A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Who knows? Maybe CC will be ready by the first week of the season!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Who knows? Maybe CC will be ready by the first week of the season!
    Posted by moonslav59


    I wouldn't doubt it. I think CC wants to prove a lot of people wrong this year.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Heh Moon. I just spent 1/2 hour or so watching youtubes of Swihart and reading articles about him. Pretty exciting young prospect. I questioned his numbers a little on the national team but he also hit very well in exhibitions for them and he certainly had some pop. His arms look like Ellsbury's arms do now! Wiry but strong. Real good raw athlete. Not as fast of course but a strong body with natural athleticism and quickness. Great article below about him. It really gives a feel for the person he is. He seems to be naturally upbeat. His dad seems to have an idea of what is going on and is helping him keep his head together. a real baseball rat. He was an all state basketball player but quit to focus on baseball. That took some discipline. 95 mph fastball BTW but his hitting tool is so strong he doesn't pitch. This kid could play anywhere on the field in mlb at some point except CF. Real good all around athlete. Can dunk with 2 hands with a 1 foot takeoff and he's 6'1".


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The worst thing that could happen to this kid is to be saddled with extraordinary expectations but even with tons of scouts watching his every move this kid performed at an extraordinary level. He seems to be able to compartmentalize the pressure. He reminds me of a young Chipper Jones.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I want to clarify that Swihart does not have a swing anywhere near as solid as Chipper Jones ok but his personaility seems to be like Chipper's and his raw talent level. The guy might have the quickest bat speed I've even seen. I'm no scout but he does seem to be able to turn on even very high fastballs and he does seem to be able to get his hands inside the ball extremely well. The raw tools appear to be exceptional.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Thanks, boom. I has always wondered why Sox prospects had him rated in the top 10. Good info.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    He could sky rocket next year or become a nobody. It's still way too early to tell but every scout in the country seems to think this kid is for real. And I have admit, I'm beginning to give him a lot of credibility as well. I was thinking "He was in New Mexico...how well scouted could he have been?" but some games he had 27 scouts there apparently. He lived in the area batting cage. The kid is focused. Give me a high school baseball rat with big numbers and raw tools any day. Cechinni, Swihart..etc. Especially one with great coaching and access to a batting cage as both the above kids had.

    It's like creating Mozart...practice, practise, practise and start early!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'm betting on Cecchini to rise the most this year.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I


    Quote of the day:

    "If we threw a lot of money at the problems, maybe we'd be incrementally better, but then there would be a price to pay down the line," (Theo) Epstein says.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    IMO, going forward we are going to need guys like Barnes, Ranaudo, Cecchini, Bogaerts, Coyle, Swihart, Iglesias, Middlebrooks, Brentz, Bradley and Lavarnway to produce at the starter level. Some of these guys need to make it big in order for this team to be winners going forward. I think this group are our best shot at producing high WAR level studs. Guys like Jerez and Jacobs have real shots of course also but the most likely studs are above IMO. We are going to have to trade or sign FA pitchers in order to be a top team IMO. Fortunately we have a boatload of top 3rd base prospects who will help in that regard.

    If I had to pick a prospect to emerge in the minors I would probably go with Bogaerts and Swihart, with Coyle and Cechinni in that mix also. Players impacting the majors this year Lavarnway and Iglesias are probables. Both are underated IMO as national prospects. Both can be real impact players for us even this year.
     
  11. 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:
    IMO, going forward we are going to need guys like Barnes, Ranaudo, Cecchini, Bogaerts, Coyle, Swihart, Iglesias, Middlebrooks, Brentz, Bradley and Lavarnway to produce at the starter level. Some of these guys need to make it big in order for this team to be winners going forward. I think this group are our best shot at producing high WAR level studs. Guys like Jerez and Jacobs have real shots of course also but the most likely studs are above IMO. We are going to have to trade or sign FA pitchers in order to be a top team IMO. Fortunately we have a boatload of top 3rd base prospects who will help in that regard. If I had to pick a prospect to emerge in the minors I would probably go with Bogaerts and Swihart, with Coyle and Cechinni in that mix also. Players impacting the majors this year Lavarnway and Iglesias are probables. Both are underated IMO as national prospects. Both can be real impact players for us even this year.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom

    Can't disagree with anything here. Nice post, boom.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Just going on some talk on WEEI on where to bat Crawford. I am now wondering why we are all discussing moving Pedroia or AGon out of spots they kicked-azz in all 2011 just in the hope Carl gets it going in the 2 or 3 spot. Why are we thinking this way?

    I am questioning myslelf now.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Just going on some talk on WEEI on where to bat Crawford. I am now wondering why we are all discussing moving Pedroia or AGon out of spots they kicked-azz in all 2011 just in the hope Carl gets it going in the 2 or 3 spot. Why are we thinking this way? I am questioning myslelf now.
    Posted by BurritoT


    Didn't Bill James conclude that the effect of the order of the lineup is vastly overrated?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'm starting to think that maybe Ellsbury should be more in the middle of the order. Stop me before I think too much! You've got to admit it's tempting when we don't have much at 8 & 9 for him to drive in.

    One benefit from Ellsbury at #1 is that the number 9 guy is probably going to get some pitches to hit. If it's Iglesias, it's not like they are going to take a chance on walking him. I'm probably keeping Ellsbury at the one spot. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We already have 4 legitimate 3 slot hitters: 
    AGon: best vs RHPs and maybe 3rd best vs LHPs
    Youk: best vs LHPs and maybe 4th best vs RHPs
    Papi: 2nd best vs RHPs and maybe 4th best vs LHPs
    Pedey: 2nd best vs LHPs and maybe 3rd best vs RHPs

    I don't see a need to move Jacoby down, plus he provides us with a chance to score with some HRs after the bottom of the order gets on base.

