Shane Victorino

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to louisthelipp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Who is this?

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to louisthelipp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Who is this?

    [/QUOTE]


    R.I.P. to the late , great Welterweight and Middleweight Champion , Carmen Basilio. One of the toughest and most courageous fighters of all time.  Always remembered for his epic battles with Tony DeMarco , Johnny Saxton , the legendary Sugar Ray Robinson and others. Boxing's Hall of Fame is located in his hometown of Canastota N.Y. , in his honor. Also noted for his standing up to the mob,  that was controlling much of the sport.  Carmen Basilio , an all time great. Thanks for remembering this man.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    I think offensively it comes down to this with Shane. Was 2012 just a bad year or the beginning of a downhill slide?

    First off, the guy never has been great offensively. He's only had 2 seasons with an OPS over .800, and one was just .803.

    Secondly, the guy has been under .757 in 2 of the last 3 years.

    Thridly, you'd think we'd have learned our lesson signing the "glorified platoon player" Crawford to $20+M a year, but this is almost worse. At least CC was strong against RHPs- the pitchers we face 60-64% of the time. We are paying Victorino to be strong in just 36-40% of our games. His splits vs RHPs are almost as bad as CC's vs LHPs.

    vs RHPs: .732

    vs LHPs: .881

    This is his 650 PA line vs RHPs:  .267  10  60  ( 35 2B+3B & 31 SB)

    vs LHPs is very nice: .301  21  67  (46 2B+3B & 27 SB)

     

    He will be a nice defensive player in RF or CF, but he is not likely to help our offense much.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think offensively it comes down to this with Shane. Was 2012 just a bad year or the beginning of a downhill slide?

    First off, the guy never has been great offensively. He's only had 2 seasons with an OPS over .800, and one was just .803.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If 2012 was an aberration based on health, low babip, Dodger Stadium and the like, Victorino will end up being a good signing.

    Victorino's offense has never been great. But its been pretty consistent up until last year. His OPS's......

    2010-2011----800
    2009-2011----800
    2008-2011----800
    2007-2011----795

    In the last 2, 3, or 4 year spans prior to last year he has been an  above average offensive player for a RF with exactly an OPS of .800.

    Second there were no great answers in RF to sign IMO. Hamilton has mega issues. Swisher isn't all that impressive.

    The best comparison I think is with Cody Ross. Was Ross at 3-25 or so better then Victorino at 3-39 for RF? Ross is kind of a platoon guy himself. The difference is that Victorino is much better on the bases and on defense. He fits RF much better. And he brings the versatility factor which has some value. The question is was the versatility, defense, and speed worth 14 million over the next 3 years. I think so. Seems as though they did too.

    Oh, and offensively Victorino has been better then Ross over the last few years. People want Ross for his offense. Victorino has been better.

    As for the platoon thing, the real point is the total results. Thats what matters. If they decide to rest him more against tough righties, his OPS should only improve. And if last year was the real Victorino, he still has very good value as a backup-platoon boy-pinch hitter-pinch runner-pinch defender-good club house guy. That will probably be his role in 2015. Hopefully not before then.

     

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     As for Iggy the time is now to see what the kid can do everyday in a big league uniform. If his defense lives to his rep, I'll take .250-300-375-675ish from him.

    I'm fine with Iggy at SS. He may shave a half run off our team ERA singlr-handedly, however, we shouldn't kid ourselves about our offense being great or even better than 2012's offense before the Dodger trade.

    So, same or worse offense than 2012. Nothing done about the pitching (yet), except sacking Beckett, Dice-K, Cook & Padilla and adding Lackey.

    I'm waiting for a future move or two before I make any harsh and final judgements, but I am surprised at how so many posters think our offense, as it is, is going to radically  turn around a last place team.

    [/QUOTE]


    easy, a healthy jacoby, a healthy pedey, napoli banging balls off the monster. papi ready to continue his mashing of the ball, WMB in his second season and will develop as a hitter, the new speed threat in SV to help our team win on the base paths as well (something we are really missing) a contribution from D Ross/salty/lava.

    [/QUOTE]

    You think all of that happening is "easy"?

    [/QUOTE]


    as long as we are not unlucky and do not have 45 trips to the DL

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think offensively it comes down to this with Shane. Was 2012 just a bad year or the beginning of a downhill slide?

    First off, the guy never has been great offensively. He's only had 2 seasons with an OPS over .800, and one was just .803.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If 2012 was an aberration based on health, low babip, Dodger Stadium and the like, Victorino will end up being a good signing.

    Victorino's offense has never been great. But its been pretty consistent up until last year. His OPS's......

    2010-2011----800
    2009-2011----800
    2008-2011----800
    2007-2011----795

    In the last 2, 3, or 4 year spans prior to last year he has been an  above average offensive player for a RF with exactly an OPS of .800.

    Second there were no great answers in RF to sign IMO. Hamilton has mega issues. Swisher isn't all that impressive.

    The best comparison I think is with Cody Ross. Was Ross at 3-25 or so better then Victorino at 3-39 for RF? Ross is kind of a platoon guy himself. The difference is that Victorino is much better on the bases and on defense. He fits RF much better. And he brings the versatility factor which has some value. The question is was the versatility, defense, and speed worth 14 million over the next 3 years. I think so. Seems as though they did too.

    Oh, and offensively Victorino has been better then Ross over the last few years. People want Ross for his offense. Victorino has been better.

    As for the platoon thing, the real point is the total results. Thats what matters. If they decide to rest him more against tough righties, his OPS should only improve. And if last year was the real Victorino, he still has very good value as a backup-platoon boy-pinch hitter-pinch runner-pinch defender-good club house guy. That will probably be his role in 2015. Hopefully not before then.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    His OPS the last 3 years combined is .766.

    Last 4 years .776.

    Last 5 years .780.

    Last 6 years .779.

    Even an .800 OPS for 2013 would not be worth $13M, despite the defensive upgrade.

     

    Sorry, you don't pay $13M to a guy who struggles vs RHPs. Maybe if it's vs LHPs you might, since that is ony about a third of the games, but not vs righties.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     As for Iggy the time is now to see what the kid can do everyday in a big league uniform. If his defense lives to his rep, I'll take .250-300-375-675ish from him.

    I'm fine with Iggy at SS. He may shave a half run off our team ERA singlr-handedly, however, we shouldn't kid ourselves about our offense being great or even better than 2012's offense before the Dodger trade.

