2014 Offseason Thread

[Higga]

Red Sox are the new Yankees.

[Celtics_Champs]

Red Sox are the new Yankees.

This phrase has been thrown out a ton and it makes no sense. Sox have been spending like the yanks since Manny in 2000.

I like Pablo, and the hanley deal shocked me. Lots are complaining about the contracts, but the same did with Victorino. Obviously Victorino is almost dead money at this point, but he helped us win a world series, huge contributor, why do I care if John Henry has to eat his final two years?

The best part about it is this leads to more fun and hot stove. Sox have to deal one of Bogearts, Cespedes, or Napoli. Sox need pitching too. Would love to see if the Sox can land Shark from the A's, too bad he's white though.

[Quake Griffin]

Guess being an SF Giant aint what it used to be.

comparable offer?
winning culture?

bolt for an east coast team that has won for the "challenge"
yikes.

[Stanford]

Guess being an SF Giant aint what it used to be.

comparable offer?
winning culture?

bolt for an east coast team that has won for the "challenge"
yikes.

Just couldn't help yourself, could you?

You were so close to being a balanced human being, too. So close.

[Da Schwab]

Red Sox are the new Yankees.

Dumb statement is dumb.

[TyCobb]

Guess being an SF Giant aint what it used to be.

comparable offer?
winning culture?

bolt for an east coast team that has won for the "challenge"
yikes.

You're on own your own now. Don't bait.

[TheKingofSting]

If the Giants really are interested in Chris Johnson I'd trade him for a bag of baseballs.

[Stanford]

Pablo looks especially obese in a Sox uniform.

Chris Johnson seems bad at baseball.

[Da Schwab]

Today I am thankful that the Yankees and Phillies ended trade talks for Jimmy Rollins.

Because what's a better replacement for an aging, overpriced, defensive liability than an aging, overpriced, defensive liability?

[Stanford]

Rollins would probably cost more than he's worth, so I agree with you for the most part, and I don't want the Giants to go for him.

But he's not a defensive liability. 5th in UZR among shortstops last year. He'd be a huge upgrade over Jeter.

[Quake Griffin]

^^^
yup.

I'll take J Roll as a stop gap to Seager. Hope Friedman gets it done.

[GYBE]

and the hardest place to find a good player in baseball is 3B.

Don't know why you think that. It's always been harder to find production out of SS and C and that hasn't changed. Almost any shortstop could be moved to 3B if necessary, it's much tougher to find players who can handle the bat and SS position.

Avg 3B line: .258/.318/.396
Avg C line: .244/.309/.379
Avg SS line: .251/.306/.363

[TheKingofSting]

Stanford CJ is terrible defensively but mashes lefties.

[Da Schwab]

Rollins would probably cost more than he's worth, so I agree with you for the most part, and I don't want the Giants to go for him.

But he's not a defensive liability. 5th in UZR among shortstops last year. He'd be a huge upgrade over Jeter.

Fair enough.

Though in my defense, they could sign the ghost of Honus Wagner and he'd probably play better at short than Jeet did the last five years of his career.

[Neddy]

and the hardest place to find a good player in baseball is 3B.

Don't know why you think that. It's always been harder to find production out of SS and C and that hasn't changed. Almost any shortstop could be moved to 3B if necessary, it's much tougher to find players who can handle the bat and SS position.

Avg 3B line: .258/.318/.396
Avg C line: .244/.309/.379
Avg SS line: .251/.306/.363

not every short stop can be moved to 3rd base. Hanley for example, posted far worse defensive rating at 3rd when he was moved there with his last season as a marlin than he ever did as a SS.

but more importantly, if you get any offensive production out of SS it is a bonus. 3B is a place where you expect high production. Shortstop's responsibility, just as it is with a catcher, is defense first and defense last. there are a ton of great defensive shortstops who can hit about .220 to .250 all over the baseball, especially at AAA level. it is hard to find a above average defensive 3B who can anchor a lineup.

[GYBE]

but more importantly, if you get any offensive production out of SS it is a bonus. 3B is a place where you expect high production. Shortstop's responsibility, just as it is with a catcher, is defense first and defense last. there are a ton of great defensive shortstops who can hit about .220 to .250 all over the baseball, especially at AAA level. it is hard to find a above average defensive 3B who can anchor a lineup.

