A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : The real issue with trading Jake is: 1) Who will replace his production? 2) suitors know they only get him for two controllable years, and high arbitration ones at that. So the player(s) we get in return will be based on that.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I think the Red Sox have no shot at extending Ellsbury, but if he found a place where he was comfortable and happy, he would work out an extension.  SF and Seattle are closest to home, and neither is exactly a small-market team.  

    I like Grady Sizemore on a 2-year deal with a cheap club buyout the second year.  If he's healthy, he's a huge value.  Between Sizemore, Kalish, Reddick (and hopefully Brett Jackson though I hate to see Theo go) the team could do just fine without Ellsbury.  I'm not saying we won't miss him, but a Matt Cain or a Tommy Hanson or a Felix Hernandez (would take more than just Ells) could easily result in net gain re run differential.  And that's assuming we bank on 2011 being the new career norm for Ellsbury.


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : ...and thats why I'll take Iggy and his .200 BA as our starting SS.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    You know Moon, I'm inclined to agree with you. Gutsy call though huh! Look what happened when Texas did that with Andrus, a AA call up though. Their pitching staff immediately improved and has stayed strong since.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : You know Moon, I'm inclined to agree with you. Gutsy call though huh! Look what happened when Texas did that with Andrus, a AA call up though. Their pitching staff immediately improved and has stayed strong since.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    But Andrus was hitting .295 at AA.  I think Iglesias needs more time - you bring him up too soon and his trouble at the plate could spill into the field.  Could certainly hurt his development.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : But Andrus was hitting .295 at AA.  I think Iglesias needs more time - you bring him up too soon and his trouble at the plate could spill into the field.  Could certainly hurt his development.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    Iglesias was hitting around .280 in AA ball if I remember correctly, not last year in AAA but the year before. We all think it is not likely that Iglesias gets called up early but Moon and I both thought his defense alone might make us a better team earlier this year ( I think that was both of us Moon, I can't speak for you ).

    Iglesias is very young and could use more time. He did finish the year on the up swing though and could help us defensively right now. I think he is more likely to hit .230 - .240 for us in 2012 if given the chance.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    It's hard to believe that Theo put up with all this stuff. Drinking in the clubhouse during games. That should have been stopped immediately. I do recall Buchholz being out there cheering his teammates on. It doesn't matter if they pitched or not that day. No way they should be partying back in the clubhouse.

    When we get into these situations with big long term contracts and guys who have been around a long time, this sort of thing can happen. A Lackey or Beckett signs a deal for over $80 mil, knowing it's their last major contract and they are set for life. It is all too common to lose motivation and the mlb life is not easy, contrary to popular opinion. Sometimes they get no days off at all for 2 weeks. They are playing hurt. Getting to hotels at 4AM quite often. All the pressure and being away from home. It would be tempting to can it and mail it in. Give a lot of us $80 mil and we might have an attitude change as well after working like a dog for 10 years to get there.

    We are in a different world now, maybe even the type of world which requires a tough manager like Girardi to be successful. If it were me, and as much as I don't like that approach, I think that is where I'd go. A Lou Pinella, Joe Girardi type and I'd hire a GM who blows out 5-7 guys via trade this winter even if the sabermetrics say they are not ideal trades. They may even go into a 2 year rebuild mode, unheard of in this era of the team. Play some kids this year and see what they've got. Trade some vets for near term prospects and shoot for 2013. Give players like Kalish, Lavarnway, Iglesias, Reddick, Wieland, Bowden, Doubront etc...a chance for more PT this year. How is that for an outrageous move?