    So, same or worse offense than 2012. Nothing done about the pitching (yet), except sacking Beckett, Dice-K, Cook & Padilla and adding Lackey.

    I'm waiting for a future move or two before I make any harsh and final judgements, but I am surprised at how so many posters think our offense, as it is, is going to radically  turn around a last place team.

    [/QUOTE]


    easy, a healthy jacoby, a healthy pedey, napoli banging balls off the monster. papi ready to continue his mashing of the ball, WMB in his second season and will develop as a hitter, the new speed threat in SV to help our team win on the base paths as well (something we are really missing) a contribution from D Ross/salty/lava.

    [/QUOTE]

    You think all of that happening is "easy"?

    [/QUOTE]


    as long as we are not unlucky and do not have 45 trips to the DL

    [/QUOTE]

    ...and when's the last time that didn't happen? 2007?

    I'm tired of wishing for miracles and "good luck". Injuries are part of the game. Our subs did very well last year, maybe even as good or better than the starters in some cases (Middlebrooks, Pods, Ross, Shoppach, Ciriaco...)

    Our hitting numbers are inflated by fenway. We are not as good offensively as we look "on paper". But, more importantly, our staff is at least one ace or 2 solid 2/3 slot pitchers away from being competitive, maybe more. Our pen did very well last year, especially with all the overwork, but pens are fickle. We have great pen depth, so we should be alright there. We should have better D with Iggy at SS, Ellsbury back, and Shane in RF, but there's a lot of ground to be made up to turn this team around from last to playoff bound.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Even an .800 OPS for 2013 would not be worth $13M, despite the defensive upgrade.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I guess we disagree.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     As for Iggy the time is now to see what the kid can do everyday in a big league uniform. If his defense lives to his rep, I'll take .250-300-375-675ish from him.

    I'm fine with Iggy at SS. He may shave a half run off our team ERA singlr-handedly, however, we shouldn't kid ourselves about our offense being great or even better than 2012's offense before the Dodger trade.

    So, same or worse offense than 2012. Nothing done about the pitching (yet), except sacking Beckett, Dice-K, Cook & Padilla and adding Lackey.

    I'm waiting for a future move or two before I make any harsh and final judgements, but I am surprised at how so many posters think our offense, as it is, is going to radically  turn around a last place team.

    [/QUOTE]


    easy, a healthy jacoby, a healthy pedey, napoli banging balls off the monster. papi ready to continue his mashing of the ball, WMB in his second season and will develop as a hitter, the new speed threat in SV to help our team win on the base paths as well (something we are really missing) a contribution from D Ross/salty/lava.

    [/QUOTE]

    You think all of that happening is "easy"?

    [/QUOTE]


    as long as we are not unlucky and do not have 45 trips to the DL

    [/QUOTE]

    ...and when's the last time that didn't happen? 2007?

    I'm tired of wishing for miracles and "good luck". Injuries are part of the game. Our subs did very well last year, maybe even as good or better than the starters in some cases (Middlebrooks, Pods, Ross, Shoppach, Ciriaco...)

    Our hitting numbers are inflated by fenway. We are not as good offensively as we look "on paper". But, more importantly, our staff is at least one ace or 2 solid 2/3 slot pitchers away from being competitive, maybe more. Our pen did very well last year, especially with all the overwork, but pens are fickle. We have great pen depth, so we should be alright there. We should have better D with Iggy at SS, Ellsbury back, and Shane in RF, but there's a lot of ground to be made up to turn this team around from last to playoff bound.

    [/QUOTE]


    all great points moon, and injuries are no excuse for the 93 loss season... they are a cause of it though. i have to disagree on the replacements doing better than the starters though. no way our ragtag OF would have outperformed our starting OF barring injuries CC, ells, ross/sweeney would produce much much much more than an OF of nava, pods, ross (FT). cant argue about WMB and ciriaco was dependant on who he was replacing (since he subbed for pedey, aviles and WMB).

    our pen finished the year very well but you can hardly say it was a success as a whole (the ROUGH start where no lead was safe) but i can give them a pass for that.. so many people finding their roles and BV learning how to manage it.

    your still right about our rotation and will be until we find another starter. but i still think the biggest jump we will make is a return to form from our injuried/underperforming players. in 2012, everything that could go wrong did.. thats a lot of "what-ifs" that all came together at the same time to crush RSN. why is it so proposterous to think that those "what-ifs" go the other way this year?

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    Don't understand all the fuss about what the RS are paying Victorino. No one complaining about what Giants paid Pagan? That probably actually set the market for Victorino, so shouldn't everyone be complaining about contract Giants gave Pagan? Giants gave Pagan 4yrs / 40 mil

    Pagan [age 31]   .281 avg 10 hr 62 rbi .333 obp .757 ops  {career avg's}

    Victorino [32]     .275 avg 14 hr 62 rbi  .341 obp .770 ops

    Victorino has [3] Gold Gloves, finished top 20 MVP voting on 2 occasions, [2] all star appearence

    Pagan           [0] Gold Gloves, [1] top 30 MVP vote, [0] all star

    Not to mention Victorino has terrific post season numbers while Pagans are terrible. Based on what Giants paid Pagan can understand why RS gave Victorino the contract they did. Would like to think Pagan gave Giants some sort of home team discount based on goodwill of winning WS title. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Don't understand all the fuss about what the RS are paying Victorino. No one complaining about what Giants paid Pagan? That probably actually set the market for Victorino, so shouldn't everyone be complaining about contract Giants gave Pagan? Giants gave Pagan 4yrs / 40 mil

    Pagan [age 31]   .281 avg 10 hr 62 rbi .333 obp .757 ops  {career avg's}

    Victorino [32]     .275 avg 14 hr 62 rbi  .341 obp .770 ops

    Victorino has [3] Gold Gloves, finished top 20 MVP voting on 2 occasions, [2] all star appearence

    Pagan           [0] Gold Gloves, [1] top 30 MVP vote, [0] all star

    Not to mention Victorino has terrific post season numbers while Pagans are terrible. Based on what Giants paid Pagan can understand why RS gave Victorino the contract they did. Would like to think Pagan gave Giants some sort of home team discount based on goodwill of winning WS title. 

    [/QUOTE]


    pretty sure SV was signed before AP was inked....

