2019-20 Offseason Discussion

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
We may be talking past each other on this. All I’m saying is that Travis should absolutely not be the starting first baseman next year, even in a platoon. A full season of Travis is probably -3 wins.

The literal only reason to cut payroll is because the team’s ability to acquire players is hampered under the new CBA. That’s a drag, because the decision to increase payroll was made under the previous one. So I somewhat buy that getting under $208m is good long-term. But cutting payroll for any other reason seems like austerity for austerity’s sake, and fans should be bullshit about that, in my opinion.



Yeah, I’m admittedly a little more bearish on Chavis than most around here. He had a 75 wRC+ after his first 14 games, which I think matters because those late April Tigers and White Sox pitchers didn’t really know his weaknesses. It’s certainly possible he’s a 100 wRC+ second baseman with average defense — which is not worthless — but I still think he’s trade bait. Imagine if we had shipped him at the deadline for Nick Anderson, who went for (slightly higher-rated prospect) Jesus Sanchez.
I mean maybe Chavis is that rare bird whose numbers simply do not translate to the majors at all, but that’s what it would require. He had a 900+ OPS in 800 PA across 3 age-appropriate or better leagues and notoriously pitcher friendly home parks from 2017-2019. Part of the drop off was likely the league adjusted to him as you said, and he was also injured which likely played a role. He will have to adjust back. His minor league success suggests there’s a high likelihood of that.

if they trade Chavis for Nick Anderson I’d sure hope it worked out better than that absolute steal of a deal we got for Tyler Thornberg.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Why would any read CHB, except if you're looking for an excuse to be as cantankerous as he is?

And from what I read of Bloom's interview with Bradfo, it didn't seem like that was an effort to downplay Mookie at all.
Morbid curiosity on how low CHB will go. Someone has been leaking stuff to him for the last few months. If you connect the dots between who he works for and who owns the team its not hard.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
6,424
For 2B, couldn't they just give Lin the keys and see how he does? And have Chatham as the utility IF? I know it's not sexy, but is it going to be worse than Dozier? Certainly less money.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I agree re Mookie. It seems like he's looking for a deal commensurate with his 2018 production. That's fine, but given that 2017 and 19 were "lesser" years, there's no real benefit to the Sox to extend him now. Seeing how 2020 goes makes sense.

Sale's situation was a little trickier. I'm assuming they thought his health was fine and that his subsequent problems were just one of the downsides to any long term deal. If so, I think they decided that the CBT savings of extending him ($3.4M/year difference between the contract's AAV and the AAV for CBT purposes, if my math is right) outweighed any value in seeing how 2019 turned out. I don't want to fault them in hindsight for making that choice.
2016 was another MVP-level year, so it's not like 2018 is some outlier.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,237
Twin Cities
I read Dewey's post to be more about whether the Sox should be aggressively trying to extend Mookie now (and nail down that cost, for current and future roster building purposes), versus waiting, NOT whether we should be trading him. That's another, albeit related, issue. And of course there are multiple, conflicting variables we don't know right now, which makes any proposed plan by any of us worth about what you'd expect internet speculation to be worth...
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,463
Maine
For 2B, couldn't they just give Lin the keys and see how he does? And have Chatham as the utility IF? I know it's not sexy, but is it going to be worse than Dozier? Certainly less money.
Why limit it to Lin? They've got Chavis, Hernandez, and Lin on the 40-man roster and making pennies. Any of them could be handed the keys or used in a platoon to cover second. Seems to me the only free agent option they should be remotely considering as far as 2B goes is re-signing Holt.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
6,424
Why limit it to Lin? They've got Chavis, Hernandez, and Lin on the 40-man roster and making pennies. Any of them could be handed the keys or used in a platoon to cover second. Seems to me the only free agent option they should be remotely considering as far as 2B goes is re-signing Holt.
True, though I've seen others opine that Hernandez should not be used on the heavier side of a platoon, which means Lin gets the more reps unless they are going to do a three-man platoon. I'm not sure Chavis would be best utilized in such a platoon unless it was strictly for offense, though we haven't really seen how good he is or isn't at 2B yet either.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
693
Maryland
I read Dewey's post to be more about whether the Sox should be aggressively trying to extend Mookie now (and nail down that cost, for current and future roster building purposes), versus waiting, NOT whether we should be trading him. That's another, albeit related, issue. And of course there are multiple, conflicting variables we don't know right now, which makes any proposed plan by any of us worth about what you'd expect internet speculation to be worth...
Well, what I was trying to say was that if Mookie won't entertain signing an extension now, it's not the end of the world. And it doesn't mean we have to trade him.