    There's a thread on moving CC to the 2nd slot. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me, and it never will. See the thread for my many points against the moves.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Being as objective as I can - why would you want Elsbury in any other slot besides leadoff. If his numbers are indicative of his future, then you are looking at a Rickey Henderson type player. 20 + HR's; 50 + steals.

    Boston has enough big guns to handle the middle of the line-up and as good #2 hitter as there is in baseball (Pedey).

    You tinker only if Papi shows he cannot do it and Youk gets hurt again early in the year.

    If it was my choice

    Els
    Pedey
    A-Gon
    Papi
    Youk
    CC
    mix and match 7 - 9
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Being as objective as I can - why would you want Elsbury in any other slot besides leadoff. If his numbers are indicative of his future, then you are looking at a Rickey Henderson type player. 20 + HR's; 50 + steals. Boston has enough big guns to handle the middle of the line-up and as good #2 hitter as there is in baseball (Pedey). You tinker only if Papi shows he cannot do it and Youk gets hurt again early in the year. If it was my choice Els Pedey A-Gon Papi Youk CC mix and match 7 - 9
    Posted by jesseyeric


    Sure, that lineup is fine.

    It'll be interesting to see what BV does.  Could he possibly move Crawford around depending if it's a righty or lefty on the mound, as moon has suggested? 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Why not Yankee fans on the Yankee Realistic picking their brains discussing who should lead off for the Yankees and why? Why do they spend every waking moment concerned about our lineup? Unreal.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Why not Yankee fans on the Yankee Realistic picking their brains discussing who should lead off for the Yankees and why? Why do they spend every waking moment concerned about our lineup? Unreal.
    Posted by lowelll


    I am not concerned. I gave an opinion, just like I
    did on the Yankee thread. And if you have a thread on the Pirates, I will give you one there as well..

    Have to ask you this question, obviously you are aware that you are the laughing stock of this forum and yet you continue to abuse yourself even more with your lack of wit and sensibility. Why ? - I don't even think you are much of a Sox fan.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Being as objective as I can - why would you want Elsbury in any other slot besides leadoff. If his numbers are indicative of his future, then you are looking at a Rickey Henderson type player. 20 + HR's; 50 + steals. 

    Boston has enough big guns to handle the middle of the line-up and as good #2 hitter as there is in baseball (Pedey).

    You tinker only if Papi shows he cannot do it and Youk gets hurt again early in the year. 

    If it was my choice 

    Els
    Pedey
    A-Gon
    Papi
    Youk
    CC
    mix and match 7 - 9

    I'd flip Youk and Papi vs LHPs and then move CC down vs most lefties.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The Red Sox have failed to win a postseason game in five of the last seven seasons despite one of baseball's highest payrolls.

    A good Boston franchise falls short of greatness ... the Sox have something to prove this year.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Being as objective as I can - why would you want Elsbury in any other slot besides leadoff. If his numbers are indicative of his future, then you are looking at a Rickey Henderson type player. 20 + HR's; 50 + steals.  Boston has enough big guns to handle the middle of the line-up and as good #2 hitter as there is in baseball (Pedey). You tinker only if Papi shows he cannot do it and Youk gets hurt again early in the year.  If it was my choice  Els Pedey A-Gon Papi Youk CC mix and match 7 - 9 I'd flip Youk and Papi vs LHPs and then move CC down vs most lefties.
    Posted by moonslav59


    That works as well Moon. But whatever is decided upon, you want to give it a chance to work for the first 3 weeks of the season.  I am not a big fan of adjusting the line-up everytime a player goes into a mini-slump. Depending on how the team is producing runs, you can adjust. Of course, a catastrophic injury changes all that.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I think adjustments are fine, but just not all-over-the map ones. Adjustmants should be made if a player has a tough time or has a great history vs a particular pitcher with a large enough sample size. 

    While the L-R-L thing has some merit, a player that his clearly much better than another should not be demoted to avoid 2 or 3 righties or lefties in a row, especially since many of our hitters hit both sides well.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    I think adjustments are fine, but just not all-over-the map ones. Adjustmants should be made if a player has a tough time or has a great history vs a particular pitcher with a large enough sample size.  While the L-R-L thing has some merit, a player that his clearly much better than another should not be demoted to avoid 2 or 3 righties or lefties in a row, especially since many of our hitters hit both sides well.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Agreed in those instances which have a clearly documented history against certain pitchers. I also agree with your stance on the L-R-L issue. What I loved about the Yankee line-up for years is that they usually had 3 or 4 switch-hitters in the line-up. Made it a little easier in that respect.

    Either way, I think this Boston line-up is extremely potent. I am not familiar with the new players they brought in whom will cover the bottom third of the line-up, but if they can all produce at an adequate or average level for their position, then there is no reason for the Sox not to average close to 5 runs per game.
     
  25. 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:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Agreed in those instances which have a clearly documented history against certain pitchers. I also agree with your stance on the L-R-L issue. What I loved about the Yankee line-up for years is that they usually had 3 or 4 switch-hitters in the line-up. Made it a little easier in that respect. Either way, I think this Boston line-up is extremely potent. I am not familiar with the new players they brought in whom will cover the bottom third of the line-up, but if they can all produce at an adequate or average level for their position, then there is no reason for the Sox not to average close to 5 runs per game.
    Posted by jesseyeric

    Yes, clear bonafide swithc hitters are a great thing to have, but one should not be fooled by some. Look at Lowrie. He was labelled a switch hitter, but had a lopsided split. Conversely, look at Jacoby: he bats left-handed, but over his career has hit both sides pretty well. Pedey has had ups and downs vs LHPs even thiough he hits from the right side. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share