    Not going to happen to that degree but I wouldn't be surprised if they do give more kids a chance in 2012 than normal. I'm going with Lavarnway and Doubront on the big club almost for sure.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I think the Red Sox have no shot at extending Ellsbury, but if he found a place where he was comfortable and happy, he would work out an extension.  SF and Seattle are closest to home, and neither is exactly a small-market team.   I like Grady Sizemore on a 2-year deal with a cheap club buyout the second year.  If he's healthy, he's a huge value.  Between Sizemore, Kalish, Reddick (and hopefully Brett Jackson though I hate to see Theo go) the team could do just fine without Ellsbury.  I'm not saying we won't miss him, but a Matt Cain or a Tommy Hanson or a Felix Hernandez (would take more than just Ells) could easily result in net gain re run differential.  And that's assuming we bank on 2011 being the new career norm for Ellsbury.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]


    The point is, are those pitchers gonna be available for two years of high-cost arbitration for Jake?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Who knows what the mood will be like in Boston in the 2012 season but I can't imagine it being a really warm world to be Iggy if he was putting up a low .500 OPS in Boston.

    Personally I can't get any kind of read yet on where the RS will be 2012 with the fanbase.

    the most tradeable assets on this team IMHO does not include Ellsbury. That list is Pedey (under team control) and that isn't happening and then Buchholz and after that Lester.

    BTW has anybody noticed Beckett had a great 2011 with a sub-par September while Lester had an off year for him except for W-L, was at least as awful if not worse down the stretch than Josh but it is Beckett that is catching all the heat, even now that the reports are that pitcher's "click" included Jon? 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Reporters corroborate the info they receive with multiple sources. A lot of what was stated included denials from the people involved, for example Tito. Others were asked for their comments but they declined to respond. The information appeared to be presented fairly. There does not appear to me to be anything wrong with this story. It's called being a reporter.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]


    No. It's called being a hack. The corroboration involved using pieces from other hacks already printed. Players who declined comments were Youk and Papi, and both are generally press-friendly. But the players know amongst themselves who can and can't be trusted for an interview. Hohler's poison, as is CHB.

    That's why they generally aren't granted interviews. What you consider fair exposes UR low standards. That piece of crap you see nothing wrong with serves only to blacken the team, hasten decisions, and create controversy.
     
  9. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : But Andrus was hitting .295 at AA.  I think Iglesias needs more time - you bring him up too soon and his trouble at the plate could spill into the field.  Could certainly hurt his development.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    Let's look at some SSs
    A.Ramirez 5.0
    JJ Hardy    4.9 plays (PO + A) per 9 innings
    Castro       4.6 
    Andrus      4.6
    Scutty       4.0
    Jeter          3.6 (Worst in MLB)

    If we assume Iggy is one of the best fielding SS in MLB, we can expect him to make about 5 plays per game. That's about a half a play a game over the average SS and a full play or more over some of the worst ranged SSs like Scutty, Lowrie and Jeter. Project that over 150 games, and it's easy to see that Iggy might "save" about 80 hits a year over the average SS and maybe 150 over last year's Sox SSs.

    An overly simplistic way to look at it would be like this:

    SSA 600 PAs  200 Hits  (.333)  Makes 680 plays in 150 games on D.
    SSB 600 PAs  120 Hits  (.200)  Makes 760 plays in 150 games on D.

    Add 80 hits to player B's offense and you have this:
    600 PAs  120 + 80 = 200 (Hits plus "hits saved") = .333

    I realize that some of player A's hits might be 2Bs and 3Bs and HRs, and most "hits saved" would be singles, but you get my drift.  Also, figure in more DPs.  Great fielding SSs can make a huge difference.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]harness just an interesting point but for someone who spends grandoise efforts on venue and cera I would think you would also be interested in measuring attitudes/preparedness and how they can positively or negatively affect the rest of the team.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    This is foolish.
    You can't "measure" attitude the way you measure venue or a catcher's relevance.