     

    BJ upton was the word you were looking for as a market setter..

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

     

    [/QUOTE]


    pretty sure SV was signed before AP was inked....

     

    BJ upton was the word you were looking for as a market setter..

    [/QUOTE]


    Upton first, Pagan second, Victorino third.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     As for Iggy the time is now to see what the kid can do everyday in a big league uniform. If his defense lives to his rep, I'll take .250-300-375-675ish from him.

    I'm fine with Iggy at SS. He may shave a half run off our team ERA singlr-handedly, however, we shouldn't kid ourselves about our offense being great or even better than 2012's offense before the Dodger trade.

    So, same or worse offense than 2012. Nothing done about the pitching (yet), except sacking Beckett, Dice-K, Cook & Padilla and adding Lackey.

    I'm waiting for a future move or two before I make any harsh and final judgements, but I am surprised at how so many posters think our offense, as it is, is going to radically  turn around a last place team.

    [/QUOTE]


    easy, a healthy jacoby, a healthy pedey, napoli banging balls off the monster. papi ready to continue his mashing of the ball, WMB in his second season and will develop as a hitter, the new speed threat in SV to help our team win on the base paths as well (something we are really missing) a contribution from D Ross/salty/lava.

    [/QUOTE]

    You think all of that happening is "easy"?

    [/QUOTE]


    as long as we are not unlucky and do not have 45 trips to the DL

    [/QUOTE]

    ...and when's the last time that didn't happen? 2007?

    I'm tired of wishing for miracles and "good luck". Injuries are part of the game. Our subs did very well last year, maybe even as good or better than the starters in some cases (Middlebrooks, Pods, Ross, Shoppach, Ciriaco...)

    Our hitting numbers are inflated by fenway. We are not as good offensively as we look "on paper". But, more importantly, our staff is at least one ace or 2 solid 2/3 slot pitchers away from being competitive, maybe more. Our pen did very well last year, especially with all the overwork, but pens are fickle. We have great pen depth, so we should be alright there. We should have better D with Iggy at SS, Ellsbury back, and Shane in RF, but there's a lot of ground to be made up to turn this team around from last to playoff bound.

    [/QUOTE]


    all great points moon, and injuries are no excuse for the 93 loss season... they are a cause of it though. i have to disagree on the replacements doing better than the starters though. no way our ragtag OF would have outperformed our starting OF barring injuries CC, ells, ross/sweeney would produce much much much more than an OF of nava, pods, ross (FT). cant argue about WMB and ciriaco was dependant on who he was replacing (since he subbed for pedey, aviles and WMB).

    our pen finished the year very well but you can hardly say it was a success as a whole (the ROUGH start where no lead was safe) but i can give them a pass for that.. so many people finding their roles and BV learning how to manage it.

    your still right about our rotation and will be until we find another starter. but i still think the biggest jump we will make is a return to form from our injuried/underperforming players. in 2012, everything that could go wrong did.. thats a lot of "what-ifs" that all came together at the same time to crush RSN. why is it so proposterous to think that those "what-ifs" go the other way this year?

    [/QUOTE]


    I never said injuries were not a reason we have been losing. My point has been that we keep expecting to have a healthy year and that's more or less a long shot.

    My point about the subs was based on the fact that Ross was supposed to platoon vs LHPs only, yet he was forced to play FT and did better than anything we could have expected from Sweeney...and even CC.

    Yes, a healthy Ells would likely have done better than Pods, but he did hit over .300.

    Shoppach had a 50 point advantage on Salty and got more from the staff.

    Middlebrooks rocked when Youk got hurt.

    Nava did OK in LF but not what was expected fropm a healthy CC.

    Nobody replaced AGon.

    When you figure our pen started with Bailey getting hurt, Paps gone, and Bard stupidly moved to starter, I think our subs did great as they were over-worked from day 1.

    While Cook did not do well, Morales did as a back-up starter.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think offensively it comes down to this with Shane. Was 2012 just a bad year or the beginning of a downhill slide?

    First off, the guy never has been great offensively. He's only had 2 seasons with an OPS over .800, and one was just .803.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If 2012 was an aberration based on health, low babip, Dodger Stadium and the like, Victorino will end up being a good signing.

    Victorino's offense has never been great. But its been pretty consistent up until last year. His OPS's......

    2010-2011----800
    2009-2011----800
    2008-2011----800
    2007-2011----795

    In the last 2, 3, or 4 year spans prior to last year he has been an  above average offensive player for a RF with exactly an OPS of .800.

    Second there were no great answers in RF to sign IMO. Hamilton has mega issues. Swisher isn't all that impressive.

    The best comparison I think is with Cody Ross. Was Ross at 3-25 or so better then Victorino at 3-39 for RF? Ross is kind of a platoon guy himself. The difference is that Victorino is much better on the bases and on defense. He fits RF much better. And he brings the versatility factor which has some value. The question is was the versatility, defense, and speed worth 14 million over the next 3 years. I think so. Seems as though they did too.

    Oh, and offensively Victorino has been better then Ross over the last few years. People want Ross for his offense. Victorino has been better.

    As for the platoon thing, the real point is the total results. Thats what matters. If they decide to rest him more against tough righties, his OPS should only improve. And if last year was the real Victorino, he still has very good value as a backup-platoon boy-pinch hitter-pinch runner-pinch defender-good club house guy. That will probably be his role in 2015. Hopefully not before then.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    His OPS the last 3 years combined is .766.

    Last 4 years .776.

    Last 5 years .780.

    Last 6 years .779.

    Even an .800 OPS for 2013 would not be worth $13M, despite the defensive upgrade.

     

    Sorry, you don't pay $13M to a guy who struggles vs RHPs. Maybe if it's vs LHPs you might, since that is ony about a third of the games, but not vs righties.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry to say, But you do pay those prices in todays FA market...

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think offensively it comes down to this with Shane. Was 2012 just a bad year or the beginning of a downhill slide?

    First off, the guy never has been great offensively. He's only had 2 seasons with an OPS over .800, and one was just .803.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If 2012 was an aberration based on health, low babip, Dodger Stadium and the like, Victorino will end up being a good signing.

    Victorino's offense has never been great. But its been pretty consistent up until last year. His OPS's......

    2010-2011----800
    2009-2011----800
    2008-2011----800
    2007-2011----795

    In the last 2, 3, or 4 year spans prior to last year he has been an  above average offensive player for a RF with exactly an OPS of .800.