To this point, Mookie has made it clear that he's willing to bet on himself, and that he's certainly not willing to sign at any sort of discount to get the certainty of a long-term deal in place early. He wants fair market value for his services, based on MVP-caliber production. Maybe if the Sox blew his socks (Sox?) off with an offer this offseason with enough that he knew it was at least as much as he could get on the FA market next year, he might sign, but that seems highly unlikely.

But just because he won't sign a deal this offseason doesn't mean we should just trade him now. I think the only rationale for trading him would be if they are 100% certain that he would not resign with the Sox, AND if they could get a significant return for him. We can debate the second point - what teams might be willing to pay for a very high-priced rental for elite production - but I don't think there's any way we know the answer to the first part. But the team probably has at least a read on whether he's genuinely open to staying.

If he's open to returning and they trade him anyway, that would be an indication that either (1) getting under 208 is more important than being competitive in 2020, or (2) they don't think they'll be competitive in 2020 (maybe because of the health of the SPs) so they want to trade Mookie to both save money and build long-term assets.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
For 2B, couldn't they just give Lin the keys and see how he does? And have Chatham as the utility IF? I know it's not sexy, but is it going to be worse than Dozier? Certainly less money.
Dozier’s oPS in the majors was 100 points higher than Lin’s in AAA and 40 points higher than. CHatham’s in AA. Yes, they can both be much much much worse than Dozier.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
2016 was another MVP-level year, so it's not like 2018 is some outlier.
Besides which, the "off" years people are talking about were 6-win years. His worst full season in the majors, according to Fangraphs, was a 4.8-win year at age 22 (and BBref has that same year at 5.9 wins). If we think he's a 7-win player right now, and we expect him to have a normal aging curve, then barring significant injury issues he would probably earn close to $400M over a 10-year contract (that's assuming market price per win remains around $8M). The issue with a mega-contract for Betts isn't that he'd likely be paid more than he's worth, it's just that mega-contracts always have a huge downside risk because shit happens.
 

David Kaiser

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 13, 2017
28
This morning Dan Shaughnessy, whom I usually respect (partly because he answers emails), argues that Mookie Betts isn't any better than Fred Lynn or Nomar Garciaparra and that he should be traded, as they were when they were about his age. He is totally, completely, demonstrably, absolutely wrong.

It's interesting that Shaughnessy, to make his case, relies almost entirely on traditional statistics. I'm going to be using my own version of WAA (not WAR), which I developed for my book Baseball Greatness, in this post, but any park- and era-adjusted measurement, I am confident, would show the same picture.

A very quick intro here: WAA as I figure it usually is about 2 less than the corresponding WAR. The key threshold that I used in the book is 4 WAA in a year, which is what I call a superstar season. Historically, if you want to reach postseason (and certainly if you want to win more than 95 games) you need at least one player that good. They are rare, and getting rarer.

Here are Fred Lynn's WAA by my method in his years with the Red Sox:

1975 3.9
1976 1.2
1977 0
1978 2.8
1979 6.2
1980 3.2

There are two reasons why some of these figures (especially 1975) are lower than you might think. One is that Fenway gave hitters a much bigger advantage then than it does now. The second is that Michael Humphreys' DRA, incomparably the most accurate historical measurement of fielding, shows that although Lynn could make spectacular catches, he was not only the whole an above average centerfielder. He wasn't bad but he was not gold glove worthy.

Now let's look at Nomar Garciaparra with the Red Sox:

1997 2.1
1998 3.0
1999 4.1
2000 4.3
2001 0.2
2002 3.5
2003 2.4

Nomar, surprisingly, was a more consistent performer than Lynn, although his peak was not as high. After leaving the Red Sox, by the way, Nomar was never better than an average player.

And now, Mookie Betts.

2015 1.7
2016 6.0
2017 3.9
2018 8.1
2019 5.3

Now, if you can look at those figures and tell me that Betts isn't any better than Lynn or Nomar--good luck to you. The 8.1 season two years ago, by the way, ties with Mike Trout (also in 2018) for the best season by any player in the Millennial generation. Trout at the rate he is going will wind up in the top 10-15 players of all time. He has beaten 6 WAA in all but one of his first 8 seasons (and in that one season he missed nearly 1/3 of the year.) I think the only player who has ever had a first 8 seasons that good is Ted Williams. But beyond Trout, Betts is clearly the best player born in the early 1990s. One reason Betts does so well, by the way, is that unlike Lynn, he truly is an outstanding outfielder. (Nomar was an excellent shortstop in two of his early seasons; then he fell to around average.)