    Anybody who has ever been involved in athletic competition over time knows there will always be conflicts that will arise, and losing is the hot burner.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Harness, I found that article quite compelling.  That stuff has been leaking out since the season ended but not with specifics.  This article had specifics.  I don't hear any of the major characters denying anything--maybe we will.  But I do hear people refusing to respond.  This was a huge failure at the end with millions spent on athletes and coaches who did not produce.  Unfortunately, this is what happens in those cases.  All questions should be asked and all avenues considered.  Two other comments. I read about everything RS and hadn't heard a word about Tito's domestic situation.  To me the reporters gave him a break.  To ask if that is a factor now is completely fair in my book--he's a public figure and anyone who's gone through that (I have) is in a state of high stress for a while.  He denies it was a factor. Fine.  I'd bet it was a minor factor, just like his health, and chicken in the clubhouse.  Finally, Amp, I'm with you on a tougher manager at this time but I'm not second guessing those two players gone.  14/15 mil is not what you pay for a DH and a catcher who doesn't get the most out of his pitchers.  We thought Agon was better for the RS than Beltre going forward which is yet to be seen.  IF those players were still here and IF they had spoken up, there might have been a difference.  But it sounds like some players did speak up as well as the coach, and were ignored.  Players are only going to be effective speaking up if backed by the manager who is backed by the FO.
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]

    Crit, the "specifics" were written about before. There where quotes of denial and no quotes from his "hidden sources". Hohler is garbage. The very fact he brought up Tito's pain meds (which he's taken for years) and his marriage (when reputable writers stay clear of it) tells you all you have to know. It's these insinuations, i.e. facts of suspicion that make the public gullible.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Looks like Theo may take the lure out of town. I thought he had more sense than that. What looks good in the short run will come back to haunt him.
    A few tweaks and Cherrington or ??? will get the credit for what Theo and co. built. And it'll take years to reshape the Cubs. Theo's gonna find an impatient fan-base in Chicago as well.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]As much as I like Cherington, I don't see him as the guy we need at this moment in time. We are going to have to clean house.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]I am not as quick to buy into that. September was a horrid stretch, the team has made some bad projections on FA signings but blowing up the whole organization seems harsh medicine. The best way to retain the majority of FO personnel IMHO is to create some continuity.

    Further Cherington's finger prints are all over almost all of the current highly regarded prospects and the guys on the 25 man roster that the team has developed.

    Whatever they are going to do they need to fill the GM position quickly. It will be impossible to hire a manager of any quality if the GM is not named yet.

    This is a good organization that hit and missed on some of its dealings (like all do) that has a talented team that proved to be dysfunctional under extreme stress.


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'm with you harness. The whole story reeked of sensationalism. It's no surprise to see which posters here chose to believe every word and which ones reserve judgement.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Looks like Theo may take the lure out of town. I thought he had more sense than that. What looks good in the short run will come back to haunt him. A few tweaks and Cherrington or ??? will get the credit for what Theo and co. built. And it'll take years to reshape the Cubs. Theo's gonna find an impatient fan-base in Chicago as well.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    This move by Theo will be the first time he is really going to run the show. This will reveal if he really has the goods to build a competitive team completely on his own. I don't see what Theo has built that others will get credit for. I see a mess that needs cleaning up. You obviously see a brighter future for the team than I do. There is going to be an enormous amount of work for the next GM to create a winning culture and erase the embarrassment of the 2011 collapse. I am not optimistic going forward with "Theo's team".
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : This is foolish. You can't "measure" attitude the way you measure venue or a catcher's relevance. Anybody who has ever been involved in athletic competition over time knows there will always be conflicts that will arise, and losing is the hot burner.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Yes it is foolish, that was my point thanks.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    After 2012, the Cubs will be shedding $19M for Zambrano, $14M for Dempster, A. Ramirez $16M, $6.5M for Byrd and $3.1M for Marshall. That will be the telling time for Theo.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I'm with you harness. The whole story reeked of sensationalism. It's no surprise to see which posters here chose to believe every word and which ones reserve judgement.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    That story and those like it have been my just that...it's been my position all along.

    BTW: Softy got axed again. Makes our posts toward him look naked now.
    In fairness, he really toned it down since his LessPaul. Unless I missed something, I think this last ban was unjustified (relatively speaking).
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : This move by Theo will be the first time he is really going to run the show. This will reveal if he really has the goods to build a competitive team completely on his own.