    Second there were no great answers in RF to sign IMO. Hamilton has mega issues. Swisher isn't all that impressive.

    The best comparison I think is with Cody Ross. Was Ross at 3-25 or so better then Victorino at 3-39 for RF? Ross is kind of a platoon guy himself. The difference is that Victorino is much better on the bases and on defense. He fits RF much better. And he brings the versatility factor which has some value. The question is was the versatility, defense, and speed worth 14 million over the next 3 years. I think so. Seems as though they did too.

    Oh, and offensively Victorino has been better then Ross over the last few years. People want Ross for his offense. Victorino has been better.

    As for the platoon thing, the real point is the total results. Thats what matters. If they decide to rest him more against tough righties, his OPS should only improve. And if last year was the real Victorino, he still has very good value as a backup-platoon boy-pinch hitter-pinch runner-pinch defender-good club house guy. That will probably be his role in 2015. Hopefully not before then.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    His OPS the last 3 years combined is .766.

    Last 4 years .776.

    Last 5 years .780.

    Last 6 years .779.

    Even an .800 OPS for 2013 would not be worth $13M, despite the defensive upgrade.

     

    Sorry, you don't pay $13M to a guy who struggles vs RHPs. Maybe if it's vs LHPs you might, since that is ony about a third of the games, but not vs righties.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry to say, But you do pay those prices in todays FA market...

    [/QUOTE]

    Name another player with a .715 OPS in his previous 3 years vs RHPs (60-65% of his PAs) that got $39M/3.

    I guess it is about even to CC getting $20M with a .696 OPS vs LHPs (35-40% of his PAs), but I don't see other teams signing unbalanced players to so much loot.

    Even if you find one, it doesn't make it a prudent signing, and I'm a huge fan of defense.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Name another player with a .715 OPS in his previous 3 years vs RHPs (60-65% of his PAs) that got $39M/3.

     

    Even if you find one, it doesn't make it a prudent signing, and I'm a huge fan of defense.

    [/QUOTE]


    I found one player that was worth over 13 million a year over the last 3 years who coincidentally struggled against righties to the tune of Shane Victorino. His name? Shane Victorino.

     

    According to Fangraphs, he wasn't just worth 13 million a year. But more like 19 million a year, all while struggling against righties as you said. He was worth 56.6 million the last three seasons. Thats 17.6 million more then his new contract. Inflation seems to be making it easier and easier to be worth a players contract too.

     

    This focus on his platoon splits just does not make sense to me. Its like saying a good player isn't good because he can't hit a curveball. Or he can't hit in a certain park. Or doesn't walk. Or doesn't pull the ball. Or doesn't go the other way. Or can't hit tall pitchers. Or has some other weakness. Concerns...Sure. But the only thing that matters in the end is the final, total, overall, complete, result. Good is good.

    If Victorino is going to win us 4 games a year, does it matter if they are all from facing lefties? How is this a negative? Would you prefer a player that has perfectly even platoon splits and wins 2 games for us against righties and 1 game against lefties? Why? Four is more then three. Isn't it?

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think offensively it comes down to this with Shane. Was 2012 just a bad year or the beginning of a downhill slide?

    First off, the guy never has been great offensively. He's only had 2 seasons with an OPS over .800, and one was just .803.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If 2012 was an aberration based on health, low babip, Dodger Stadium and the like, Victorino will end up being a good signing.

    Victorino's offense has never been great. But its been pretty consistent up until last year. His OPS's......

    2010-2011----800
    2009-2011----800
    2008-2011----800
    2007-2011----795

    In the last 2, 3, or 4 year spans prior to last year he has been an  above average offensive player for a RF with exactly an OPS of .800.

    Second there were no great answers in RF to sign IMO. Hamilton has mega issues. Swisher isn't all that impressive.

    The best comparison I think is with Cody Ross. Was Ross at 3-25 or so better then Victorino at 3-39 for RF? Ross is kind of a platoon guy himself. The difference is that Victorino is much better on the bases and on defense. He fits RF much better. And he brings the versatility factor which has some value. The question is was the versatility, defense, and speed worth 14 million over the next 3 years. I think so. Seems as though they did too.

    Oh, and offensively Victorino has been better then Ross over the last few years. People want Ross for his offense. Victorino has been better.

    As for the platoon thing, the real point is the total results. Thats what matters. If they decide to rest him more against tough righties, his OPS should only improve. And if last year was the real Victorino, he still has very good value as a backup-platoon boy-pinch hitter-pinch runner-pinch defender-good club house guy. That will probably be his role in 2015. Hopefully not before then.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    His OPS the last 3 years combined is .766.

    Last 4 years .776.

    Last 5 years .780.

    Last 6 years .779.

    Even an .800 OPS for 2013 would not be worth $13M, despite the defensive upgrade.

     

    Sorry, you don't pay $13M to a guy who struggles vs RHPs. Maybe if it's vs LHPs you might, since that is ony about a third of the games, but not vs righties.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry to say, But you do pay those prices in todays FA market...

    [/QUOTE]

    Name another player with a .715 OPS in his previous 3 years vs RHPs (60-65% of his PAs) that got $39M/3.

    I guess it is about even to CC getting $20M with a .696 OPS vs LHPs (35-40% of his PAs), but I don't see other teams signing unbalanced players to so much loot.

    Even if you find one, it doesn't make it a prudent signing, and I'm a huge fan of defense.

    [/QUOTE]


    Look no farther than Pagan. He does not have the hardware that Victorino has Gold Gloves, all star nods, offense very similar. Giants set mkt w/ 4yrs/40 mil and would like to think he gave them some home team discount after winning WS. Moon think your getting to wound up in the 13 mil per yr, but the fact its only for 3 yrs is what matters most. RS had money to spend and for 3 yrs we needed someone. Plus we still have Kalish [LH bat] who hopefully will finally put it all together and have yr many have been waiting for, not to mention JBJ / Brentz getting close. IMO Braves are going to regret Upton signing much more, if you want to complain about a bad contract might want to go there, career .255 BA and .755 OPS for 75mil / 5 yrs, also don't think he'll be winning any GG's either, just ask Evan Longoria. 

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think offensively it comes down to this with Shane. Was 2012 just a bad year or the beginning of a downhill slide?