Betts's baseball age last year was 26. Here are Carl Yastrzemski's figures through age 26:

1961 -2.4
1962 3.5
1963 5.3
1964 2.6
1965 3.2
1966 5.0

Yaz got the majors earlier than Betts did, started more slowly, but wasn't as consistent in these years as Betts has been. And Yaz proceeded to have his greatest two seasons, 10 and 9.3 WAA, in 1967 and 1968, and he had 7.9 in 1970. Yaz is a much better comp to Betts than Lynn or Nomar.

There is another reason why the Red Sox should give Betts everything he wants to say in Boston. They can very easily improve their roster by switching him to center field. Jackie Bradley Jr. has been about -1 WAA for the last two years and shows no signs of ever being any better than that. The Red Sox should be able to find a good-hitting rightfielder somewhere, and if he earned 2 WAA and they switched Betts to center, then bingo, that's 3 more wins right there.

Based on run differential, the Red Sox are starting 2020 12 games behind the Yankees--and the Yankees had so many injuries that they could easily improve next year. Making up that deficit will be very difficult even with Betts. Without him I see no hope.
 

Patek's 3 Dingers

Luddite
Silver Supporter
Jul 5, 2018
430
Just one thing...we don't know what Mookie is looking for. All we know is he wants to be a free agent and test the market. As far as I can tell, none of the Red Sox extension overtures have been countered with anything but "no". There have been no counter offers, no demands, no anything that suggests at all what Mookie is going to seek as a free agent. So we can't simply assume that he's looking for a deal commensurate with his 2018 production any more than we can assume that he's willing to take a deal commensurate with his 2019 production. To date, he's given no indications whatsoever as to what it will take to sign him beyond 2020.

The only choice the Sox have at this point is whether or not to trade him. There's no choice involved as far as whether or not to extend him beyond 2020 or what they should be paying him if they do.
I don't believe Mookie is going to base his demand on 2018 or any other year. He can ask anything he wants, but the market will dictate what the largest offer will be. It will be the offerors that will determine which year to give the most weight.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
45,767
deep inside Guido territory
With the Cubs rumored to be in a roster crunch with all of their young stars coming close to free agency, would a Betts-for-Kris Bryant trade make sense for both sides? For the Red Sox, it would shed between $12-$14 million in salary while replacing a lot of Betts' offensive production for 2 years. Bryant has experience playing multiple positions having played almost 1100 innings in the OF(at all 3 OF positions) and even 111 career innings played at 1B. Bryant could be a supersized version of DJ LeMahieu in Boston as he could move around the diamond playing 1st/3rd/OF/DH.

For the Cubs, they'd get a year of Betts playing RF pushing Heyward into center plus having the option to trade him at the deadline to a desperate team looking for a player to put them over the top. Epstein drafted Betts so they already have a relationship that goes back years which could have a big factor in whether Betts would stay in Chicago(also the fact that Cubs ownership would have no problem breaking the bank for him).

I put the Betts for Bryant swap in the trade simulator and it actually said that Bryant equals about half the value of Betts. Fair value would be Bryant and their top catching prospect Miguel Amaya for Betts. Not sure that would actually happen in real life however.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,892
Oregon
With the Cubs rumored to be in a roster crunch with all of their young stars coming close to free agency, would a Betts-for-Kris Bryant trade make sense for both sides? For the Red Sox, it would shed between $12-$14 million in salary while replacing a lot of Betts' offensive production for 2 years. Bryant has experience playing multiple positions having played almost 1100 innings in the OF(at all 3 OF positions) and even 111 career innings played at 1B. Bryant could be a supersized version of DJ LeMahieu in Boston as he could move around the diamond playing 1st/3rd/OF/DH.

For the Cubs, they'd get a year of Betts playing RF pushing Heyward into center plus having the option to trade him at the deadline to a desperate team looking for a player to put them over the top. Epstein drafted Betts so they already have a relationship that goes back years which could have a big factor in whether Betts would stay in Chicago(also the fact that Cubs ownership would have no problem breaking the bank for him).

