Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

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

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    The coveted draft pick. Meanwhile, lets field a mediocre team because we value someone who may or may not be a star? Makes perfect sense.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingham Hammer. Show Hingham Hammer's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm fine with keeping the draft pick since I do not see us seriously competing in 2013 anyways, but I am surprised to see so many posters who actually think we have a chance of winning it all this year seemingly content to go with Mauro Gomez fulltime at the most important offensive position in MLB (1B).

    What's the alternative? Berkman? The next bum-hipped Mike Lowell (Naps)?

    [/QUOTE]


    seasons greetings moon

    is that how it is 4U  now

    if you don't think U can win it all

    U don't care if it's 2nd, 3rd or last place

    hope I'm wrong

    but that is how you sound so far this winter

    me personally I'm for improving wherever & whenever U can

    [/QUOTE]

            Happy New Year Zac,

                   The good news the Sox should be improved from 2012.

                   The bad news is they won't compete for the division.

                   They might be able to grap a WC.

                   Sometimes in both life and sports it's better to avoid short term gains for the bigger picture.

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

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You need to cut off the study at about 2005.  To take the obvious, someone picked #44 in 2012, has contributed exactly -0- to the WAR, bringing the WAR average down.  Probably the same with 2011 and 2010, with minor contributions in 2009 and 2008, etc.

    The second thing is that it looks like the average WAR is 2.4.  That alone is worth >$10M in today's methodology.

    You really think it is fair to count theMLB  WAR on the 2012 draft picks? One could argue that we shouldn't count the 2011 and 2010 drafts until a few years down the line as these guys get their chances to show their stuff.

    To me, looking at the numbers from prior to 2008 or 2009 gives a truer sense of what early draft picks normally amount to value wise.

    The Sox have had some hits and misses in the 1st two rounds over the years, but the #44 pick has quite a bit of value.

    BTW, this same approximate value is attached to any pre-season trade we make involving Ellsbury. The team getting Ellsbury before the season begins gains this same value in next year's draft (or we lose that value if we trade him rather than keep him and let him walk).

    [/QUOTE]

    That's why I said the study had to be cut off at 2005.  Anything past that, and the draft choice is like not to have achieved 100% of his WAR.

    And on most of these moves, the onion is a 100 layers thick.  For all the posts about Drew, how many have mentioned the fact that, if he has a good season, we can make a QO and score a pick?

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

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to Alibiike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The coveted draft pick. Meanwhile, lets field a mediocre team because we value someone who may or may not be a star? Makes perfect sense.

    [/QUOTE]

    Without parameters, your statement makes no sense.  As stated, we should simply pay whatever LaRoche demands, for whatever time period he wants covered, and give any draft pick or prospect.

    At the end of the day, hypothetically, every player has a given value to a team.  In LaRoche's case, it is his WAR over three years, plus the value of the pick.  Why would you choose to ignore the pick?

    Either that, or you're whining.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    You need to cut off the study at about 2005.  To take the obvious, someone picked #44 in 2012, has contributed exactly -0- to the WAR, bringing the WAR average down.  Probably the same with 2011 and 2010, with minor contributions in 2009 and 2008, etc.


    If I divide each position's overall WAR* by 43 instead of 48, I get these average WAR per draft pick:

    36. 4.6

    37. 3.5

    38. 2.9

    39. 5.2

    40. 1.5

    41. 1.8

    42. 1.4

    43. .8

    44. 1.6

    45. .5

    46. 3.2

    47. 3.8

    48. 2.8

    49. 3.8

    50. 3.7

    * the overall WAR from 1965-2012, but dividing by the only 43 seasons from 1965 through 2007, even though the overall WAR includes WAR from 2008-12 draftees.

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

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    Nice legwork hill.

    Very enlightening.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingham Hammer. Show Hingham Hammer's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    HNY HH

    Sometimes in both life and sports it's better to avoid short term gains for the bigger picture.

    in life no doubt

    in sports not so much, at least 4 me

    4 me sports are a getaway from real life

    we both have seen 2 much 2 think

    we can count on much 2 or 3 yrs down the road



    I don't think we disagree on today's specific topic

    a 2nd round (whatever) pick vs laroche

    1 guy that can help you now vs a guy who might help you someday

    got to love the superstat crowd

    b james and my all time favorite statgirl RS Kimmi

    suggesting it's reasonable to expect close 2 the same from a guy

    who did it in the bigs for 8 yrs vs a 8 yr minor leaguer

    it's OK 2 think it

    but to actually say it out load ..........OMG   ;-)



    Memo 2 RSN:

    sox are a big market team ..................EMBRACE IT

    [/QUOTE]

               GM Zac,

                        "I don't think we disagree on today's specific topic"

               Not at all.

               Laroche vs a 2nd round pick is a no brainer.

               More so if you wrap him up for multi years.

               What I'am against is flushing the future for marginal short term gain.

               Like the safe conservative approach of switching to bonds in 2012 as opposed to the S+P 500.

               That kind of thinking will keep a team running in place.

                

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

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://blogs.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/2012/12/what-the-second-round-pick-means.html

     

    This is huge when you read  who we signed in recent years with picks in the 40s.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not huge. They have multiple top prospects in the minors, none of whom, will be given the chance to start this year due to Ben Cherington's flea market signings.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    ADG why not chime in on your anti-Reddick thread? Do tell.

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

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    Suppose Sox find out that Napoli has to have surgery and will out for the year. Suppose Laroche signs with the Nationals. Who plays 1st for the Sox. Mauro Gomez - No. David Ortiz - No. Bobby Abreu - No. It is time to make a decision on Napoli and if he cant play then sign Laroche for 3 years or 2013 will be as bad as 2012 with someone good at 1b. Yes the loss of the 2nd round pick will hurt but without a 1bman like Laroche if Napoli cant play then 2013 will be worse than 2012 as the Sox have no 1bman ready to play in the near future in the minors.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to ArtWikle's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Suppose Sox find out that Napoli has to have surgery and will out for the year. Suppose Laroche signs with the Nationals. Who plays 1st for the Sox. Mauro Gomez - No. David Ortiz - No. Bobby Abreu - No. It is time to make a decision on Napoli and if he cant play then sign Laroche for 3 years or 2013 will be as bad as 2012 with someone good at 1b. Yes the loss of the 2nd round pick will hurt but without a 1bman like Laroche if Napoli cant play then 2013 will be worse than 2012 as the Sox have no 1bman ready to play in the near future in the minors.

    [/QUOTE]


    If we were to sign Laroche. The # 44 pick will not be such a great lost. The Sox are loaded with prospects waiting to come up into the big leagues. Laroche out of the 1B available will be the best pick, unless the sox mngt. gamble on Berkman ( who may be signing with Houston) Lyle Overbay cheap value but high risk. Carlos Lee would be another good choice Lee and Gomez are right handed hitters which is good for Fenway Park.

    My personal opinion if Napoli is a high risk injury than the Sox should bail out. Then the mngt. can sign Laroche, it will have to be a 3 year deal to get him. Should the sox sign Carlos Lee for one year with Gomez backing him up ( and play Gomez on a regular basis and see what kind of 2013 season he produces).

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tripleb2066. Show tripleb2066's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    Pass on Napoli and Laroche. Go into the season with Gomez playing full time at first. Pick up a left handed backup who could also play some  OF, like Berkman. If it doesn't work out they can make a move in season to pick up a first basemen from some team that has fallen out of contention and is looking to dump salary. Maybe Mourneau? Someone like that. I think that's a better way to go than to overpay for mediocrity.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share