    First off, the guy never has been great offensively. He's only had 2 seasons with an OPS over .800, and one was just .803.

    Secondly, the guy has been under .757 in 2 of the last 3 years.

    Thridly, you'd think we'd have learned our lesson signing the "glorified platoon player" Crawford to $20+M a year, but this is almost worse. At least CC was strong against RHPs- the pitchers we face 60-64% of the time. We are paying Victorino to be strong in just 36-40% of our games. His splits vs RHPs are almost as bad as CC's vs LHPs.

    vs RHPs: .732

    vs LHPs: .881

    This is his 650 PA line vs RHPs:  .267  10  60  ( 35 2B+3B & 31 SB)

    vs LHPs is very nice: .301  21  67  (46 2B+3B & 27 SB)

     

    He will be a nice defensive player in RF or CF, but he is not likely to help our offense much.

    [/QUOTE]

    He would have been a good addition at $7M per year, but Ben C overspent. Of course carnie bashes everyone commenting on the deal, so he must love the signings of Victorino and Napoli. He must have been loved the Crawford signing. 

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Name another player with a .715 OPS in his previous 3 years vs RHPs (60-65% of his PAs) that got $39M/3.

     

    Even if you find one, it doesn't make it a prudent signing, and I'm a huge fan of defense.

    [/QUOTE]


    I found one player that was worth over 13 million a year over the last 3 years who coincidentally struggled against righties to the tune of Shane Victorino. His name? Shane Victorino.

     

    According to Fangraphs, he wasn't just worth 13 million a year. But more like 19 million a year, all while struggling against righties as you said. He was worth 56.6 million the last three seasons. Thats 17.6 million more then his new contract. Inflation seems to be making it easier and easier to be worth a players contract too.

     

    This focus on his platoon splits just does not make sense to me. Its like saying a good player isn't good because he can't hit a curveball. Or he can't hit in a certain park. Or doesn't walk. Or doesn't pull the ball. Or doesn't go the other way. Or can't hit tall pitchers. Or has some other weakness. Concerns...Sure. But the only thing that matters in the end is the final, total, overall, complete, result. Good is good.

    If Victorino is going to win us 4 games a year, does it matter if they are all from facing lefties? How is this a negative? Would you prefer a player that has perfectly even platoon splits and wins 2 games for us against righties and 1 game against lefties? Why? Four is more then three. Isn't it?

    [/QUOTE]

    While I respect fangraph's WAR and value numbers, I think they highly inflate defense. Now that SV will be in RF, his defensive strength may be lessened, especially as he ages.

    Defense in RF is important in Fenway, but I do not think SV will make up for his lack of offense vs RHps to make him worthy of starting on a championship caliber team. I know he will start, but I also think that starting a player with an.875 OPS vs RHPs would be worth more than SV and his .715 OPS vs RHPs, unless the other guys is the worst fielder in MLB.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    This focus on his platoon splits just does not make sense to me. Its like saying a good player isn't good because he can't hit a curveball.

    If a guy can hit a curveball for the life of him, any manager would probably sit him vs a great curveball pitcher.

    The problem is that SV has bad splits vs maybe half of the picthers he faces. Not every player has horrible split differentials. Not many who have horrible splits vs RHPs play FT. A team may be able to absorb a hitter who struggles vs LHPs, since it is only 30-35% of the games or PAs, but good teams rarely absord a player who stinks vs most RHPs. It just happenes to often to not deal with it.

    My guess is starting SV will probably be justified for only about 50-55% of the games (all LHPs and some RHPs), unless we have nobody better vs RHPs. I happen to think Kalish is a better RF option vs most RHPs than SV. If Nava could field well enough, I'd rather have him too.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This focus on his platoon splits just does not make sense to me. Its like saying a good player isn't good because he can't hit a curveball.

    If a guy can hit a curveball for the life of him, any manager would probably sit him vs a great curveball pitcher.

    The problem is that SV has bad splits vs maybe half of the picthers he faces. Not every player has horrible split differentials. Not many who have horrible splits vs RHPs play FT. A team may be able to absorb a hitter who struggles vs LHPs, since it is only 30-35% of the games or PAs, but good teams rarely absord a player who stinks vs most RHPs. It just happenes to often to not deal with it.

    My guess is starting SV will probably be justified for only about 50-55% of the games (all LHPs and some RHPs), unless we have nobody better vs RHPs. I happen to think Kalish is a better RF option vs most RHPs than SV. If Nava could field well enough, I'd rather have him too.

    [/QUOTE]

    You didn't answer my question. Let me try again.  Would you prefer a player that wins 4 games against lefties and 0 against righties or that has perfectly even platoon splits and wins 2 games for us against righties and 1 game against lefties? Why?

     

    Victorino has an OPS the last 3 years of 943 against lefties. Thats better then Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols overall numbers the last 3 years and just 4 points below Ryan Braun's. How valuable is having Albert Pujols's bat in RF with Shave Victorino's speed and defense to go along with it for 50 games? Thats what we probably will get. Its shockingly valuable isn't it? Its worth more then 10 million isn't it? Why is it the end of the world if you get a league average player to go along with it against righties?

     

    Would you be better off platooning him against some righties? Sure. But so what. As I said, that just makes him MORE valuable, not less. If he sits more and has a good lefty hitter replacing him, we gain, not lose. I think he will gradually play less and less against righties as the years go on. That does not take away his value however if he wins you 4 games a year hitting against lefties. Those wins matter and won't go away even if he plays less.

     

    You are focused on the negative while ignoring the off the charts positive, which makes up for the negative. It does not matter how many games you play. Only how many games you help win at the end of the day. Pedro only played 35 games a year.:)

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    This focus on his platoon splits just does not make sense to me. Its like saying a good player isn't good because he can't hit a curveball.

    If a guy can hit a curveball for the life of him, any manager would probably sit him vs a great curveball pitcher.

    The problem is that SV has bad splits vs maybe half of the picthers he faces. Not every player has horrible split differentials. Not many who have horrible splits vs RHPs play FT. A team may be able to absorb a hitter who struggles vs LHPs, since it is only 30-35% of the games or PAs, but good teams rarely absord a player who stinks vs most RHPs. It just happenes to often to not deal with it.

    My guess is starting SV will probably be justified for only about 50-55% of the games (all LHPs and some RHPs), unless we have nobody better vs RHPs. I happen to think Kalish is a better RF option vs most RHPs than SV. If Nava could field well enough, I'd rather have him too.