I put the Betts for Bryant swap in the trade simulator and it actually said that Bryant equals about half the value of Betts. Fair value would be Bryant and their top catching prospect Miguel Amaya for Betts. Not sure that would actually happen in real life however.
NJ.com had just this same scenario yesterday

1. Red Sox and Cubs swap long-term issues for short-term fixes.
How about this for a blockbuster: Mookie Betts for Kris Bryant. Crazy? Think again.
For the Red Sox, Bryant brings an extra year of control and the ability to bring back a cheaper star for Betts. Bryant’s projected $18M (if not slightly more) arbitration figure is big, but far less than what Betts (close to $30M) will receive in his final year before free agency.
For the Cubs, a total makeover is about to happen. Not only will Betts arrive, but Chicago could look to get out from other future contracts in order to keep the former AL MVP at Wrigley Field long term.

 

dano7594

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
87
With the Cubs rumored to be in a roster crunch with all of their young stars coming close to free agency, would a Betts-for-Kris Bryant trade make sense for both sides? For the Red Sox, it would shed between $12-$14 million in salary while replacing a lot of Betts' offensive production for 2 years. Bryant has experience playing multiple positions having played almost 1100 innings in the OF(at all 3 OF positions) and even 111 career innings played at 1B. Bryant could be a supersized version of DJ LeMahieu in Boston as he could move around the diamond playing 1st/3rd/OF/DH.

For the Cubs, they'd get a year of Betts playing RF pushing Heyward into center plus having the option to trade him at the deadline to a desperate team looking for a player to put them over the top. Epstein drafted Betts so they already have a relationship that goes back years which could have a big factor in whether Betts would stay in Chicago(also the fact that Cubs ownership would have no problem breaking the bank for him).

I put the Betts for Bryant swap in the trade simulator and it actually said that Bryant equals about half the value of Betts. Fair value would be Bryant and their top catching prospect Miguel Amaya for Betts. Not sure that would actually happen in real life however.

Credit to you for posting, I have thought about this scenario as well. I think another thing is Bryant's grievance against the Cubs is supposed to be heard soon. I just think maybe it best for him and Cubs to go in different directions.
 

Rich Garces Belly

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2009
286
Bryant’s grievance was heard this week, if he is successful (doubtful) he will become a free agent after next season instead.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
50,978
The major issue there is that Bryant's pending service time manipulation grievance makes it unclear whether he is currently under team control for just 2020 or 2020-2021, so very hard to properly value in a deal until that is settled.

Edit: crosspost with the two posts above, but leaving it anyway.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,909
I also doubt they would throw anything on top of Bryant, anything meaningful at least. If we get an extra year of control that would probably be seen as plenty and the Cubs know we are doing it because we need to save money
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
45,767
deep inside Guido territory
I also doubt they would throw anything on top of Bryant, anything meaningful at least. If we get an extra year of control that would probably be seen as plenty and the Cubs know we are doing it because we need to save money
I agree with this thinking, but the trade simulator put Betts' value double that of Bryant's. To me, the salary relief plus the extra year of control would be enough.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,941
Bryant’s a lot more interesting if he’s able to play second base, which is not inconceivable in a world where Moustakas and Chavis can do it.

I wouldn’t think he’s a Fenway outfield fit anywhere but maybe left, but he’s still star power and could bounce back to an elite hitter.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,389
Rogers Park
Bryant’s a lot more interesting if he’s able to play second base, which is not inconceivable in a world where Moustakas and Chavis can do it.

I wouldn’t think he’s a Fenway outfield fit anywhere but maybe left, but he’s still star power and could bounce back to an elite hitter.
FWIW, Mookie Betts can play second base.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,909
Just so you all have some idea, this is the kind of wishcasting Chicago fans are doing about Bryant:



If they trade Bryant, would it be to win next season or to help ease their rebuild? Wouldnt it make more sense for them to get some young top shelf talent with controllable years? Bryant is also kind of their Mookie Betts, fan favorite, won a WS with the team, and overall a really marketable and likeable superstar. They screwed him over and he seems upset about it, so he probably wont sign there in FA, but he is the type of player the Cubs should have just went all in on and made a lifelong Cubs player
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,909
I would think an elite defensive RF would be more valuable than an elite defensive 2b, no? So wouldnt that lower his value overall?
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,389
Rogers Park
The Steamer projections are out at Fangraphs.