    I realize that. But it'll take time to turn the Cubs around, and Cub fans have already waited almost a century.


    I don't see what Theo has built that others will get credit for.

    Theo inherited a baron farm and built it up. He wisely let players like Lowe and Pedro and Damon walk when they did, making the most of the draft picks.
    He got Pedey/Lester/Youk to sign team-friendly deals.
    I don't believe any player went to arbitration with him as GM.

    I see a mess that needs cleaning up. You obviously see a brighter future for the team than I do.

    This same team can be brought back and win a ring. That's how good they were before too many pitching injuries became too much to overcome.


    There is going to be an enormous amount of work for the next GM to create a winning culture and erase the embarrassment of the 2011 collapse. I am not optimistic going forward with "Theo's team".
    Posted by devildavid


    Depends on what the FO does.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Yes it is foolish, that was my point thanks.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    You are welcome.
    Perhaps now you see the error or your witch-hunting ways.
    The problems were on the field, namely pitchers pitching hurt.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : But Andrus was hitting .295 at AA.  I think Iglesias needs more time - you bring him up too soon and his trouble at the plate could spill into the field.  Could certainly hurt his development.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    Sticking Iglesias in one of the league's best offensive line-ups might help him figure things out pretty quickly. No? Sox led in almost every offensive category, what better time? Just sayin'. We won't know until the end of Spring, what he shows then, whether it's logical.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Let's look at some SSs A.Ramirez 5.0 JJ Hardy    4.9 plays (PO + A) per 9 innings Castro       4.6  Andrus      4.6 Scutty       4.0 Jeter          3.6 (Worst in MLB) If we assume Iggy is one of the best fielding SS in MLB, we can expect him to make about 5 plays per game. That's about a half a play a game over the average SS and a full play or more over some of the worst ranged SSs like Scutty, Lowrie and Jeter. Project that over 150 games, and it's easy to see that Iggy might "save" about 80 hits a year over the average SS and maybe 150 over last year's Sox SSs. An overly simplistic way to look at it would be like this: SSA 600 PAs  200 Hits  (.333)  Makes 680 plays in 150 games on D. SSB 600 PAs  120 Hits  (.200)  Makes 760 plays in 150 games on D. Add 80 hits to player B's offense and you have this: 600 PAs  120 + 80 = 200 (Hits plus "hits saved") = .333 I realize that some of player A's hits might be 2Bs and 3Bs and HRs, and most "hits saved" would be singles, but you get my drift.  Also, figure in more DPs.  Great fielding SSs can make a huge difference.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    We might be over-estimating Iglesias's range a bit - he had 4.5 chances / game in 2011 at Pawtucket.  That puts him at about 680 / 150.  Scutaro was at about 610 / 150.  That's 70 more balls that Iglesias gets to, with about 45 more hits for Scutaro, maybe a dozen of those for extra bases, bringing the total bases gap to maybe 10-15 bases saved throughout the season.  But that's assuming that Iglesias will not hit worse at the major-league level.  Even then, there is the x-factor of a hole in the lineup that pitchers can exploit - working around a Crawford or a Reddick or a Salty to pitch to Iglesias.  


     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Xander Bogaerts had a 4.8 chances / game rate for Greenville, and crushed the ball. It's A-ball, but the kid's only 18.  He may be the real SS of the future.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : The point is, are those pitchers gonna be available for two years of high-cost arbitration for Jake?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Cain has one year of control left, and Felix three.  A straight-up trade wouldn't make sense in either scenario, but it seems like two teams with opposite needs and the means to extend players who fit well would would want to sit and talk.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Cain has one year of control left, and Felix three.  A straight-up trade wouldn't make sense in either scenario, but it seems like two teams with opposite needs and the means to extend players who fit well would would want to sit and talk.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]


    I doubt they'd talk for very long, as both parties would be seeking extended tenure as the likely criteria for the deal. Borass won't go there.
     
     

Share