    [/QUOTE]

    You didn't answer my question. Let me try again.  Would you prefer a player that wins 4 games against lefties and 0 against righties or that has perfectly even platoon splits and wins 2 games for us against righties and 1 game against lefties? Why?

     

    Your question is insulting. You know my answer. 

    I think you are missing my point. To me, SV should not even play vs most RHPs if we were to be a top 5 offense, especially if we intend to have Iggy, Salty and fill in the blank in LF. It was the same with CC. TB had nobody better than even .696 vs LHPs, so CC remained in the 1 or 3 slot everyday for the most part. When he came to Boston, the formula changed. I advocated him being benched or batting 9th vs LHPs. I called him a "glorified platoon player", because that is what he was and still is. I heard the arguments about his Gold Glove and baserunning skills back then too. Yes, he got hurt and is certainly worth more than what he gave us, but I still contend paying him $20M to hit very well vs just 65% of the pitchers was a severe overpay, and if we actually played him vs LHPs, we'd suffer negatively. I feel the same about Shane, but now it is against 55-65% of all starters not 35%.

     

    Victorino has an OPS the last 3 years of 943 against lefties. Thats better then Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols overall numbers the last 3 years and just 4 points below Ryan Braun's. How valuable is having Albert Pujols's bat in RF with Shave Victorino's speed and defense to go along with it for 50 games? Thats what we probably will get. Its shockingly valuable isn't it? Its worth more then 10 million isn't it? Why is it the end of the world if you get a league average player to go along with it against righties?

    No, I do not think doing as great as Pujols for a 50 game sample size is worth $13M. In fact, when someone had a .950 OPS over a 50 sample size, it doesn't mean he does great in all 50 games. It is my contention that even if SV is a very good RF'er, which I think he will be, but am not sure, his defense will not make up for a .715 OPS in 110 games.

     

    Would you be better off platooning him against some righties? Sure. But so what. As I said, that just makes him MORE valuable, not less. If he sits more and has a good lefty hitter replacing him, we gain, not lose. I think he will gradually play less and less against righties as the years go on. That does not take away his value however if he wins you 4 games a year hitting against lefties. Those wins matter and won't go away even if he plays less.

     

    It is my belief that Ben plans on SV playing SV 150+ games unless injured, maybe 140-145 by his 3rd year. If we have to pay a great hitter vs RHPs to platoon with SV to me it means we may be paying $25M for a combined .900+ OPS in RF. While in today's FA market that may not seem bad, I'd just rather have traded for Justin Upton and had a nice OPs vs LHPs and RHPs at half the financial cost, but at a significant loss of prospects and young players. (The money saved could then have gotten us an extra $12-15M/yr pitcher.)

     

    You are focused on the negative while ignoring the off the charts positive, which makes up for the negative. It does not matter how many games you play. Only how many games you help win at the end of the day. Pedro only played 35 games a year.:)

     

    I have been roundly criticized over many years for being overly optimistic about our winter and spring rosters. Last year, I took a lot of grief for claiming we needed an ace or at worst a solid #2 starter to have a good chance of winning the WS. I said this thinking we had a top 2-3 offense. I look at this winter and see an offense no better than last years, and a staff full of question marks and miracle wishes.

    I'm not giving up on this team. I do see a chance that everyone all does well and stays healthy all year, but realistically, I'm not drinking the pink Kool-Aid again. You can get by with players who struggle vs lefties or righties at the bottom of our order, but it appears that SV will bat 1st or 2nd. As someone who makes yearly projections mostly based on the last 2-3 year numbers and recent trends, I have to say my prjections for Naps is lower than AGon's 2012. My Pedey projection will be lower, my SS offense projection will be lower, my 3B projection is a crahp shoot, my LF will be lower, my CF will be lower, and my RF will be lower offensively. My catcher will be lower, since I had Shopp doing very well vs LHPs and our catchers hitting 30+ HRs projected last March. I just see this offense as worse "on paper" than last year's preseason projected offense. Injuries and trades certainly played a big role in our team going from the best road offense to the worst, but the fact is I was being too overly optimistic on several fronts (except for my warning about our SPs and a couple other close calls).

    I'm really excited about our defense. Last spring I was posting dozens of posts about thedefensive value of Iggy at SS vs what was expected of Aviles on offense. I'm looking forward to our staff ERA being significantly lower just becuase of him. A healthy Ellsbury and a SV in RF will help as well. Middlebrooks has to be better than the recent Youk on D at 3B. We will see a steep drop at 1B, and probbably better catching. Overall, I like the improved D. 

    I'm waiting for our improvement of our rotation (going on years now), so I will hold of final judgement until I see the final product. 

    While i thought CC would improve our team, I also think SV and Gomes will as well, however, I think we could have done better with the same money, namely more pitching, but as I mentioned before, I'd rather have Pagan and Ludwick than SV and JG.

     

    BTW, although Pedro only pitched in 35 games, he faced over 850 batters. What everyday player gets 850+ PAs in a single season? 

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This focus on his platoon splits just does not make sense to me. Its like saying a good player isn't good because he can't hit a curveball.

    If a guy can hit a curveball for the life of him, any manager would probably sit him vs a great curveball pitcher.

    The problem is that SV has bad splits vs maybe half of the picthers he faces. Not every player has horrible split differentials. Not many who have horrible splits vs RHPs play FT. A team may be able to absorb a hitter who struggles vs LHPs, since it is only 30-35% of the games or PAs, but good teams rarely absord a player who stinks vs most RHPs. It just happenes to often to not deal with it.

    My guess is starting SV will probably be justified for only about 50-55% of the games (all LHPs and some RHPs), unless we have nobody better vs RHPs. I happen to think Kalish is a better RF option vs most RHPs than SV. If Nava could field well enough, I'd rather have him too.

    [/QUOTE]

    You didn't answer my question. Let me try again.  Would you prefer a player that wins 4 games against lefties and 0 against righties or that has perfectly even platoon splits and wins 2 games for us against righties and 1 game against lefties? Why?

     

    Your question is insulting. You know my answer. 