You're missing the point by projecting your own expectations on these positions. The reason there are starting shortstops who can't hit is entirely because it's so rare to find offensive contributors at the position. They would be replaced by better hitters if they were available, because guys who can't hit aren't good players. Andrelton Simmons was the only SS to be good this year (better than 2 WAR) while having a bad season at the plate. Almost all of these great defensive shortstops who can't hit aren't good players.

Because YOU expect a 3B to anchor the lineup and the SS to suck at hitting, the comparison is unfair. To be a good 3B in your eyes, you need to be above-average defensively and hit in the middle of the order. To be a good SS in your eyes, you just need to play defense. Obviously when you use those definitions, it's tougher to find the 3B. But that's not how baseball works. Fewer players can handle SS compared to 3B and fewer shortstops are good hitters. So as it has been for 100 years, it's harder to find a good player at SS.

[Stanford]

not every short stop can be moved to 3rd base. Hanley for example, posted far worse defensive rating at 3rd when he was moved there with his last season as a marlin than he ever did as a SS.

Where are you getting your figures? Fangraphs says he hasn't played 3B since 2012, and posted a UZR/150 of -6.8 at the position. He posted a -15.6 at short last year. -12 in 2011, -11.5 in 2010, -21.8 in 2007 and -10.3 in 2006.

We don't have a large enough sample to say that he's better or worse at 3B, but the numbers we do have lead one to believe that he's less of a liability at third.

[Neddy]

not every short stop can be moved to 3rd base. Hanley for example, posted far worse defensive rating at 3rd when he was moved there with his last season as a marlin than he ever did as a SS.

Where are you getting your figures? Fangraphs says he hasn't played 3B since 2012, and posted a UZR/150 of -6.8 at the position. He posted a -15.6 at short last year. -12 in 2011, -11.5 in 2010, -21.8 in 2007 and -10.3 in 2006.

We don't have a large enough sample to say that he's better or worse at 3B, but the numbers we do have lead one to believe that he's less of a liability at third.

from fangraphs, exactly.

look up the old archive, there is even a lengthy article about how terrible Hanley was at 3rd base beyond misery.

[Neddy]

but more importantly, if you get any offensive production out of SS it is a bonus. 3B is a place where you expect high production. Shortstop's responsibility, just as it is with a catcher, is defense first and defense last. there are a ton of great defensive shortstops who can hit about .220 to .250 all over the baseball, especially at AAA level. it is hard to find a above average defensive 3B who can anchor a lineup.

You're missing the point by projecting your own expectations on these positions. The reason there are starting shortstops who can't hit is entirely because it's so rare to find offensive contributors at the position. They would be replaced by better hitters if they were available, because guys who can't hit aren't good players. Andrelton Simmons was the only SS to be good this year (better than 2 WAR) while having a bad season at the plate. Almost all of these great defensive shortstops who can't hit aren't good players.

Because YOU expect a 3B to anchor the lineup and the SS to suck at hitting, the comparison is unfair. To be a good 3B in your eyes, you need to be above-average defensively and hit in the middle of the order. To be a good SS in your eyes, you just need to play defense. Obviously when you use those definitions, it's tougher to find the 3B. But that's not how baseball works. Fewer players can handle SS compared to 3B and fewer shortstops are good hitters. So as it has been for 100 years, it's harder to find a good player at SS.

i agree that it's more important to have players who can hit regardless of their position, but realistically, isn't short stop's defense more impactful than of a 3rd? isn't it realistically harder to find a great defensive short stop who also can hit well? I may have used a poor choice of word of "anchor" rather than a solid, everyday player one can depend on to hit, get on base, and slug reasonably well.
I am a SABR guy before the michael lewis' book ever came out, ran my own SABR blog site up until 12 years ago, but to say or imply that 3rd base's defense has similar impact as SS is ridiculous. the point you are missing here is that you assumed that somehow i am saying a good hitting SS with a great glove are easy to find which i never stated. I simply pointed out there are a ton of great glove work SS on benches of the majors and up and down the minors who can play a major league worthy defense at SS, again, the defensive position which has far more impact than a 3rd base.

many teams can live without a good hitting shortstop. others in the lineup can pick up the slack. if a SS is a great hitter, many teams do live without a good batting 3rd baseman. but in a situation where you have two terribly hitting left side of the infield,if the manager had a choice he would replace the 3rd with a batsman over the SS. therefore defensive SS tend to stick around. a horrid batting 3rd who has questionable gloves won't.

[Stanford]

from fangraphs, exactly.

look up the old archive, there is even a lengthy article about how terrible Hanley was at 3rd base beyond misery.

You referenced a "defensive rating". What did you mean?