Scoot.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, I have never liked Navarro. You can confirm that with expitch and harness. We wasted 2-3 pages of posts over that guy.

    I don't project every prospect to be big, just most! Cool
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    That was a joke for those of you who don't know me. Something like 95% of prospects never make it long in the majors or some such similar stat. Most prospects don't make it of course.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I also recommended they trade Weiland before he ever got to the majors. To pitch well in the majors it really helps to miss some bats. He has mediocre stuff. Of more value to a NL team with a big stadium.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, I have never liked Navarro. You can confirm that with expitch and harness. We wasted 2-3 pages of posts over that guy.

    I don't project every prospect to be big, just most! 

    Yes, you are right. I swapped you and ex's positions. I guess I just assumed you defended a prospect...LOL.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I also recommended they trade Weiland before he ever got to the majors. To pitch well in the majors it really helps to miss some bats. He has mediocre stuff. Of more value to a NL team with a big stadium.

    I agreed with you at the time, but softy clung to his idea that Wake was holding back the kids, so he grasped onto Weiland, blamed the brawl in baltimore for his demise, and still is claiming Weiland would have done better than Wake.

    (Prediction: if Weiland does well in the NL, softy will move the goalposts again and use the evidence to show Weiland would have done well here in the AL East last year, had he been given a full shot.)
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Wieland was trade bait waiting to happen. Nice kid and I hope he has a great career but he was a better fit elsewhere. We only kept him as long as we did out of shear necessity. Hopefully Barnes and Ranaudo light it up this year and put themselves in contention in 2013/2014.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Next year seems so faraway, but there is a lot to be done. Big decisions need to be made:
    1) Re-sign Papi?
    2) Re-sign Paps?
    3) Options for Scutaro, Wheeler and Miller?
    4) Arb raises?
    5) Wake and Vtek?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Wieland was trade bait waiting to happen. Nice kid and I hope he has a great career but he was a better fit elsewhere. We only kept him as long as we did out of shear necessity. Hopefully Barnes and Ranaudo light it up this year and put themselves in contention in 2013/2014.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Our pitching prospects need to step it up.

    FA pitchers hardly ever work out for the team.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    m
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share