    I think you are missing my point. To me, SV should not even play vs most RHPs if we were to be a top 5 offense, especially if we intend to have Iggy, Salty and fill in the blank in LF. It was the same with CC. TB had nobody better than even .696 vs LHPs, so CC remained in the 1 or 3 slot everyday for the most part. When he came to Boston, the formula changed. I advocated him being benched or batting 9th vs LHPs. I called him a "glorified platoon player", because that is what he was and still is. I heard the arguments about his Gold Glove and baserunning skills back then too. Yes, he got hurt and is certainly worth more than what he gave us, but I still contend paying him $20M to hit very well vs just 65% of the pitchers was a severe overpay, and if we actually played him vs LHPs, we'd suffer negatively. I feel the same about Shane, but now it is against 55-65% of all starters not 35%.

     

    Victorino has an OPS the last 3 years of 943 against lefties. Thats better then Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols overall numbers the last 3 years and just 4 points below Ryan Braun's. How valuable is having Albert Pujols's bat in RF with Shave Victorino's speed and defense to go along with it for 50 games? Thats what we probably will get. Its shockingly valuable isn't it? Its worth more then 10 million isn't it? Why is it the end of the world if you get a league average player to go along with it against righties?

    No, I do not think doing as great as Pujols for a 50 game sample size is worth $13M. In fact, when someone had a .950 OPS over a 50 sample size, it doesn't mean he does great in all 50 games. It is my contention that even if SV is a very good RF'er, which I think he will be, but am not sure, his defense will not make up for a .715 OPS in 110 games.

     

    Would you be better off platooning him against some righties? Sure. But so what. As I said, that just makes him MORE valuable, not less. If he sits more and has a good lefty hitter replacing him, we gain, not lose. I think he will gradually play less and less against righties as the years go on. That does not take away his value however if he wins you 4 games a year hitting against lefties. Those wins matter and won't go away even if he plays less.

     

    It is my belief that Ben plans on SV playing SV 150+ games unless injured, maybe 140-145 by his 3rd year. If we have to pay a great hitter vs RHPs to platoon with SV to me it means we may be paying $25M for a combined .900+ OPS in RF. While in today's FA market that may not seem bad, I'd just rather have traded for Justin Upton and had a nice OPs vs LHPs and RHPs at half the financial cost, but at a significant loss of prospects and young players. (The money saved could then have gotten us an extra $12-15M/yr pitcher.)

     

    You are focused on the negative while ignoring the off the charts positive, which makes up for the negative. It does not matter how many games you play. Only how many games you help win at the end of the day. Pedro only played 35 games a year.:)

     

    I have been roundly criticized over many years for being overly optimistic about our winter and spring rosters. Last year, I took a lot of grief for claiming we needed an ace or at worst a solid #2 starter to have a good chance of winning the WS. I said this thinking we had a top 2-3 offense. I look at this winter and see an offense no better than last years, and a staff full of question marks and miracle wishes.

    I'm not giving up on this team. I do see a chance that everyone all does well and stays healthy all year, but realistically, I'm not drinking the pink Kool-Aid again. You can get by with players who struggle vs lefties or righties at the bottom of our order, but it appears that SV will bat 1st or 2nd. As someone who makes yearly projections mostly based on the last 2-3 year numbers and recent trends, I have to say my prjections for Naps is lower than AGon's 2012. My Pedey projection will be lower, my SS offense projection will be lower, my 3B projection is a crahp shoot, my LF will be lower, my CF will be lower, and my RF will be lower offensively. My catcher will be lower, since I had Shopp doing very well vs LHPs and our catchers hitting 30+ HRs projected last March. I just see this offense as worse "on paper" than last year's preseason projected offense. Injuries and trades certainly played a big role in our team going from the best road offense to the worst, but the fact is I was being too overly optimistic on several fronts (except for my warning about our SPs and a couple other close calls).

    I'm really excited about our defense. Last spring I was posting dozens of posts about thedefensive value of Iggy at SS vs what was expected of Aviles on offense. I'm looking forward to our staff ERA being significantly lower just becuase of him. A healthy Ellsbury and a SV in RF will help as well. Middlebrooks has to be better than the recent Youk on D at 3B. We will see a steep drop at 1B, and probbably better catching. Overall, I like the improved D. 

    I'm waiting for our improvement of our rotation (going on years now), so I will hold of final judgement until I see the final product. 

    While i thought CC would improve our team, I also think SV and Gomes will as well, however, I think we could have done better with the same money, namely more pitching, but as I mentioned before, I'd rather have Pagan and Ludwick than SV and JG.

     

    BTW, although Pedro only pitched in 35 games, he faced over 850 batters. What everyday player gets 850+ PAs in a single season? 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    and I would rather have Hamilton than Napoli and Victorino.  Who to play at 1B then?  My hope was for Youk, actually.  Now that he is gone...well.  Napoli is going to make all of our infielders worse, especially Middlebrooks.  Hopefully Ben can back out of the deal, save the money, double it and get Hamilton anyway.  Hamilton, Ells and Victorino/Kalsih would have speed, power and defense in the OF to an extent we have not seen in recent years.

    That all said...I am totally with you moon.  It is the starting pitching that needed a fix last season.  I hoped Bard would succeed.  I was horribly wrong on that.  I'd like to hope Lester can turn it around and Lackey can return to form, and Douby can take the next step, etc., etc., etc.  I'm not drinking that koolaid any morem either.  And I think that Ben has one last shot at improving the rotation in at least somewhat of a significant way without dismantling his precious future.  That would be Sanchez.  But I am not holding out hope for that, either.

    What I am hoping for now is a team that is interesting to watch.  Sign Hamilton and a Chien Ming Wang or two and I will watch.  Sign only Sanchez, and I will watch guardedly, waiting for them to prove they are for real.  Do nothing but more of the overpay for good character guys with holes in their game but who have swings fit for Fenway (what happens when they go on the road for half their games?), I guess I'll only watch home games, if I watch at all.

    In years past I have been optimistic too.  Now...not so much.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Your question is insulting. You know my answer. 