They implicitly project Boston's current roster at 91 wins: 42 wins of replacement level + 20.4 pitching WAR + 28.4 position player WAR = 90.8

The projections obviously don't know anything about the health status of our pitching staff, which is easily the biggest question about the roster, but these projections suggest that if we wanted to, we could probably patch together a contender out of this roster by adding a 4/5 type starter and shoring up the right side of the infield.

Still, Steamer offers what I would see as a cautiously optimistic take on the rotation.

Sale 14-6 W-L, 3.19 ERA, 177 IP, 4.9 WAR
Rodriguez 13-9, 4.18, 193, 2.8
Price 12-8, 4.16, 164, 3.1
Eovaldi 11-8, 4.23, 148, 2.6

On the offensive side, things are even more bullish.

Betts .296/.390/.542 6.6 WAR
Bogaerts .291/.367/.498 4.7 WAR
Devers .299/.354/.545 4.4 WAR
JDM .301/.377/.575 3.6 WAR
Benintendi .272/.353/.451 2.6 WAR
Vazquez .262/.311/.417 2.6 WAR
JBJ .240/.325/.425 2.0 WAR
Chavis .248/.312/.451 0.9 WAR
Travis .257/.319/.404 -0.2 WAR

A few others of interest: (It's interesting to me to see a projection system so high on Jarren Duran.)
Bobby Dalbec .239/.315/.448
Jarren Duran .282/.328/.409
 

Rich Garces Belly

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2009
286
I could see Duran called up later in 2020, I wonder if we should be looking to unload Dalbec for a cost efficient 5th starter as we seem all set at third base. Dalbec reminds me of a Trumbo type (all power/ no OBP).
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
I would think an elite defensive RF would be more valuable than an elite defensive 2b, no? So wouldnt that lower his value overall?
Other way around, at least according to FG's calculation: positional adjustment for 2B is +2.5, for RF -7.5. In fact 2B is equivalent in this scale to center field. Of course Fenway's RF is a special case, so those numbers would need a bit of an asterisk for the Sox. They also might be somewhat obsolete in the age of launch angle mania, though it would take an awfully big tweak to make RF more valuable than 2B.
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,705
The Steamer projections are out at Fangraphs.
Still, Steamer offers what I would see as a cautiously optimistic take on the rotation.

Sale 14-6 W-L, 3.19 ERA, 177 IP, 4.9 WAR
Rodriguez 13-9, 4.18, 193, 2.8
Price 12-8, 4.16, 164, 3.1
Eovaldi 11-8, 4.23, 148, 2.6
The bolded IP totals are the aspect of these projections that I am most dubious of. If the Sox, or us, could count on 700 IP from these four pitchers, I doubt any of us would be very worried about next season at all.
The ERAs themselves are cautiously optimistic, but the innings totals are wildly optimistic.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
50,978
I don’t think I put as much stock in high-A BABIPs as Steamer appears to, but yeah.
It's like they're ignoring his terrible 300+ ABs in AA after that. Chris Gittens was the MVP of the Eastern League, a powerhitting 1B for Trenton/NY, and while he is two years older than Duran (which certainly is a factor), his Steamer projection is much lower than Duran's which doesn't pass the smell test for me. They have Christian Vazquez projected to a lower OPS next year than Duran, come on.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,665
Bryant needed a cortisone injection in his knee last year and was shut down for the season after an ankle injury. He also missed time after an OF collision last season. "Desperate" times, desperate measures, but I'm not convinced Bryant could stay healthy all year playing LF for the Sox.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,389
Rogers Park
The bolded IP totals are the aspect of these projections that I am most dubious of. If the Sox, or us, could count on 700 IP from these four pitchers, I doubt any of us would be very worried about next season at all.
The ERAs themselves are cautiously optimistic, but the innings totals are wildly optimistic.
You think so?

Sale: 208, 226, 214, 158+10, 147+15, 177
Rodriguez: 121, 107, 137, 130, 203, 193
Price: 220, 230, 74, 176, 107, 164
Eovaldi: 154, 124, 0, 111, 67, 148

Rodriguez' projection seems plausible to me. He had a fantastic second half in which he finally started getting more efficient and routinely exceeding 6 IP. He pitched in the seventh inning twice in 13 starts before June 14; twelve times in 21 starts from that date. I expect a horse.

Both Sale and Price have healthy season track records of considerably exceeding 200 IP. Projecting them at 177 and 164 is suggesting that they'll each miss 6-10 starts. That seems pretty realistic; honestly, I might flip the two projections.

Eovaldi is allegedly healthy after getting this scar tissue out. He was so terrible last season that he's the one where I have considerable performance uncertainty as well as innings uncertainty. I have no idea what to expect, but I will say that I think that that entire projection is wildly optimistic.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,389
Rogers Park
It's like they're ignoring his terrible 300+ ABs in AA after that. Chris Gittens was the MVP of the Eastern League, a powerhitting 1B for Trenton/NY, and while he is two years older than Duran (which certainly is a factor), his Steamer projection is much lower than Duran's which doesn't pass the smell test for me. They have Christian Vazquez projected to a lower OPS next year than Duran, come on.
EXACTLY. That projection is madness. But I would note two things:

The difference between being 22 and 25 — Gittens is three "baseball years" older than Duran — in AA is pretty significant from the perspective of a projection system. It seems like he's a young 25, but that might be way Steamer is skeptical. (I'm not, though. Slugging .500 in full season's ABs in a pitchers' league like the Eastern League is no joke and I think that makes him a prospect even if he is somewhat old for the league. The league's SLG is reliably under .400, and this last year was only .366.)

To be fair to Duran, his 300 AB stretch in AA was really a terrible ~90 AB stretch (.520ish OPS) and then a mediocre ~260 AB stretch (.670ish OPS), highlighted by a torrid month of .850ish ball. So it really seemed like he struggled to make an adjustment and then ran out of gas in his first full pro season. But I'd definitely start him in Portland next year.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
EXACTLY. That projection is madness. But I would note two things:

The difference between being 22 and 25 — Gittens is three "baseball years" older than Duran — in AA is pretty significant from the perspective of a projection system. It seems like he's a young 25, but that might be way Steamer is skeptical. (I'm not, though. Slugging .500 in full season's ABs in a pitchers' league like the Eastern League is no joke and I think that makes him a prospect even if he is somewhat old for the league. The league's SLG is reliably under .400, and this last year was only .366.)

To be fair to Duran, his 300 AB stretch in AA was really a terrible ~90 AB stretch (.520ish OPS) and then a mediocre ~260 AB stretch (.670ish OPS), highlighted by a torrid month of .850ish ball. So it really seemed like he struggled to make an adjustment and then ran out of gas in his first full pro season. But I'd definitely start him in Portland next year.
I wonder if it is also giving credit to Duran for getting to AA in his first full professional season. That is a rare enough jump that I feel like I’d want it to be a right hand side variable in a projection equation I constructed.
 

Patek's 3 Dingers

Luddite
Silver Supporter
Jul 5, 2018
430
Other way around, at least according to FG's calculation: positional adjustment for 2B is +2.5, for RF -7.5. In fact 2B is equivalent in this scale to center field. Of course Fenway's RF is a special case, so those numbers would need a bit of an asterisk for the Sox. They also might be somewhat obsolete in the age of launch angle mania, though it would take an awfully big tweak to make RF more valuable than 2B.
I've always heard that good teams are strong up the middle, meaning catcher, middle infielders and CF. A rightfielder is just a corner outfielder that can can throw well.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
No one would benefit from the ball in AAA/MLB more than a guy like Jarren Duran.

I'm not sold on him but his one glaring weakness is power.
This assumes they keep that ball next season
I've always heard that good teams are strong up the middle, meaning catcher, middle infielders and CF. A rightfielder is just a corner outfielder that can can throw well.
Nothing to do with this post, but I was at Fenway that day and your handle just pisses me off every time you post.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,435
No one would benefit from the ball in AAA/MLB more than a guy like Jarren Duran.

I'm not sold on him but his one glaring weakness is power.
The scouting report on Duran is that his speed is plus-plus and that his hit tool is sufficient that, combined with his speed and defense, should make him a pretty viable MLB player, despite not having power.

JBJ has good power and elite defense, but bad hit tools and not great speed. Right now obviously he's a much better baseball player than Duran is, but the Sox might only need a stopgap for a year or two before Duran could be a legit player for them.

Moving Betts to CF seems like a legit play for Boston. He's an elite defender in both RF and CF, and he actually increases his value as a CF.

By the way, I wonder what Avasail Garcia of TB will make this offseason. Free agent, put up a line of 20 hr, .282/.332/.464/.796, with a 111 ops+ and 2.0 bWAR this past season. Currently 28 years old.