    [QUOTE]

     

    I actually do not know your answer. Scouts honor. If the answer is the guy who wins 4 games, then you agree with me and Victorino is a fine signing. And if the answer is the 3 win guy, you have yet to explain why.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    I think you are missing my point. To me, SV should not even play vs most RHPs if we were to be a top 5 offense, especially if we intend to have Iggy, Salty and fill in the blank in LF. It was the same with CC. TB had nobody better than even .696 vs LHPs, so CC remained in the 1 or 3 slot everyday for the most part. When he came to Boston, the formula changed. I advocated him being benched or batting 9th vs LHPs. I called him a "glorified platoon player", because that is what he was and still is. I heard the arguments about his Gold Glove and baserunning skills back then too. Yes, he got hurt and is certainly worth more than what he gave us, but I still contend paying him $20M to hit very well vs just 65% of the pitchers was a severe overpay, and if we actually played him vs LHPs, we'd suffer negatively. I feel the same about Shane, but now it is against 55-65% of all starters not 35%.

    [QUOTE]

     

    I actually see your point. Understand it. And largely agree with some of it. Still doesn't mean Victorino isn't worth his money or close to it and can't be a very good player even playing the entire season with no platoon and sucking with the bat from the left side. Four wins is four wins.

     

    [QUOTE]

    No, I do not think doing as great as Pujols for a 50 game sample size is worth $13M. In fact, when someone had a .950 OPS over a 50 sample size, it doesn't mean he does great in all 50 games. It is my contention that even if SV is a very good RF'er, which I think he will be, but am not sure, his defense will not make up for a .715 OPS in 110 games.

    [QUOTE]

     

    The Victorino 943 OPS is over 470 ab's, just to be clear. Not a SSS. Second, its Pujols in "RF" with very good-great defense and speed. Thirdly, don't believe its quite worth 13 million myself either. Thats why I said 10 million. Add 1-2 million for the versatility insurance and another million for the good attitude. And truthfully, I thought he should have gotten 12 million. I thought we over paid by a million at least. Slight over pays are not that big of a deal on short contracts with lots of money to play with.

     

    Lance Berkman is a switch hitter who averaged just .716 OPS against lefties between 2008-2011. All while playing crappy corner OF defense or mediocre 1st base defense. Also had zero base running ability. He finished in the top 7 in MVP voting twice and was worth 20 million a year in those 4 years inspite of that 716 OPS.

    I know what you are going to say. Yes, but that was against lefties, its much worse when you struggle against righties.  Yes, its twice as important. But none the less, it worked great for Berrkman and we are just looking for very good with Victorino. Plus we get speed and defense, not to mention he probably plays a solid amount in CF, instead of 1st base, adding value.

     

     [QUOTE]

    It is my belief that Ben plans on SV playing SV 150+ games unless injured, maybe 140-145 by his 3rd year. If we have to pay a great hitter vs RHPs to platoon with SV to me it means we may be paying $25M for a combined .900+ OPS in RF. While in today's FA market that may not seem bad, I'd just rather have traded for Justin Upton and had a nice OPs vs LHPs and RHPs at half the financial cost, but at a significant loss of prospects and young players. (The money saved could then have gotten us an extra $12-15M/yr pitcher.)

    [QUOTE]

     

    How bout Garret Jones? Career 852 OPS against righties including 888 last year. Played in a pitchers park, unlike Upton. Only made 2.25 last year. Probably averages 5 million over the next few seasons. So it would cost more like 18 million a year total, not 25 million. Sounds like he is available too.

    The last thing I want the Red Sox to do is trade Bogaerts, LBJ, DeLaRosa, Webster, or Barnes. I am more worried about 2015-2020 then anything.

    With all that said, I am fine with playing  Victorino a ton against righties and hitting him in the 8-9 slot. Some platooning or no platooning with Victorino. Either way is fine. Because Victorino is a very good player even inspite of his flaw.

     

     

     [QUOTE]

    miracle wishes.

    [QUOTE]

     

    I don't see Lackey-DeLaRosa being good  or Buck or Lester improving as being "miracle" propositions. More like 50-50 type things. Get two of those 4 to be very good and add 1 starter and the staff will be a lot better. We are not done adding yet.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     but it appears that SV will bat 1st or 2nd.

    [QUOTE]

     

    Actually, I read some where that Farrell said that SV will bat 2nd against lefties, but not against righties.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    I just see this offense as worse "on paper" than last year's preseason projected offense.

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Yes. But only worse then your "opptomistic projections" from last year. Doesn't mean the 2013 projections shouldn't be quite good still. Also, they are not done adding yet. Still expecting a lefty 1b-corner OF[Hamilton-Swisher-Jones-Morrison-etc.] and possibly Stephen Drew.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    I'm really excited about our defense. Last spring I was posting dozens of posts about thedefensive value of Iggy at SS vs what was expected of Aviles on offense. I'm looking forward to our staff ERA being significantly lower just becuase of him. A healthy Ellsbury and a SV in RF will help as well. Middlebrooks has to be better than the recent Youk on D at 3B. We will see a steep drop at 1B, and probbably better catching. Overall, I like the improved D.

     [QUOTE]

     

     

    Me too.

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    BTW, although Pedro only pitched in 35 games, he faced over 850 batters. What everyday player gets 850+ PAs in a single season? 

     [/QUOTE]


     

    Clever come back.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    and I would rather have Hamilton than Napoli and Victorino.  Who to play at 1B then?  My hope was for Youk, actually.  Now that he is gone...well.  Napoli is going to make all of our infielders worse, especially Middlebrooks.  Hopefully Ben can back out of the deal, save the money, double it and get Hamilton anyway.  Hamilton, Ells and Victorino/Kalsih would have speed, power and defense in the OF to an extent we have not seen in recent years.

    That all said...I am totally with you moon.  It is the starting pitching that needed a fix last season.  I hoped Bard would succeed.  I was horribly wrong on that.  I'd like to hope Lester can turn it around and Lackey can return to form, and Douby can take the next step, etc., etc., etc.  I'm not drinking that koolaid any morem either.  And I think that Ben has one last shot at improving the rotation in at least somewhat of a significant way without dismantling his precious future.  That would be Sanchez.  But I am not holding out hope for that, either.

    What I am hoping for now is a team that is interesting to watch.  Sign Hamilton and a Chien Ming Wang or two and I will watch.  Sign only Sanchez, and I will watch guardedly, waiting for them to prove they are for real.  Do nothing but more of the overpay for good character guys with holes in their game but who have swings fit for Fenway (what happens when they go on the road for half their games?), I guess I'll only watch home games, if I watch at all.

    In years past I have been optimistic too.  Now...not so much.

     

    I'm not huge on Hamilton, but I agree, I'd rather have him than Naps and SV.

    I'll be more optimistic in April.... I hope.

     

Share