Bradley, by the way, is currently 29 years old and put up 2.0 bWAR.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,389
The scouting report on Duran is that his speed is plus-plus and that his hit tool is sufficient that, combined with his speed and defense, should make him a pretty viable MLB player, despite not having power.

JBJ has good power and elite defense, but bad hit tools and not great speed. Right now obviously he's a much better baseball player than Duran is, but the Sox might only need a stopgap for a year or two before Duran could be a legit player for them.

Moving Betts to CF seems like a legit play for Boston. He's an elite defender in both RF and CF, and he actually increases his value as a CF.

By the way, I wonder what Avasail Garcia of TB will make this offseason. Free agent, put up a line of 20 hr, .282/.332/.464/.796, with a 111 ops+ and 2.0 bWAR this past season. Currently 28 years old.

Bradley, by the way, is currently 29 years old and put up 2.0 bWAR.

Duran was also drafted as a 2b and actually played 20 games there for the Sox organization in 2018, and 45 in the OF (15 CF, 30 RF). He's adjusted very well to the OF position. I don't think the Sox would be losing much defensively going from JBJ to Duran but I think Bradley is merely an excellent CF and not a generational one. I've made the comparison before and don't think it's perfect, but Duran reminds me of Jacoby Ellsbury. They have even been at the same age (Jacoby was 5 days younger) at every level of their development. Jacoby handled the initial jump to AA far better than Duran though.

Jacoby started his age 23 season in Portland and was promoted to AAA after a very hot start. He was having a middling season in AAA (.298/.360/.380 in 401 PA) before being called up in September and we all know the rest. I'm guessing Duran will actually start his age 23 season in Pawtucket (Worchester? I dunno) so it's very possible he does see time in Boston next year but it'll be due to injury or under performance.

And while Duran and Jacoby both bat left handed, Duran has the advantage of being right handed and played SS in HS. He played primarily 2b in college but also had a few games at 3rd. Given the Sox organizational needs, I wouldn't be all the shocked to see Duran split time at 2b and CF this year in AAA. As far as I know, he wasn't moved off 2b due to him not being able to handle it. Hell, in today's environment, CF is probably moving up the defensive spectrum.

If Duran can play a competent 2b/3b and is good defensively in all 3 OF positions, he wouldn't necessarily have to hit all that well as he'd have a ton of value off the bench as a pinch runner and plus defense at multiple positions.
 

Patek's 3 Dingers

Luddite
Silver Supporter
Jul 5, 2018
430
This assumes they keep that ball next season

Nothing to do with this post, but I was at Fenway that day and your handle just pisses me off every time you post.
The handle is my perception of Fenway back in the '60s and '70s. It seemed little guys would hit homers over the wall and Patek, who was the smallest baseball player in history besides Eddie Gaedel, hitting 3 homers was part of the suffering I felt as a Sox fan.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
8,511
a basement on the hill
Apparently Pedroia has told the Sox he intends to play. I hope he can. I also hope he still can range. That might be a factor in how often I want to see him in the field.
 
Apparently Pedroia has told the Sox he intends to play. I hope he can. I also hope he still can range. That might be a factor in how often I want to see him in the field.
Yea, I'm pretty skeptical. In August when he had the joint preservation surgery performed, the Globe spoke with an orthopedic surgeon at Tufts (albeit, not Pedey's actual surgeon), who said, "It’s a day-to-day-life procedure; it’s not a going-back-to-playing-sports procedure...It’s not compatible with playing high-impact sports.’’

I suppose we shall see, but I'm skeptical...
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,148
CT
If that's the case, hold on to him, see how you do this year and if you're just bumbling along by the trade deadline, deal him and even a piece of the remaining 14 mil for the best prospect package you can get.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
Yea, I'm pretty skeptical. In August when he had the joint preservation surgery performed, the Globe spoke with an orthopedic surgeon at Tufts (albeit, not Pedey's actual surgeon), who said, "It’s a day-to-day-life procedure; it’s not a going-back-to-playing-sports procedure...It’s not compatible with playing high-impact sports.’’

I suppose we shall see, but I'm skeptical...
Well, it would have been weird, and most un-Pedroia-like, if he just said, "well, OK, the docs say I probably can't do this anymore, so I guess I'll just take their word for it." The fact that he intends to play again is a dog-bites-man story. If he can actually do it, now that will be news.